How long can my child be insured as my dependent ? Is it as long as the child unmarried or before the child reach certain age ?
Total Comments: 30
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 07:13 am Post Subject:
Folks please, let's not confuse the issue.
Group coverage, in every single solitary instance other than self-insured plans, is governed by state law somehow somewhere. There are also discrimination rules imposed by federal and state law. So please stop saying that continuation of coverage is dependent upon "the plan," because it's not.
Also remember that COBRA only applies to MOST plans, and in order for it to apply, there's gotta be at least 20 participants. Every state that I'm aware of also has state continuation and/or portability rules that also may apply that detail some sort of continuation or conversion opportunity regardless of participant numbers.
There is no rule that mandates group coverage on a dependent child until age 25 unless that child is disabled and incapable of self-support. There's no law that prevents an insurer from allowing that, but it isn't supported by any rule or law that I'm aware of. As well, the definition of the word "dependent" is not up to the carrier- it's defined by state law.
Where does this stuff come from??? :?
Another thing, you cannot form a group and buy group insurance just because you want to. Groups cannot be formed simply for the purpose of buying group insurance, they must be formed for purposes other than buying group coverage; the insurance must be incidental to the formation of the group.
Finally:
But we're also on the precipice of Congress enabling the federal government to be in a position to tell health insurers that they cannot exclude preexisting conditions, deny coverage...................
I just won a nice bet from this liberal guy that I know dealing with ObamaCare v16.5: I told him that there's no way on this planet any of these plans were ever going to go through, period. My buddy blurts out, "They'll have a comprehensive plan passed by the end of the year. America's gonna thank Obama (as he bows down and faces east. We live on the west coast) when it's all said and done." I said "Wanna bet?" He replied in the affirmative.
Game over. I win. Gimme what you owe me, you liberal dog. :D :shock: There's no way, especially now that the GOP tilted the voting table, that this is gonna happen anytime soon. Anyone care to comment?
Max- you started it.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 08:40 am Post Subject:
Teach:
First, I would like to say up front that I am really sorry for the Rose Bowl.
Back in the day when I worked for a TPA, I was just a drone and wasn't involved in the inner workings of health insurance policies. I wanted to see if I have my mind wrapped around this subject. Let me know where I am incorrect if you could.
Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false?
If carriers have to start covering dependents till 25, 27 or what ever number is being thrown out today, carriers will have to raise premiums since before this mandate they knew that dependents were normally going to fall off around 22 or before if they weren't in college.
A lot of people want pre-existing done away with. A lot of people don't want the guberment to mandate that you have to purchase coverage. Is there really anyway that one can be done without the other. Wouldn't people just wait till they got sick to purchase a policy if coverage wasn't mandatory.
I've got more questions, but its late and my head is spinning.
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 05:52 pm Post Subject:
Dasfuk, first to your question:
Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false?
If you are within the HIPAA 63-day "break in coverage" rule, the new group insurer would have to give the insured "credit" for the time served in the previous health plan against any pre-x exclusions in the new group contract. In your scenario, assuming the insured had been in his group plan for at least 12 continuous months, got to the new employer that offers medical benefits within the 63-day period and enrolled in the group health plan during an open-enrollment period, HIPAA will only allow a one-year exclusionary period. In addition, HIPAA will only allow the carrier a 6-month "look back" period in which to apply pre-x exclusions. So, if the cancer had not been treated within the 6-month period preceding the new plan, pre-x couldn't be applied in any case. Pre-x for "late" enrollees can be as long as 18 months.
However, don't forget that most state simply don't allow pre-x exclusions in a group policy period as long as the employee enrolls during an open enrollment period. Enrollment as a late enrollee normally requires proof of health and can have pre-x attached. You'd have to look at your individual state for specific rules.
I probably just confused the daylights out of anyone reading this. If so, let me know and I will try and explain!
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:47 am Post Subject: health insurance
My daughter turned 19 last semester she was in college this semester she is in basic training for the air force reserves she will be back in school in the fall. My dental insurance is denying her orthodontist jan. feb. payments for braces she got off last year. She will be able to transfer credits from this training toward her degree can they deny payments for a past claim
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 04:55 pm Post Subject:
Doesn't one of the health care reform provisions guarantee child coverage up to age 26? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere, but can't be bothered right now to flip through two thousand pages of government gobbledygook.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:05 am Post Subject:
she is in basic training for the air force reserves
You said the 'magic words'. She's now in the Military. Files actually DO come up that your 'dependent' is in the Military and is NOW covered by them (Military). I had this same situation happen with a friend of mine. Your daughter is now 'Active Military' and, on Active Duty, she is 100% covered with Dental and Medical.
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:03 am Post Subject: Suggestion
Hello,
The Insurance durability is dependent upon type of policy and plan you are having, as the plan varies in terms of time as per company policy. To know more, please visit the website or respective company, for example, you can see the various plans by clicking at -(link removed by mod-lori)
You may NOT hawk your wares in posts/threads...please read and adher to our TOU...I've sent you a pm as well...this is NOT tolerated on this site..I have deleted your other post completely
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:49 am Post Subject:
They can be covered up to age 26 now as long as they live at home.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 01:33 am Post Subject:
InsTeacher . . .
Well, they didn't get it through in 2009, as most of us figured they wouldn't. But who would have thought they'd resort to all the back-room arm-twisting and deal-making and pork peddling to get it done this soon. It's a sad time for America.
I'm not a prophet, but all of those things I mentioned on 01-01-10, and more, have found their way into the final 2300+ pages that I doubt anyone has fully read.
And despite approval ratings at all time lows, I will not be amazed that Pelosi and others are reelected to office by the idiots that live in those districts come November. Harry Reid appears to be one of the few whose reelection bids are DOA today.
Just wish there was a legal way to get rid of all of them -- Democrats and Republicans -- at one time.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 03:24 am Post Subject: xPKHoLALTnEmyhpiRnP
If I had a choice, I'd pay for the exam and get 90% covegare any day.We simply did not have time to compare ALL the companies, just 4 on the video and 5 in our print covegare. Would take forever to compare them all, and many are so similar. I did just check Pet Plan for you. here is what I found. $62.00 a month with an $8,000 limit. Normal covegare but does not beat Tru. As for Embrace: they only pay 80% and limit of $10,000. others are better.
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 07:13 am Post Subject:
Folks please, let's not confuse the issue.
Group coverage, in every single solitary instance other than self-insured plans, is governed by state law somehow somewhere. There are also discrimination rules imposed by federal and state law. So please stop saying that continuation of coverage is dependent upon "the plan," because it's not.
Also remember that COBRA only applies to MOST plans, and in order for it to apply, there's gotta be at least 20 participants. Every state that I'm aware of also has state continuation and/or portability rules that also may apply that detail some sort of continuation or conversion opportunity regardless of participant numbers.
There is no rule that mandates group coverage on a dependent child until age 25 unless that child is disabled and incapable of self-support. There's no law that prevents an insurer from allowing that, but it isn't supported by any rule or law that I'm aware of. As well, the definition of the word "dependent" is not up to the carrier- it's defined by state law.
Where does this stuff come from??? :?
Another thing, you cannot form a group and buy group insurance just because you want to. Groups cannot be formed simply for the purpose of buying group insurance, they must be formed for purposes other than buying group coverage; the insurance must be incidental to the formation of the group.
Finally:
But we're also on the precipice of Congress enabling the federal government to be in a position to tell health insurers that they cannot exclude preexisting conditions, deny coverage...................
I just won a nice bet from this liberal guy that I know dealing with ObamaCare v16.5: I told him that there's no way on this planet any of these plans were ever going to go through, period. My buddy blurts out, "They'll have a comprehensive plan passed by the end of the year. America's gonna thank Obama (as he bows down and faces east. We live on the west coast) when it's all said and done." I said "Wanna bet?" He replied in the affirmative.
Game over. I win. Gimme what you owe me, you liberal dog. :D :shock: There's no way, especially now that the GOP tilted the voting table, that this is gonna happen anytime soon. Anyone care to comment?
Max- you started it.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 08:40 am Post Subject:
Teach:
First, I would like to say up front that I am really sorry for the Rose Bowl.
Back in the day when I worked for a TPA, I was just a drone and wasn't involved in the inner workings of health insurance policies. I wanted to see if I have my mind wrapped around this subject. Let me know where I am incorrect if you could.
Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false?
If carriers have to start covering dependents till 25, 27 or what ever number is being thrown out today, carriers will have to raise premiums since before this mandate they knew that dependents were normally going to fall off around 22 or before if they weren't in college.
A lot of people want pre-existing done away with. A lot of people don't want the guberment to mandate that you have to purchase coverage. Is there really anyway that one can be done without the other. Wouldn't people just wait till they got sick to purchase a policy if coverage wasn't mandatory.
I've got more questions, but its late and my head is spinning.
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 05:52 pm Post Subject:
Dasfuk, first to your question:
Pre-existing conditions. You work for company ABC and have a group health policy. While there you get cancer. You leave the company due to medical leave but elect Cobra. You beat cancer and get a new job with company XYZ and once again have a group health policy. Cancer comes back, but since you never had a break in coverage they don't deny you for pre-existing coverage. True or false?
If you are within the HIPAA 63-day "break in coverage" rule, the new group insurer would have to give the insured "credit" for the time served in the previous health plan against any pre-x exclusions in the new group contract. In your scenario, assuming the insured had been in his group plan for at least 12 continuous months, got to the new employer that offers medical benefits within the 63-day period and enrolled in the group health plan during an open-enrollment period, HIPAA will only allow a one-year exclusionary period. In addition, HIPAA will only allow the carrier a 6-month "look back" period in which to apply pre-x exclusions. So, if the cancer had not been treated within the 6-month period preceding the new plan, pre-x couldn't be applied in any case. Pre-x for "late" enrollees can be as long as 18 months.
However, don't forget that most state simply don't allow pre-x exclusions in a group policy period as long as the employee enrolls during an open enrollment period. Enrollment as a late enrollee normally requires proof of health and can have pre-x attached. You'd have to look at your individual state for specific rules.
I probably just confused the daylights out of anyone reading this. If so, let me know and I will try and explain!
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:47 am Post Subject: health insurance
My daughter turned 19 last semester she was in college this semester she is in basic training for the air force reserves she will be back in school in the fall. My dental insurance is denying her orthodontist jan. feb. payments for braces she got off last year. She will be able to transfer credits from this training toward her degree can they deny payments for a past claim
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 04:55 pm Post Subject:
Doesn't one of the health care reform provisions guarantee child coverage up to age 26? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere, but can't be bothered right now to flip through two thousand pages of government gobbledygook.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:05 am Post Subject:
she is in basic training for the air force reserves
You said the 'magic words'. She's now in the Military. Files actually DO come up that your 'dependent' is in the Military and is NOW covered by them (Military). I had this same situation happen with a friend of mine. Your daughter is now 'Active Military' and, on Active Duty, she is 100% covered with Dental and Medical.Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:03 am Post Subject: Suggestion
Hello,
The Insurance durability is dependent upon type of policy and plan you are having, as the plan varies in terms of time as per company policy. To know more, please visit the website or respective company, for example, you can see the various plans by clicking at -(link removed by mod-lori)
You may NOT hawk your wares in posts/threads...please read and adher to our TOU...I've sent you a pm as well...this is NOT tolerated on this site..I have deleted your other post completely
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:49 am Post Subject:
They can be covered up to age 26 now as long as they live at home.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 01:33 am Post Subject:
InsTeacher . . .
Well, they didn't get it through in 2009, as most of us figured they wouldn't. But who would have thought they'd resort to all the back-room arm-twisting and deal-making and pork peddling to get it done this soon. It's a sad time for America.
I'm not a prophet, but all of those things I mentioned on 01-01-10, and more, have found their way into the final 2300+ pages that I doubt anyone has fully read.
And despite approval ratings at all time lows, I will not be amazed that Pelosi and others are reelected to office by the idiots that live in those districts come November. Harry Reid appears to be one of the few whose reelection bids are DOA today.
Just wish there was a legal way to get rid of all of them -- Democrats and Republicans -- at one time.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 03:24 am Post Subject: xPKHoLALTnEmyhpiRnP
If I had a choice, I'd pay for the exam and get 90% covegare any day.We simply did not have time to compare ALL the companies, just 4 on the video and 5 in our print covegare. Would take forever to compare them all, and many are so similar. I did just check Pet Plan for you. here is what I found. $62.00 a month with an $8,000 limit. Normal covegare but does not beat Tru. As for Embrace: they only pay 80% and limit of $10,000. others are better.
Add your comment