newest health insurance screw job for us - spouse surcharge

[blueworld]

Just got the annual benefits enrollment package. Starting 1/1/2010, if a spouse is working & has access to their own health insurance yet chooses secondary coverage under their sweetie's plan - ta da! $50.00 per month surcharge!

When did they come up with THIS crap??? Coordinating both coverages is supposed to help families deal with the danged price increases & horrific pharma bills! Some days I fantasize about revolution, I swear. :nuke:

[Horse with no Name]

1. I remember the days when double coverage was fabulous

You got what you paid for.
Nowadays? The coordinated coverage?
Not so much.

[havocmom]

8. Co-ordinate coverage = you end up paying the bills yourself

because the two insurers are allowed to be in collusion (not subject to same laws as other corps) to drag it out until health care provider turns bill over to a collection company which threatens to ruin your credit.

Yep, been there, done that.

[T Wolf]

2. But we MUST protect the insurance corps and all the good they do. At least, that is what

our leaders tell us.

I remember when you would get a benefit (cash) for opting-out of employer-provided coverage if you were on a spouse's plan instead.

My, how things change...

[Echo In Light]

10. Yet I harbor dark fantasies of Ins Co personnel having their heads caved in w/ballbats in the street

[laughingliberal]

3. I was noticing when I was working and covered my husband that every claim

brought a request for 'benefit coordination.' Basically they delayed payment on his claims until I called and told them he did not have other coverage. This was all clear at enrollment and, sometimes, it was not even 30 days since the last time they requested the information.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. Come ON! You're not expecting them to COMPETE, are you??? n/t

[blueworld]

5. I've sent this letter to everyone I can think of including Michael Moore

Sorry to rant, but I am furious & already two threads away from a financial meltdown. Since I'm also cynical as hell, I think this is a way to attack gay spousal rights as they become legal in any state:

Dear so&so:

My husband lost his job on Black Friday in January & eventually found another (at a 35% pay cut). This week he found this in his benefits renewal package: spouse surcharge.

My husband's employer has chosen a "self-funded" policy to keep their costs down. In effect, this turns thousands of US employers into mini-health insurers who must pay specific claims out of their own profits. IMO, it begs the question what do we need the behemoths for at all? These employers take a significant part of the claim burden without any ability to "compete" and are faced with a MUCH smaller pool of individuals so odds are their claim costs will be much higher than for the behemoths. Actuarially, it's suicide. To the GOP & Glenn Beck it's free-market capitalism.

Anyway, the new twist is, that if someone's spouse has access to their own insurance yet chooses primary or secondary coverage from this plan, the company will asses a $50.00 per month SURCHARGE in addition to premiums.

Excuse me? Coordination of benefits is a meager tool to help families deal with the skyrocketing costs & reduced benefits they already face!

As an added bonus, if you don't read your package carefully you will get a rude surprise in your first 2010 paycheck - the surcharge is automatically assessed unless you "opt-out" via written form.

A new creative way for insurance to screw American businesses & employees. I am truly disgusted & outraged & will post this info everywhere I can as often as I can. I hope this gets a lot of press. God help us all & thanks for your work.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. we already have that surcharge on our plan

Insurance companies suck!

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Try having an employer plan that will not cover a spouse eligible for other health insurance, period

That's our situation now. At least with the surcharge there's a choice albeit an expensive one.

[RB TexLa]

9. So even though your spouse can get coverage from their employer you think your employer

should have to pay a portion of her coverage? Can I ask why you think they should have to pay for that when she can have her employer pay a portion?