An Associated Press article in the newspaper recently was headlined, "Dependent coverage may be in jeopardy." It was a veiled warning that we'll all be in trouble if we don't support Obama Care. But after reading the article, I've determined that the headline was disingenuous.
The coverage that is "in jeopardy" is not really -- "if you want your spouse to be included in your company's health insurance plan when you sign up for benefits in 2010, you could be paying an extra $600 to $1000 a year IF he or she has coverage available elsewhere." If your spouse is already covered through his/her employer, and you just like the coverage from your employer better, why shouldn't you have to pay? The dependent's current coverage is NOT in jeopardy.
The other point "in jeopardy" is not valid either -- "Companies are also likelier to check up on the eligibility of employees' dependents. Many more are going to require that workers provide proof that their dependents fit the plan's rules for coverage." So if you're legal now, you should have no problem. Your coverage is NOT in jeopardy. If you're not legal, that means somebody else is paying for you. You should be required to prove your eligibility!
"Dependent coverage may be in jeopardy." The Dallas Morning News; September 27, 2009; p. 33A.
No comments:
Post a Comment