This is me, agreeing that health insurance reforms are necessary. AKA, how employers can screw you

So it's October 14th 2010. I give my notice at work. I'll start Nov 1 at the new place. I arrive at work for the 15th and my computer is gone, my stuff is gone and I am escorted out of the building. My boss had to fight to get them to honor my two weeks notice.

I have a call with HR lady. Yes I am getting paid until Oct 29th. Yes I have health insurance until Oct 29th. What happens if I need a hospital or whatever between Oct 29th and Nov 1? You have to retroactively get Cobra for a month. OK, fine.

New job background check disagrees with my hire date on my resume. I contact HR at old job to confirm. They send me an E-mail confirming (I was right) and then confirming my end date with this language

"Your hire date with [redacted] was 5/22/06 and your resignation date is 10/14/10 with a 2 week notice of 10/29/10. If this is not what you need, please let me know."

Fast forward to now. I get a rejection letter from an OB appointment, no health insurance coverage on October 20th. Oh really?

E-mail old boss: Crickets.

E-mail HR man (lady was fired not long afterwards):

"Health insurance ends on the last day of employment. Your employment ended 10/14/10 and that’s when benefits ended.

Ours is an ERISA governed plan, meaning the rules cannot be modified by me or [redacted] or anyone else. Even if we tried, the official plan documents specifically and legally prohibit any modification of their terms, and also plainly state that the official plan documents prevail over any other document or statement.

[redacted] did this stuff and dealt with the rule of benefits termination for 25 years and I am confident the guidance she provided you was the same provided to everyone else – benefits end on the last day of employment.

The note below indicates there may have been a planned resignation date of October 29, but that was not the actual last date of employment."

Nice, eh? No real written proof. If my wife had gone in for something non OB (say, mammogram) we could be liable for millions under a "pre-existing condition". Luckily (?) pregnancies are not subject to that (I think).

So, health insurance does need to be reformed, and that's one minor example. Anyone have any advice (That is NOT POLITICAL)?

Don't you have a paycheck that says October 29th?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Don't you have a paycheck that says October 29th?

I may, I ditched a bunch of them. Are you thinking that the deductions from the check for health insurance coverage should do that?

tuna55 wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Don't you have a paycheck that says October 29th?

I may, I ditched a bunch of them. Are you thinking that the deductions from the check for health insurance coverage should do that?

Yes - and the fact that if you were paid thru the 29th, you were employed thru the 29th. A letter from an atty to that effect might go a long way to helping clear this up.

It's not really a health insurance issue, it's a company issue. If they term that severence, then you aren't really employed there until that date. it is not uncommon that they walked you out, and most companies would do the same thing.

The issue here is what constitutes the last day of employment. I would maintain that it was the 14h, the last day worked. They paid you for the time up to the 29th which could be considered severence. My last job they owed me 3 months of accured vacation, but that doesn't mean that I worked there for 3 months longer than I did.

I would have advised looking into Cobra before your notice if any overlap were to occur. It's the only way to seamlessly merge the two and that is what it is there for.

^Yes, BUT: Like said above, if there were health insurance deductions taken from that check up to the 29th, he still had coverage.

racerdave600 wrote: It's not really a health insurance issue, it's a company issue. If they term that severence, then you aren't really employed there until that date. it is not uncommon that they walked you out, and most companies would do the same thing. The issue here is what constitutes the last day of employment. I would maintain that it was the 14h, the last day worked. They paid you for the time up to the 29th which could be considered severence. My last job they owed me 3 months of accured vacation, but that doesn't mean that I worked there for 3 months longer than I did. I would have advised looking into Cobra before your notice if any overlap were to occur. It's the only way to seamlessly merge the two and that is what it is there for.

This may be true. I really hope not. If so, even though it ruins my argument from a financial perspective, it completely validates the subject line. I have to pay $600 an change for a service that I really already had due to the good graces of legislation that undoubtedly already cost me money as a taxpayer just to get a new job.

this is really more of a communication problem that caused issues with health insurance, not an actual problem of health insurance.

Since the insurance company terms are tied to the agreement with the employer, the buck at this time stops with the employer based on what you've got here so far....

(The larger problem in my view is the fact that people have too commonly associated employement with having insurance because of how uncompetitive it is to insure yourself independant of your employer. This leads to a general ignorance by ubiquity for most; I'm sure people would be better off if their knowledge level was higher because they had to 'shop' insurance.)

This may be true. I really hope not. If so, even though it ruins my argument from a financial perspective, it completely validates the subject line. I have to pay $600 an change for a service that I really already had due to the good graces of legislation that undoubtedly already cost me money as a taxpayer just to get a new job.

It's an insurance issue insofar as this isn't a problem in most other western countries because they don't place the burden of providing health insurance on employers.

ppddppdd wrote:

This may be true. I really hope not. If so, even though it ruins my argument from a financial perspective, it completely validates the subject line. I have to pay $600 an change for a service that I really already had due to the good graces of legislation that undoubtedly already cost me money as a taxpayer just to get a new job.

It's an insurance issue insofar as this isn't a problem in most other western countries because they don't place the burden of providing health insurance on employers.

I think you quoted the wrong guy

madmallard wrote: Since the insurance company terms are tied to the agreement with the employer, the buck at this time stops with the employer based on what you've got here so far....

This is exactly a problem with insurance as it's set up. If a company wants to buy me health insurance as a perk, they should do just that. It's all gotten way more complicated than that. Does my car insurance company cancel my policy the second they issue a bill? The second that bill is overdue?

I have shopped private insurance because I was under the impression I was going to be laid off. It was going to cost me $405/month for my fam of four (at the time).

I'm going to ask, was it a normal OB appointment or something more involved?

I'd just ask the OB to forget about the insurance and ask for a cash/no insurance coverage price, pay it and be done with it.

This brings about another issue: If the employee has already secured new employment, what benefit is there to give the outgoing employer two weeks' notice? The employer is not required to give the same courtesy when they are planning on terminating an employee, right? I have a huge distrust in human resources, and I would never expect them to side with the employee, except maybe against another employee.

MitchellC wrote: This brings about another issue: If the employee has already secured new employment, what benefit is there to give the outgoing employer two weeks' notice?

Because I am a nice person and like to give my employer enough time for find a suitable replacement.

Ranger50 wrote: I'm going to ask, was it a normal OB appointment or something more involved? I'd just ask the OB to forget about the insurance and ask for a cash/no insurance coverage price, pay it and be done with it.

baby #3 random visit stuff. OB's bill REALLY REALLY FUNNY. Don't mess with OB billing. they don't play nice with health/flexible saving accounts at all anyway.

In reply to MitchellC:

Common courtesy. The don't burn your bridge you have needs something from them in the future kind of move. If they want to act like a-holes, so be it.

tuna55 wrote:

madmallard wrote: Since the insurance company terms are tied to the agreement with the employer, the buck at this time stops with the employer based on what you've got here so far....

This is exactly a problem with insurance as it's set up. If a company wants to buy me health insurance as a perk, they should do just that. It's all gotten way more complicated than that. Does my car insurance company cancel my policy the second they issue a bill? The second that bill is overdue? I have shopped private insurance because I was under the impression I was going to be laid off. It was going to cost me $405/month for my fam of four (at the time).

You pay in advance for benefits... if you were to pay your bill on June 1st, but don't pay on July 1st, you're cancelled.

That's how my car insurance works as well, though...

Private health insurance sucks.

tuna55 wrote:

MitchellC wrote: This brings about another issue: If the employee has already secured new employment, what benefit is there to give the outgoing employer two weeks' notice?

Because I am a nice person and like to give my employer enough time for find a suitable replacement.

And it's nice to have references from past employers, 'cause your current employer probably isn't an unbiased source of a reference. They either want to keep you or get rid of you.

Regarding health insurance in general. It has become so tied to employment that we have no practical version of health insurance for the retired. I can't stand the idea of medicare (or whatever it's being called). If you had a policy with company X, and your employer put forth a number towards (and perhaps covering completely, depending on the coverage you chose from all of the packages company X had to offer) then each subsequent employer could also give you money towards company X and when you retired you could keep paying them yourself or each employer could make some sort of deal to put that as part of a pension plan.

In reply to tuna55:

Really? I haven't had any problem with my wife's OB's or their bills, HSA or not.

tuna55 wrote: Regarding health insurance in general. It has become so tied to employment that we have no practical version of health insurance for the retired. I can't stand the idea of medicare (or whatever it's being called). If you had a policy with company X, and your employer put forth a number towards (and perhaps covering completely, depending on the coverage you chose from all of the packages company X had to offer) then each subsequent employer could also give you money towards company X and when you retired you could keep paying them yourself or each employer could make some sort of deal to put that as part of a pension plan.

Because when you retire, it's FREE!!!!

Medicare sucks. They spend more time and money trying to NOT pay, then just paying a smaller amount in the first place.

If you want that, scrap Medicare and start over.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to tuna55: Really? I haven't had any problem with my wife's OB's or their bills, HSA or not.

When you have a baby (they told us this was every OB, they could have been wrong/lying) they sign you up to prepay for the delivery. Something like $2500 gets spread over the course of the ten months. Since we have a "high deductible" type plan, that comes directly out of pocket. What we would normally just go into out HRA/FSA and get, we cannot, because prepays are not eligible expenses. We have to wait until the baby is here, and then until after the insurance company has been billed and sends you a real statement, which isn't for months afterwards. That $2500 is gone for a year.

btw, i hope you have luck on your side, and it turns out your paycheck reflects being paid, tho since most of that is automated from the ins co, payroll co, and benefits programs the employer uses, the outlook is hazy. :(

but back to topic:

Yes, many car ins co terminate coverage immediately on non-payment. I deal with a few, tho, and you wouldn't want to end up with their coverage but for exhausting all other options. But it is legal, and you aren't forced to use their services, ultimately you can chose not drive a car.

Remember, the current benefits system took shape decades ago because of labor influences in industries critical to war efforts. Wage increases in these industries were prohibited. To get around this and solicit workers from other companies, the employer began to directly offer fringe benefits instead of monetary compensation.

Even after the war, several conditions stayed in place thereafter and the witholding of income tax was one of them.

Ranger50 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Regarding health insurance in general. It has become so tied to employment that we have no practical version of health insurance for the retired. I can't stand the idea of medicare (or whatever it's being called). If you had a policy with company X, and your employer put forth a number towards (and perhaps covering completely, depending on the coverage you chose from all of the packages company X had to offer) then each subsequent employer could also give you money towards company X and when you retired you could keep paying them yourself or each employer could make some sort of deal to put that as part of a pension plan.

Because when you retire, it's FREE!!!! Medicare sucks. They spend more time and money trying to NOT pay, then just paying a smaller amount in the first place. If you want that, scrap Medicare and start over.

See the "republican debate" thread page 4. Statists have made the -EMERGENCY ONLY- system the defacto system for everyone. This is an issue.

madmallard wrote: Remember, the current benefits system took shape decades ago because of labor influences in industries critical to war efforts. Wage increases in these industries were prohibited. To get around this and solicit workers from other companies, the employer began to directly offer fringe benefits instead of monetary compensation. Even after the war, several conditions stayed in place thereafter and the witholding of income tax was one of them.

Did not know this...