I don't understand the situation you described. There's generally no legal requirement that would cause the husband to have to leave the family policy provided by his wife's employer based on his earnings level. I have heard of some employers with company policies requiring employees to use their health insurance plan and not their spouses. But that's a company policy, not a law.
I think the solution could be a little less drastic than moving to another country. How about switching employers?
Even if your wife leaves her job, she (and the family, if you have a family policy) can stay on her former employer's health insurance
for 18 months under COBRA. But they can charge you the actual cost of the policy plus two percent. (Meaning if she currently plays 80% of the cost of the policy through deductions and the company pays the other 20% percent, after you go on COBRA you'll pay the 80% + 20% + up to 2%. The HR department of her company can tell you the COBRA rates.)
After the 18 months of COBRA runs out, the insurance company is required to offer you a non-group policy that is not medically underwritten. I think they usually call this a HIPAA policy. This will probably be more expensive than the policy you get through COBRA, but you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
It's been a while since I've read the DOL publication on COBRA, so follow the link above to verify that none of the details have changed.
Thanks for the tried and true GOP talking points: First, there's no problem here, move along. Second, if there is a problem it is because of the Clintons (or "Clinton's", if you prefer).
Nicely done. Your tax cut is in the mail.
RTFA! This is not about "laws", it's about one law: HIPAA.
And it's not that the law is "ineffectual", it's that enforcement of the law is virtually nonexistent.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand the situation you described. There's generally no legal requirement that would cause the husband to have to leave the family policy provided by his wife's employer based on his earnings level. I have heard of some employers with company policies requiring employees to use their health insurance plan and not their spouses. But that's a company policy, not a law.
I think the solution could be a little less drastic than moving to another country. How about switching employers?
Even if your wife leaves her job, she (and the family, if you have a family policy) can stay on her former employer's health insurance for 18 months under COBRA. But they can charge you the actual cost of the policy plus two percent. (Meaning if she currently plays 80% of the cost of the policy through deductions and the company pays the other 20% percent, after you go on COBRA you'll pay the 80% + 20% + up to 2%. The HR department of her company can tell you the COBRA rates.)
After the 18 months of COBRA runs out, the insurance company is required to offer you a non-group policy that is not medically underwritten. I think they usually call this a HIPAA policy. This will probably be more expensive than the policy you get through COBRA, but you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
It's been a while since I've read the DOL publication on COBRA, so follow the link above to verify that none of the details have changed.
Yeah, but have you seen Allen's trading card?
I'm sure he was just too bored to vote on all those bills.
But you do have a point about a windfall profits tax on oil companies. If we do that, they probably won't lower gas prices before the next election...
Thanks for the tried and true GOP talking points: First, there's no problem here, move along. Second, if there is a problem it is because of the Clintons (or "Clinton's", if you prefer). Nicely done. Your tax cut is in the mail.
RTFA! This is not about "laws", it's about one law: HIPAA. And it's not that the law is "ineffectual", it's that enforcement of the law is virtually nonexistent.