User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 7:34:00 AM EDT
[#1]
FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:04:15 AM EDT
[#2]
my employer does not allow spouse to be on the plan if they have other coverage available. thanks obama.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:23:59 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my employer does not allow spouse to be on the plan if they have other coverage available. thanks obama. Same here. What you aren't understanding yet is that your spouse even being permitted to be be on your insurance is now a benefit that many others do not enjoy. It will continue to get worse, and the Democrat goal of healthcare being controlled exclusively by the government (single payer) will come to pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:26:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
So my employer instituted a new policy this year. If your spouse's employer offers insurance, but your spouse decides to be on your insurance instead, you have to pay a $600 surcharge. My gf's company just changed their policy to if your spouse's company has insurance they won't let you add them to your policy. Quoted:
What you aren't understanding yet is that your spouse even being permitted to be be on your insurance is now a benefit that many others do not enjoy. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:27:35 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My gf's company just changed their policy to if your spouse's company has insurance they won't let you add them to your policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So my employer instituted a new policy this year. If your spouse's employer offers insurance, but your spouse decides to be on your insurance instead, you have to pay a $600 surcharge. My gf's company just changed their policy to if your spouse's company has insurance they won't let you add them to your policy. You can add that to your "we don't need to get married" sales pitch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:29:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can add that to your "we don't need to get married" sales pitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So my employer instituted a new policy this year. If your spouse's employer offers insurance, but your spouse decides to be on your insurance instead, you have to pay a $600 surcharge. My gf's company just changed their policy to if your spouse's company has insurance they won't let you add them to your policy. You can add that to your "we don't need to get married" sales pitch. My retiree coverage slays her company's plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:33:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The so-called "spousal carve out." Coming soon to an employer near you! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We just found out this week that starting in 2017, spouses who are eligible for insurance through their employer cannot be on our plan at all. Not even a surcharge option. The so-called "spousal carve out." Coming soon to an employer near you! How would they know........unless you told them so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:33:24 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question... "My wife doesn't work" How would they know or be able to find out? People do that and get away with it.... But if you get caught you'll wish you hadn't. So far they are working in the direction of making it easier to track. As of now any benefits you or her take are reported on the w2s (If you get them). For now it doesn't go anywhere it's just for the purpose of reporting the amount of benefits you are recieving (Cadillac tax). In the future they could tie it together. Not saying they will but it wouldn't surprise me. You will already have to sign stating that she is not offered health insurance through anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:35:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Charging more to add a spouse/kid is fine. Doing it only in the case of a spouse with coverage available elsewhere is bullshit. Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:44:37 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 8:47:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. So, are you going to pay the people who don't have spouse on the plan, more money? Or pay the people who DO have a spouse on the plan, less? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:00:22 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the lying scum sucker Josh Earnest said today that 70% of Americans are getting Obutthole Care for $75/mo. There really should be a stiff prison sentence for lying to the taxpayers. More like $75 every 3.5 days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:13:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's what I figured. shitty offerings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
why doesn't your wife use her insurance thru her employer? Mrs. Kubota's insurance through work is shit, high deductibles an co-pays, that $7,500ish would be manageable if she ad a serious medical problem. The bitch is they only cove 80% of the bill she/we are on the hook for that remaining 20%. A heart attack could easily be $250,000...so that would be $50,000 to us. Cancer, oh fuck!!!! That can easily hit $1,000,000, that would be $200,000 to us, oh and that $7,500. that's what I figured. shitty offerings. You are missing the max out of pocket figure in you're equation, all plans are required to have them and the highest by law is somewhere around $12,300 or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:16:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Small business owner here.
I just received notice from Blue Cross that my now $1200/mo policy is going to $1920/mo 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:19:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small business owner here. I just received notice from Blue Cross that my now $1200/mo policy is going to $1920/mo Small business owner here, too. My wife is a federal employee and I don't have any employees. Winning. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:31:05 AM EDT
[#16]
I am sure it's been said already, not covering a spouse is a company policy not Obama care. It is however, a result of skyrocketing costs directly associated with Obama care.
If anyone in their right mind thinks this is good and actually looks at economic numbers they will see that death is on our doorstep. The freight business sucks right now and the forecast isn't any better. One customer that my wife hauls for is saying their output will be worse than 2007&2008 for their slow season. When people spend more on insurance than their mortgage the economy suffers hard. 2017 will be interesting. There isn't a single Republican or Conservative candidate with balls enough to dismantle this law/tax and go back to the way it was. They think they can do it better. Mmm hmm, sure you can. FBHO FBHO FBHO FBHO! One more time FBHO FBHO FBHO ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:32:21 AM EDT
[#17]
Dad's insurance went to this. He has to pay an extra $100 a month for Mom but it's still cheaper than what it would cost her where she works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:44:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small business owner here, too. My wife is a federal employee and I don't have any employees. Winning. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Small business owner here. I just received notice from Blue Cross that my now $1200/mo policy is going to $1920/mo Small business owner here, too. My wife is a federal employee and I don't have any employees. Winning. I don't have a group health plan. I dropped employee coverage when the Obamacare BS started. The $1920/mo is just for my family. I'm dropping Blue Cross like a bad habit. I found a United Healthcare policy for $1k/ mo FBCBSTN FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 9:47:04 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, are you going to pay the people who don't have spouse on the plan, more money? Or pay the people who DO have a spouse on the plan, less? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. So, are you going to pay the people who don't have spouse on the plan, more money? Or pay the people who DO have a spouse on the plan, less? It's not about paying either money. It's about keeping the cost of the plan down. I'm sorry I'm on a iPhone and in between renewal meetings so I'll try to answer the best I can. Hopefully I'm addressing what you are questioning. The less people on the plan obviously the less risk, but also if you have spouses with expensive treatments/ conditions, say a cancer claim, the employers rates are going to be much higher. In turn everyone's share of their insurance premium contribution is higher. If spouses are driving up the costs to the plan(who could be driving up the costs of their own employers plan), it's better for the employer and other employees to get them out of there. If the employer can afford it and are willing great. For an employer looking to offer the best rates possible with good plans, but can't afford the increases (I've seen up to 24% this year) one cost reduction route is to boot the spouses. A of of times it is that, or stop offering the benefits sending everyone to the market... And the plans on the market would be worse. Paying $12,000 - $15,000a year for a family of four with crazy high deductibles and paying everything out of pocket etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 10:26:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Charging more to add a spouse/kid is fine. Doing it only in the case of a spouse with coverage available elsewhere is bullshit. Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 10:40:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Charging more to add a spouse/kid is fine. Doing it only in the case of a spouse with coverage available elsewhere is bullshit. Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. Who is the employer? Pm if you would like. Most likely it was because of the increases in costs due to ocare.... They also are paying a certain amount per person with coverage now that went up so maybe they are saying that is why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 10:53:51 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who is the employer? Pm if you would like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Charging more to add a spouse/kid is fine. Doing it only in the case of a spouse with coverage available elsewhere is bullshit. Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. Who is the employer? Pm if you would like. Sorry, not going to do that. Not being confrontational at all but what would that tell you? Besides her employer of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 10:55:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Before Obamacare, my insurance was $45/week for a family plan. No spousal surcharge, no ACA surcharge, $5 copays, no deductible for in-network providers, and while we had to take a biometric screening, it was really lax and didn't count for much. Next year, I'm paying $65 for the family plan (which is the lowest rate based on your biometrics). There is a $35 surcharge if my wife worked (she doesn't anymore) and her employer offered insurance. There is also a $1.64 ACA surcharge, a $25 smoking surcharge (if you smoke), $10 copays, $2500 deductible, and your biometrics play a large role in your premium. FBH0, F0C... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 10:57:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, not going to do that. Not being confrontational at all but what would that tell you? Besides her employer of course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honestly, you'd think both insurance companies would benefit, since they'd both be paying out less. It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. Who is the employer? Pm if you would like. Sorry, not going to do that. Not being confrontational at all but what would that tell you? Besides her employer of course. Deciding how I word things if it is one of my companies :-) Also, I can look up to see who their broker and carrier are. If it isn't one of my groups and if especially in SE PA I may know the broker may just have more of a reason as to why it was worded that way to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:08:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will not comply with obamacare. I had health insurance but the rates went up so much my employer cut it. Fuck it. Don't pay the fine. Claim a hardship exemption |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:12:03 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Deciding how I word things if it is one of my companies :-) Also, I can look up to see who their broker and carrier are. If it isn't one of my groups and if especially in SE PA I may know the broker may just have more of a reason as to why it was worded that way to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not an insurance carrier thing... It's an employer rule and it makes sense to keep costs down for those who participate in the companies health insurance and are single etc. Really? I was on my wifes insurance for 9 years without a problem. In fact she was told directly by her employer that because of a stipulation in Obamacare I could no longer be covered under her insurance. Who is the employer? Pm if you would like. Sorry, not going to do that. Not being confrontational at all but what would that tell you? Besides her employer of course. Deciding how I word things if it is one of my companies :-) Also, I can look up to see who their broker and carrier are. If it isn't one of my groups and if especially in SE PA I may know the broker may just have more of a reason as to why it was worded that way to you. I'm checking with her now to see if she would mind me divulging that info. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I'm just saying what they told her. Maybe they are using it as an excuse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm checking with her now to see if she would mind me divulging that info. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I'm just saying what they told her. Maybe they are using it as an excuse.
99.9 percent chance it is just due to keeping costs down. I have not heard of one instance where specific requirements of the ACA prohibit a spouse from being covered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:38:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You prolly have an out of pocket max that you aren't considering. Check your policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
why doesn't your wife use her insurance thru her employer? Mrs. Kubota's insurance through work is shit, high deductibles an co-pays, that $7,500ish would be manageable if she ad a serious medical problem. The bitch is they only cove 80% of the bill she/we are on the hook for that remaining 20%. A heart attack could easily be $250,000...so that would be $50,000 to us. Cancer, oh fuck!!!! That can easily hit $1,000,000, that would be $200,000 to us, oh and that $7,500. You prolly have an out of pocket max that you aren't considering. Check your policy. We skipped her company insurance plan an just put her on mine, for $75.00/month. Now that you mention max out of pocket there was that somewhere in the paperwork but that was a year ago we were looking at all of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:40:45 AM EDT
[#29]
My employer had been doing something similar for a while
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:45:04 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IThe whole purpose is to reduce your income and move you further down the social ladder to where you can be controlled. AND... of course the obvious, break the system so badly with O Care that people with DEMAND a singler payer govt owned system TADA! Socialst medicine and then .gov can be the sole recipient of billions of dollars of healthcare revenue vs. the private sector. All about them dolla dolla billz yall! Why is the natural next step single payer? Why not back to the way it was seven years ago. Competition and the free market. Make changes that increase competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2015 11:48:09 AM EDT
[#31]
I had to do the math on mine since I'm not married.
To put a spouse on ours is an extra $50 a pay period or $1300 a year. That's if they are eligible for coverage through their employer but decide to go on our plan instead. Cost for Associate plus spouse (minus that extra $50) is $155.50 a pay period for the "best" plan. So you'd be out $205 a pay period. That doesn't include dental or vision. My costs went up by $3.50 for the same plan I had last year. But it's up more than doubled what it cost me just three years ago for far better coverage. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
