The Statute is below. My question is if a parent has a family health insurance policy through work, and the son is 21 but not a full time student, and he is living at home and fully dependent on parents, (as he doesn't work,) would the son be qualified as a covered dependent for healthcare due to this statute? Prior to this provision the coverage would of ended when turning 21, because he would not be a full time student. He turned 21 the same month this provision became in effect. I think yes, the parent can still claim as a dependent and cover under group insurance because it reads "OR" (the child is a full-time or part-time student). So although he is not a full time student he does meet the first part "The child is living in the household of the policyholder or certificateholder" and fully part "1a". Please advise if you think the provision means as I have thought, the son can be covered.
I know that at age 65 you become eligible for medicare but once you are enrolled. does age affect anything. For example is there any change to any benefits or how anything is paid once I become 70 or 75.
More on Does age have any bearing on medicare other than initial enrollment period?
My husband and I are expecting our first child in November. Right now we both work full time, but starting when our baby is about to come, we will be living on just my husband's income. The cost of daycare is about the same as what I would be making working, so it only makes sense for me to stay home. Some additional details: The above salary is before taxes and group health insurance is taken out. We have very little debt, no rent/mortgage, and no car payments. We both have EXCELLENT credit. I'm just curious to see what other people's opinions are. So, what do you think?
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –" Although President Barack Obama's push for a health care overhaul has stalled, conservative lawmakers in about half the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.
More on So states are seeking to ban mandatory health insurance?
I wanted to know if i can be covered for 9 months where i will not have any coverage,due to lay off from the job.in march/08 i will be 65 years and hope then medicare will kick in.my employer's health coverage is going to expire on june/30.
i am on ss income which puts me in a low income group that is less than ten thousand a year.i have no job and no extra income to cover my health insurance.I am very worried how to survive without any financial and medical support ,i am a widow too.being 64 years of age it is hard to get a job as i was doing for twenty years.
Iwill be thankful to any one who can guide me to get some extra financial help till i get a job,and health coverage till i am covered by medicare.
More on Medical health insurance to cover from the gap of 9 month till medicare kick in?
We are covered under separate health insurance plans by our respective employers (she has an HMO, I have a PPO-HSA). There is a local hospital and OB-GYN medical group that is considered to be amongst the best in our area; although insurance does not include the hospital and medical group in their network, mine does. Can the medical bills for the pre-natal care and delivery be covered under my insurance (considering that it as much my child as it is hers) even though has own health insurance that would cover the expenses from a different provider?
http://handyproxy.cn/health-insurance.html
Obama's compromise appeals to me but Pelosi isn't as rational or sensible as she might be. She could continue marauding down the radical path, ignoring the president and the people.
Could something really be done?
I work at a company dealing with retirees dealing with premium increases ranging from $200-$800+ monthly. These people have a limited income some even are even paying for Medicare. They are canceling their insurance because they have to choose between health insurance or mortgage or health insurance or groceries.
More on What is the answer to the rising cost of healthcare?
the baby boomer group gets older and have babies that also support social security eventually? So that employers can continue to discriminate against older americans who want to work, but are not hired due to age discrimination or health discrimination (so that the employers' group health insurance premiums will not go up?)…. I always thought that as the baby boomers got older, discrimination in the workforce would have to stop so that social security could stay afloat, but now it looks like the "system" has found a way around that…so that discrimination against older and workers with major health problems can continue? Thoughts?
workers can continue…
flextime…I am not talking about them getting social security , but rather paying into social security as workers and thereby keeping the system from failing, but also allowing older americans to be denied work thru age discrimination..as younger workers are hired instead..
they are changing the term now after the PR and focus groups decided that the term would be favorably met by the Public.In other words everyone hates those mean insurance companies.Why wouldn't the great one have thought of that himself in the first place?Or is he really that great?
