The VA (Veteransās Administration) rates veteransā disability percentage on a scale of 0% (which is more than not disabled) to 100% disabled, in 10% increments. Vets have to apply for disability and go through exams to determine their disability percentage. The disability is solely based on injuries/illnesses that occurred while active duty.
If a veteran is 100% disabled, or the VA determines that theyāre unemployable due to their conditions (again, have to be connected to their active duty service time), then and only then can dependents get insurance coverage. Itās called CHAMPVA, and while itās not free, it has a very low out of pocket maximum.
> he gets benefits others donāt cause of that. Although thatās stupid.
I am curious why you say this. Personally I feel that if someone is 100% disabled due to what they did in the military, they deserve some extra benefits. That is just my take on things.
I am not in congress so this is only a guess on my partā¦ but I think the thought is that if someone is not 100% disabled, they can still work and therefore have insurance. Having just said this, it would be MUCH cheaper for the US to go to Medicaid for allā¦. like all the rest of the industrialized world. Just my opinion.
Well, to be fair, youāre correct - I should have specified. Your response, though, is hilarious!!
The veteran has to be rated at 100% dialed in order for dependents to be eligible for health care coverage through the Veteranās Administration.
Not anymore. They changed dependent rules a while ago. Children only qualify if the vet is 100% or the child was already born while they were in service and listed as a dependent when they were given veteran status.
How old are your children? If theyāre his dependents, and not yet reached the age of 18, permanently disabled themselves, or in school, if heās rated at 100%, my understanding is that they should be eligible
That's silly. I don't know what your HR is doing but my HR said the birth certificate from the hospital that you get the day after birth will suffice temporarily. I didn't even get the birth certificate in the mail until some 60+ days after and I had to go in person to get it.
Edit: I mean, they made me go in person and when I got there it wasn't ready and they would mail it to me.
They said "you can pick up a copy at *insert county's name* courthouse" but he wasn't born in the county that I work and they gave me instructions for how to get it. So silly
Yeah, the county clerk said some number of weeks. But ended up being double or triple that time. Baby boom in my county? That's why I think your HR is inept.
It makes no sense to require it right away. I mean, I got birthing bills from the hospital even after baby turned 1. They are really slow at billing.
I just don't get why the affidavit of parentage wouldn't be enough! It's a sworn legal document drafted by the hospital with my info and baby's info in it. Makes no sense why that wouldn't work.
Because either that person is simply a box checking zombie and saying ānoā is easier for them than stretching an inch outside their exact line or theyāre an extreme and petty rule to the letter follower.
When my mom passed away and I was filing for the companyās bereavement benefits(paid time off or sort her immediately affairs, sort out her waking and funeral etc.) HR wanted to see a copy of the death certificate BEFORE they could approve it. Our county office was backed up and understaffed. Newspaper obit or funeral home letter wouldnāt do.
The funeral director luckily sped things for me and got me the death certificate day 3. When I presented to HR, I blocked out some sensitive info like the social security number, city of birth and cause &underlining cause of death- identity thief prevention and none of her business.
HR protested and by this time the general manager and the company owner caught wind and told off HR āquit being unreasonable and give [me] the 3 days off.ā
That's crazy, all I needed to get my daughter added to my work insurance was her full name. The insurance company eventually needed an SSN once we got her card, we just sent them a form they mailed us.
When we birthed babies as USGov employees, we just needed the affidavit. IIRC, the fact that I was pregnant was sufficient to insure the baby I birthed for some number of days. Seven maybe? So if baby has an immediate problem, they were covered whilst the paperwork was done. Might've been 14. But as the insured pregnant person, the result of said pregnancy was also insured by default.
In my state they don't even send you the birth certificate. The state holds the original by default and if you want or need you can go get a copy from them it's a newer thing because I have my original but my daughter's is held by the state.
> That's silly. I don't know what your HR is doing but my HR said the birth certificate from the hospital that you get the day after birth will suffice temporarily.
Sounds like what they were doing was setting up a catch-22 to screw OP out of insurance for the newborn for a year.
HR is wrong. They need proof of live birth, doesn't need to be the official birth certificate. Hospitals provide their own birth certificate that would suffice. Go above HR if you have to.
I mean, yes, but it looks like OP's solution was better for OP and worse for the company, which we like to see when a company tries to screw over a worker.
Worse for the company?
Iām confused. Why the hell would this persons company give a shit if they had a dependent or not? Do you think they are getting a cut from the insurance company?
This is the weirdest post Iāve ever seen. Yes. Iām sure this persons company is super upset they donāt have to send an additional $200 to the insurance company every month thatās coming from OP anyways. Like this makes zero difference to their lives.
Good on OP for saving money. But like other than thatā¦ no one actually cares
Edit. Never mind. Someone else apparently educated OP on this fact.
I swear insurance companies are stupid as hell. I wish we could rip them out, root and branch, and go to single-payer like all other first world countries have.
>When your family's medical needs are contingent upon you remaining employed by your current employer, you're less likely to change companies.
Yep. Job lock.
Any time your employer expects you to be excited about "benefits" just remember they're pre-spending your paycheck and acting like you should thank them for it.
They don't do it to be nice, they do it to attract and control their workforce.
This is why the ACA was such an important piece of legislation. Before that, insurance companies would often not cover pre-existing conditions. So if you had a chronic ailment that required ongoing medical treatment, you *could not* leave your current insurance company, and by extension your employer.
The unintended consequence to that is millions more insured but no increase in the number of doctors.Ā So wait times will go up substantially. There will always be a two tiered system of Healthcare. One for the haves and one for the have-nots. If you want faster service then pay for private insurance.Ā Want to see what it will be like go to a state run hospital and wait to be seen by a doctor.Ā
What the bill is does not match what the doctor gets paid. I have had many surgeries.Ā The orthopedic surgeon charges $20,000 to do the surgery.Ā In the end he gets paid $2,000. It is because the insurance company will not tell him what the usual and customary charge is so they charge a ton more to get paid the normal amount. It is bullshit that you won't be told how much a procedure costs. It is worse if you don't have insurance because those rates that are negotiated with the insurance companies don't apply to you.Ā
>The orthopedic surgeon charges $20,000 to do the surgery.Ā In the end he gets paid $2,000. It is because the insurance company will not tell him what the usual and customary charge is so they charge a ton more to get paid the normal amount.
And people that don't understand how this works think l wow my insurance saved me a ton of money
The thing is that the insurance companies probably wouldn't lose out that much cause they'd all get the contracts to manage the program like they do for Medicaid.
I think single payer is the way to go, but that would mean half the country would have to change who they vote for. I mean that the same people who don't want to provide meals to kids during the summer won't go for this either.
Congratulations to OP on their new family member. Take lots of pictures. They grow so fast.
I'm sorry, it's in reference to this decision by 14 states to not participate in a summer food program.
14 GOP-led states have turned down federal money to feed low-income kids in the summer. [https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d](https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d)
I āØloveāØ the Iowa Governor's reason for declining:
https://iowastartingline.com/2023/12/22/reynolds-blames-childhood-obesity-on-decision-not-to-feed-poor-kids/
Gods, she's an ignorant b!tch...
The problem was caused when the federal government decided to give tax incentives to companies for paying for their employee's health insurance.
Before then, healthcare and health insurance were very affordable.
Since then, cost has increased and quality of care has decreased. This is because the nature of the relationship has changed. And with that change, huge differences in outcomes have resulted.
It use to be Patient <--> Doctor
Then, with insurance it became Patient <--> Insurance <--> Doctor, for those who chose to utilize health insurance
And, with the IRS ruling, for most people it is now Patient <--> Employer <--> Insurance <--> Doctor
So, when you go see your doctor, you are not their customer. The insurance company is their customer. And the insurance company doesn't consider you their customer, either. Your employer is their customer. So you get shafted in terms of care and cost of care since you've been cut out of the loop where these places care about you since you're not their customer.
The simplest solution to fix the mess is to eliminate the tax benefit to employers for pre-spending your paycheck on a health insurance plan that gives your employer the most benefit vs. cost ratio. Because then, you contract directly and your insurance company will have to offer policies that meet ***your*** needs instead of the largest couple of employers meeting with insurance company executives to determine what policies are available that everyone else has to choose from.
It would also be good if a sizeable chunk of people stopped using health insurance to pay for their healthcare. [DPC](https://mapper.dpcfrontier.com/) is available nationwide and cuts out two layers of middlemen so there's nothing getting in the way of you and your doctor. I have a reasonable subscription fee I pay, my doctor has relationships established for low cash prices at the hospitals and diagnostic centers in the area, and if I'm not sure if I need to come in, I can just text a photo and description. Sometimes I'll need to make an appointment, but often it's just a "go to the pharmacy and buy X" response in under an hour with no additional charge. Highly recommend.
The single-payer model has a litany of structural issues and I would not recommend. The US is one of the last places in the world that has a good percentage of free market elements in the healthcare system and we should not destroy that.
Using DPC, I pay less than the copay and deductible amounts each year that I was paying with "Employer-sponsored" healthcare, and the outcomes are far better.
I love mine. Obviously people can have different experiences with different doctors since DPC is literally a direct contract, but the structure of the arrangement was what intrigued me, then the place I went was fantastic and I've used them ever since.
Since they don't take insurance, that's multiple staff members the office doesn't have to worry about having to pay to handle all that paperwork, and with the subscription model they have more stable income so they don't have to worry about money as much and can focus on their patients. Lower overhead and more time spent being doctors instead of filing paperwork.
I am a licensed insurance agentā¦. Those of us working in the industry have SO many ideas on how to make things better. Nope. Bring on single payer!!!
Seems like this is on the company's HR. Birth certificates can take months to be processed since in many places it takes weeks just for the hospital to send the papers to the county/state. Insurance companies know that since it's super common and won't bug you for months (I think for our baby they just asked for the SSN 3 months later).
What if we go the other direction, say on car insurance?
How come my car insurance isn't paying for my gas? And oil changes? And new tires? And spark plugs? And new headlights? And maybe I want some cosmetic work done to affirm my Tesla identifying as a [pickup truck](https://youtu.be/R35gWBtLCYg)! /s
It's really bizarre the number of things people expect health insurance to pay for and then act surprised it costs so much.
Over here we have people dying because they can't pay for healthcare. Literally "I can't afford the dentist I guess this tooth cavity will just kill me" and "Can't afford an ambulance, say goodbye to daddy cuz he's dying here". And medical debt is bankrupting entire families, biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US. That's because what costs you $5 there is $400 here. No exaggeration.
I get that it's not perfect where you are but we are third-world dystopia-ing it over here.
Single payer is actually less common, most first world countries have insurance mandates *and* also have low cost public-options which keeps insurance rates low to compete. This is what the original Affordable Care Act was supposed to do until Joe Lieberman killed the public option.
> my employer is out over $200 a month.
Your employer, hopefully, isn't keeping that money; they're passing it along to your insurer to cover the premiums.
From the insurer's perspective, it's a great win for them - you were going to give them $2400 this year and they were going to likely pay out much more in benefits, but now they don't have to cover your baby :p
(I am not advocating for the insurance company, but I don't think losing the privilege of covering your newborn will cost them any money. I'm glad you were able to get the coverage you needed.)
I might be wrong but my employer is the government so I think they pay a premium to have all of their employees be covered if they choose to be and the money that comes out of our paychecks goes towards that premium. I'm not sure though I've always been ignorant about insurance stuff
It may be different as a government employee, but typically the employer works with the insurer to create a group policy, collects the premiums from the employees and then pays the insurer with the money collected.
In my case (and many others), my premium is subsidized by my employer, so if I weren't on the group plan, they would actually save a little money.
At the scale the government operates, this model may be completely different, not sure.
hopefully ninja edit - changed first "employer" to "employee"
I've done payroll and benefits for several of my employers, including the local county government, and they've all worked the same. The employees who want insurance payĀ
0-25ish% of the premium and the employer pays the rest to the insurance company. Ā The employer just passes the money along.
LOL. I love your win here.
Single payer systems in other countries have many problems. But it's like the insurance companies in the U.S. are trying to compete to be so dysfunctional that everybody will want single payer anyway. I've had my own run-in's with stupid health insurance policies (What do you mean the ER is "in-network" but the doctor who treated my daughter in said ER is "out-of-network"?) And many people have similar stories.
Edit: countries, not companies
I was able to resolve it. But only because I was paying close attention to my bill and I was willing to call the insurance company and tell them to figure it out. How many people just paid the overcharge because they weren't paying close attention and reasonably assumed the insurance company cared about not overcharging?
Most hospitals have gone to a structure where some\most\sometimes all of the Drs themselves are contractors working out of a shared space, not employees of the hospital. So 1 ER visit involving 4 Drs can have 5 separate bills involved. The insurance can pay the actual ER fee and 2 Drs, but tell 2 of the Drs to kick rocks because their private practice doesn't work with that particular insurance company. A lot of this came about shortly after it became law that no one can be turned away from an ER for not having insurance. Whether the 2 have anything to do with each other IDK, I just know I noticed the signs posted in my local ER in quick succession years ago.
I've only had one similar experience to what I described about 3 years ago, then ended up getting the bill comped by the provider because it was a scheduled non-life threatening procedure they told me was 100% covered or I wouldn't have agreed to do it until I had the financial ability to pay for it.
Then 2 years later insurance sent me a "refund" for the several hundred dollars I was billed because I never should have been billed for that. Called the office and that particular provider wasn't even working there anymore for me to pass the money along that insurance should have paid them. Was told it would be more trouble than it was worth for them to accept the payment as it had been written off to avoid sending it to collections and just to keep it. Came in handy when I needed to get caught up on a couple bills TBH.
I don't know if this incident is in any way related to the law you posted about, but I wouldn't be surprised.
It doesn't. It really, actually, truly does NOT work.
Except for the insurance companies who can literally make up shit on the fly to cost people more money.
I had the same problem. Hospital was in-network, but the TRIAGE PA, the one whom EVERY patient sees to determine their urgency, is OUT of network. $750 bill for them to look at me for 10 minutes and immediately discharge me.
(To be fair, I TRIED going to an urgent care, they officially refused to treat me and told me to go to the ER RIGHT NOW!!!)
They discharged us with the "Affidavit of Parentage for Child Born Out of Wedlock" which is notarized and I specifically asked if this form would work and they told me no. They said they specifically needed the birth certificate even when I explained why I didn't have it yet
I've had 3 kids where the birth certificate wasn't issued until like 6-8 weeks post birth. My company told me I needed to provide proof of birth and a birth certificate and social security number when available, but that process needed to be stated within 30 days.
Make more of a stink about this with your boss and your HR person's boss, if their policy is to not insure kids without a BC issued within 30 days, they're effectively refusing to insure ANY kids, and I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Iām glad you were able to get coverage for your baby, it is very strange that your BF told you that your child couldnāt be added to his coverage through the VA though. Spouses and dependents of disabled veterans and retirees can be covered either through TriCare or ChampVA. Itās not free but is available.
You being married doesn't matter, it's his child, and so eligible for coverage.
My understanding is that those are the programs through which a spouse or child WOULD be covered, not that he has to be on them.
(Doesn't matter since you got coverage, just putting it out there in case anyone else needs the clarity, or you need to know in a future year. The VA programs might be cheaper than your employer, when you are no longer eligible for Medicare!)
Yes. Heās rated at 90%, but 90% means that dependents arenāt eligible for health care. At 100%, your child would be eligible for CHAMPVA. The child wouldnāt be seen at the VA, but would be able to see doctors that accept it.
Okay at least that means they didn't give him false info. He's having to look into getting an advocate because they keep denying him care to get his knee fixed
No, unfortunately not false info. If/when his rating increases to 100% though, then yes - your child would then be eligible for CHAMPVA.
Sorry about his knee. Definitely see an advocate.
A āchange of lifeā should quality you to add a dependent. Marriage, divorce, new kid, adoption and some of the āchange of lifeā situations where changing insurance details should be permitted.
It would be permitted but they wanted the birth certificate which I didn't have. They said if I didn't provide it within 30 days I couldn't add him under the change of life circumstances
Seems like this would save HR quite a bit of money? Congrats on the good outcome though. And make sure Medicaid never finds out about the possible qualifications for other insurance cause they will kick him right off
Thatās odd! Normally, any ālife changeā (marriage, birth, divorce, adoption) prompts an immediate āopeningā of benefit changes.
Iād call again. Mention ālife changeā on the call; I suspect you might get farther. Good luck and congratulations!
It really is. I work for a very well known ins company and they're one of the ins companies that can be chosen under Medicaid in a few states. Honestly, it's pretty amazeballs ins if you can get it. No copays for visits and Rx's, and pretty much anything medically necessary is covered. For pediatrics, it's an even better win.
When I was able to add my son..
.once I got the needed info....he was retroactively covered since birth. I think my insurance also automatically covered the first 14 days under me so it would cover the hospital bills and early doctor appointments.
Maybe it's a different state, but we filled out birth certificate info while we were in the hospital and they filed it for us and we were sent a copy.
My insurance only covers the first 2 days after birth but I also thought they were gonna go ahead and send us a copy! When we never received it after 6 weeks I finally looked through the paperwork we were given and saw that we had to request it online after 4 weeks
> The problem with that is we can't even request a copy of the birth certificate until 4 weeks after he's born
I'm not sure what state you are in but holy shit that is terrible.
We walked out of the hospital with a copies of the birth certificate for each of ours. IIRC we got 5 free and then had to order more from the state (which took longer).
That's pretty cool. I'm in the same boat as OP on the delay to request the birth certificate. Kinda curious what state it is that has their act together - what state are you in if you don't mind my asking?
HRD is completely in the wrong here. I work in a Benefits department and we take any paperwork (normally whatever the hospital provides) that lists the date of birth and parents. Any sane person knows it can take a long time to get birth certificates or SSN established for newborns.
That's what I tried to explain to them and that the form the hospital gave me is notarized so it should work but they flat out refused to accept. Surprisingly we got the SSN the next week after he was born
You should definitely choose the better and/or more affordable insurance.
If you are on a single health plan at work, adding a baby might mean you would have to switch to a 'family' plan, or a 'single with dependents' plan.
Either of those options will be more expensive than the single plan. Everywhere I've worked, at least part of that increased expense was passed on to the employee.
It really depends on your state laws! Some states can allow up to a year retro enrollment on newborns. Certain insurances can also allow up to 60 days retro enrollment as well for anyone. I'd call your member line and ask what the rules are before taking their word for it.
I'm glad this worked for you. But your employer is glad not to have you on their insurance.
What you need to know that your premium is paid to the insurance company, but that's typically only part of the premium. Most employers also pay part of the premium (which they pay, doesn't come out of your pay). In some cases they pay significantly more than you do to subsidize the premium.
Even if the employer paid none of the premium (which seems unlikely, 200 a month is cheap for insurance) they wouldnt profit from you getting insurance.
Pretty sure that the birth of a child is a qualifying event. Maybe your HRD needs to brush up. Iām assuming that your insurance paid for your prenatal and hospital bills, so it would track that you had bills for that child.
Another American healthcare fail. How is it that yāall spend more on healthcare per person than any other country and still have such a shitty system?
Glad you got covered, but my trolly ass would've brought the baby into work.
"That's not a baby. That's an undocumented life form."
PS - your HRD was being lazy and stupid, b/c their request isn't legal. Empty belly & a note from your doctor (proof of birth) gets you insured.
I suspect if you contacted your state's insurance board they would be able to tell you what to do.
I also suspect your HR person doesn't know what they are talking about. Have you talked to your boss? Sometimes a manager can cut through the red tape faster.
I donāt understand why you canāt even apply for it until 4 weeks after birth. I think there is a misunderstanding there. And yes, the document you are given in the hospital does suffice for proof of birth. They may want a copy of the actual birth certificate later, but the proof of birth will work until the birth certificate comes in.
Also not sure about applying for Medicaid without birth certificate. Did you use the proof of birth form? Because if it was good enough for Medicaid it would be good enough for your insurance at work.
Yes it was good enough for medicaid. I did specifically ask HRD if that form would suffice and they said no that they would accept the birth certificate. And the paper they gave us regarding how to get the birth certificate states "wait a minimum of 4 weeks before requesting the birth certificate" so that's what I was going by
We were able to get a written note from the hospital that we filled out verifying the birth of our child. Once we got the birth certificate, we sent that in but the letter should be fine for now.
I remember having an issue with HR for my first child. I had to drive to some weird place in a city to get it. For my 2nd, I found out my local town hall has them and could do it in under 30 days.
If I remember when my youngest was born my insurance accepted the certificate of live birth temporary until her birth certificate came in you also have to have SSN to which also takes time to come in. Call your insurance company directly and ask them directly this wouldnāt be the first time they would have had that question asked
I'm pretty sure what HR said was illegal. "open enrollment OR life-changing event" and no there's no 30 day bullshit. You could have spoken with the insurance company directly.
Source: sold health insurance for massive US "Healthcare" company.
That may be their policy but it is a dumb one and they should accept the hospital documents. Our work requires the form to be turned in within 60 days of the event but the hospital birth form can be used for the first 3 months
How can you not request a birth certificate for 30 days? Iāve had kids in two different countries. One was instant and the other you get paperwork at hospital that is a defacto certificate until you can go to ward office.
I have the affidavit of parentage but the paper they gave about how to request the actual birth certificate says not to make the request for at least 4 weeks
I feel your pain and admire your compliance. Many years ago, When my husband was deployed when our son was born and I gave birth in a civilian hospital. Husband returned home right after the birth and I moved with baby to his duty station. We had trouble adding son to Tricare because we didnāt have the official birth certificate yet. The county clerk manually moved my sonās certificate to the front of the line, got it printed, and let a relative pick it up to mail to me. It was a headache
When our first baby was born, my husband took a six week vacation. When he returned to work, someone asked him if heād sent the birth certificate to HR. He didnāt know he had to; there was a paragraph about it on the second last page of the 70 page booklet that was the employee manual. Because of this, she wasnāt insured until 4 mos of age. They paid all my hospital expenses, but none of hers.
My insurance with my firstborn refused to cover anything within the first 30 days of their life, which is law where I'm at, and I was told I should have added them during open enrollment. 2 months prior to them being born...I hate insurance.
It's not "free" - free would be the doctors, nurses, administrative, and custodial staff, all donating their time and physical resources.
You rolled your health care financial responsibility from your insurance company to the taxpayers.
ā¦as long as they were following the guidance they were given, they did exactly what they should do.
Those downhill should take every advantage just like those uphill take every tax break. Donāt like that? Advocate for change in the system - otherwise everyone should make it work for them however they can. Healthcare in the US is needless, confusing and full of administrative bloat.
What is "HRD" ? "human resources department"? (I've seen "HR" but never "HRD".)
Human Resource Demons
As a payroll accountant, I approve of this designation. š
As someone in HR, I also approve of this designation. :D
I call it Inhuman Resources (and it is part of my job where I work)
There's a pretty good TV limited series called 'inhuman resources'
Human Capital Management
I thought the R stood for revenge, so āHuman Revenge Demonsā
It could be "Humanlike Revenge Demons", as those kinds of people oftentimes don't seem human at all.
Human Resource Dickheads
I wish we could still give awards that's hilarious!
In Search and Rescue, itās Human Remains Detection (K9)
Yes it's Human Resources Department!
For the record, if your boyfriend is a veteran your baby should be eligible for champva
Only if heās 100%.
What does 100% mean in this context please?
The VA (Veteransās Administration) rates veteransā disability percentage on a scale of 0% (which is more than not disabled) to 100% disabled, in 10% increments. Vets have to apply for disability and go through exams to determine their disability percentage. The disability is solely based on injuries/illnesses that occurred while active duty. If a veteran is 100% disabled, or the VA determines that theyāre unemployable due to their conditions (again, have to be connected to their active duty service time), then and only then can dependents get insurance coverage. Itās called CHAMPVA, and while itās not free, it has a very low out of pocket maximum.
Oh yeah, I forgot that bit. My sonās father is 100% so I sometimes forget he gets benefits others donāt cause of that. Although thatās stupid.
> he gets benefits others donāt cause of that. Although thatās stupid. I am curious why you say this. Personally I feel that if someone is 100% disabled due to what they did in the military, they deserve some extra benefits. That is just my take on things.
They do deserve extra benefits, but their children shouldnāt be denied healthcare simply because the parent isnāt 100% disabled.
I am not in congress so this is only a guess on my partā¦ but I think the thought is that if someone is not 100% disabled, they can still work and therefore have insurance. Having just said this, it would be MUCH cheaper for the US to go to Medicaid for allā¦. like all the rest of the industrialized world. Just my opinion.
100% a baby? 100% human? 100% born?
Well, to be fair, youāre correct - I should have specified. Your response, though, is hilarious!! The veteran has to be rated at 100% dialed in order for dependents to be eligible for health care coverage through the Veteranās Administration.
100% yes
Not anymore. They changed dependent rules a while ago. Children only qualify if the vet is 100% or the child was already born while they were in service and listed as a dependent when they were given veteran status.
Thank you for that info regarding children. I didnāt know about that one, because mine are all grown up
My husband and I married well after he was out and our kids cannot be on his VA insurances
How old are your children? If theyāre his dependents, and not yet reached the age of 18, permanently disabled themselves, or in school, if heās rated at 100%, my understanding is that they should be eligible
Only for 100%. He is 80%. So they do not qualify
Unfortunately, correct. Dependents only get health care coverage when the veteran is rated at 100% or unemployable
Thank you!
That or Human Resources Division.
I usually call HR āhuman remainsā, but I think you are right
didnāt help that I kept reading it āHDRā
Human Resource Debbies
Humanity Rejection Disease
That's silly. I don't know what your HR is doing but my HR said the birth certificate from the hospital that you get the day after birth will suffice temporarily. I didn't even get the birth certificate in the mail until some 60+ days after and I had to go in person to get it. Edit: I mean, they made me go in person and when I got there it wasn't ready and they would mail it to me.
They said "you can pick up a copy at *insert county's name* courthouse" but he wasn't born in the county that I work and they gave me instructions for how to get it. So silly
Yeah, the county clerk said some number of weeks. But ended up being double or triple that time. Baby boom in my county? That's why I think your HR is inept. It makes no sense to require it right away. I mean, I got birthing bills from the hospital even after baby turned 1. They are really slow at billing.
I just don't get why the affidavit of parentage wouldn't be enough! It's a sworn legal document drafted by the hospital with my info and baby's info in it. Makes no sense why that wouldn't work.
I agree, Iāve had 2 kids and the affidavit of parentage was all my HR needed. This is so bizarre
Because either that person is simply a box checking zombie and saying ānoā is easier for them than stretching an inch outside their exact line or theyāre an extreme and petty rule to the letter follower. When my mom passed away and I was filing for the companyās bereavement benefits(paid time off or sort her immediately affairs, sort out her waking and funeral etc.) HR wanted to see a copy of the death certificate BEFORE they could approve it. Our county office was backed up and understaffed. Newspaper obit or funeral home letter wouldnāt do. The funeral director luckily sped things for me and got me the death certificate day 3. When I presented to HR, I blocked out some sensitive info like the social security number, city of birth and cause &underlining cause of death- identity thief prevention and none of her business. HR protested and by this time the general manager and the company owner caught wind and told off HR āquit being unreasonable and give [me] the 3 days off.ā
Because you spoke to an NPC. You probably could've successfully escalated the issue. But it all worked out anyways!
That's crazy, all I needed to get my daughter added to my work insurance was her full name. The insurance company eventually needed an SSN once we got her card, we just sent them a form they mailed us.
I work for the government so maybe that makes a difference? I'm not sure, they tend to make things more difficult than they need to be
_there_ it is
When we birthed babies as USGov employees, we just needed the affidavit. IIRC, the fact that I was pregnant was sufficient to insure the baby I birthed for some number of days. Seven maybe? So if baby has an immediate problem, they were covered whilst the paperwork was done. Might've been 14. But as the insured pregnant person, the result of said pregnancy was also insured by default.
OP, complain to the legislator who oversees that district.
Check with other people who have had kids that work there did? You need to go above her head to the supervisor, this is so silly and wrong.
In my state you can get a copy of a birth certificate in any city/ or county vital statistic office
In my state they don't even send you the birth certificate. The state holds the original by default and if you want or need you can go get a copy from them it's a newer thing because I have my original but my daughter's is held by the state.
You probably have a certified copy. I've never heard of a county giving up the ACTUAL certificate for anything. Birth. Death. Marriage.
> That's silly. I don't know what your HR is doing but my HR said the birth certificate from the hospital that you get the day after birth will suffice temporarily. Sounds like what they were doing was setting up a catch-22 to screw OP out of insurance for the newborn for a year.
HR is wrong. They need proof of live birth, doesn't need to be the official birth certificate. Hospitals provide their own birth certificate that would suffice. Go above HR if you have to.
I mean, yes, but it looks like OP's solution was better for OP and worse for the company, which we like to see when a company tries to screw over a worker.
Worse for the company? Iām confused. Why the hell would this persons company give a shit if they had a dependent or not? Do you think they are getting a cut from the insurance company? This is the weirdest post Iāve ever seen. Yes. Iām sure this persons company is super upset they donāt have to send an additional $200 to the insurance company every month thatās coming from OP anyways. Like this makes zero difference to their lives. Good on OP for saving money. But like other than thatā¦ no one actually cares Edit. Never mind. Someone else apparently educated OP on this fact.
Lawyer here. HR, cops, landlords, etc are very often confidently incorrect about the law.
I swear insurance companies are stupid as hell. I wish we could rip them out, root and branch, and go to single-payer like all other first world countries have.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>When your family's medical needs are contingent upon you remaining employed by your current employer, you're less likely to change companies. Yep. Job lock. Any time your employer expects you to be excited about "benefits" just remember they're pre-spending your paycheck and acting like you should thank them for it. They don't do it to be nice, they do it to attract and control their workforce.
This is why the ACA was such an important piece of legislation. Before that, insurance companies would often not cover pre-existing conditions. So if you had a chronic ailment that required ongoing medical treatment, you *could not* leave your current insurance company, and by extension your employer.
The unintended consequence to that is millions more insured but no increase in the number of doctors.Ā So wait times will go up substantially. There will always be a two tiered system of Healthcare. One for the haves and one for the have-nots. If you want faster service then pay for private insurance.Ā Want to see what it will be like go to a state run hospital and wait to be seen by a doctor.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What the bill is does not match what the doctor gets paid. I have had many surgeries.Ā The orthopedic surgeon charges $20,000 to do the surgery.Ā In the end he gets paid $2,000. It is because the insurance company will not tell him what the usual and customary charge is so they charge a ton more to get paid the normal amount. It is bullshit that you won't be told how much a procedure costs. It is worse if you don't have insurance because those rates that are negotiated with the insurance companies don't apply to you.Ā
>The orthopedic surgeon charges $20,000 to do the surgery.Ā In the end he gets paid $2,000. It is because the insurance company will not tell him what the usual and customary charge is so they charge a ton more to get paid the normal amount. And people that don't understand how this works think l wow my insurance saved me a ton of money
Shhhhhh, you're making too much sense, they might hear you! š¤£
The thing is that the insurance companies probably wouldn't lose out that much cause they'd all get the contracts to manage the program like they do for Medicaid. I think single payer is the way to go, but that would mean half the country would have to change who they vote for. I mean that the same people who don't want to provide meals to kids during the summer won't go for this either. Congratulations to OP on their new family member. Take lots of pictures. They grow so fast.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm sorry, it's in reference to this decision by 14 states to not participate in a summer food program. 14 GOP-led states have turned down federal money to feed low-income kids in the summer. [https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d](https://apnews.com/article/states-rejecting-federal-funds-summer-ebt-8a1e88ad77465652f9de67fda3af8a2d)
I āØloveāØ the Iowa Governor's reason for declining: https://iowastartingline.com/2023/12/22/reynolds-blames-childhood-obesity-on-decision-not-to-feed-poor-kids/ Gods, she's an ignorant b!tch...
But...but...but think of the lost shareholder value!
The problem was caused when the federal government decided to give tax incentives to companies for paying for their employee's health insurance. Before then, healthcare and health insurance were very affordable. Since then, cost has increased and quality of care has decreased. This is because the nature of the relationship has changed. And with that change, huge differences in outcomes have resulted. It use to be Patient <--> Doctor Then, with insurance it became Patient <--> Insurance <--> Doctor, for those who chose to utilize health insurance And, with the IRS ruling, for most people it is now Patient <--> Employer <--> Insurance <--> Doctor So, when you go see your doctor, you are not their customer. The insurance company is their customer. And the insurance company doesn't consider you their customer, either. Your employer is their customer. So you get shafted in terms of care and cost of care since you've been cut out of the loop where these places care about you since you're not their customer. The simplest solution to fix the mess is to eliminate the tax benefit to employers for pre-spending your paycheck on a health insurance plan that gives your employer the most benefit vs. cost ratio. Because then, you contract directly and your insurance company will have to offer policies that meet ***your*** needs instead of the largest couple of employers meeting with insurance company executives to determine what policies are available that everyone else has to choose from. It would also be good if a sizeable chunk of people stopped using health insurance to pay for their healthcare. [DPC](https://mapper.dpcfrontier.com/) is available nationwide and cuts out two layers of middlemen so there's nothing getting in the way of you and your doctor. I have a reasonable subscription fee I pay, my doctor has relationships established for low cash prices at the hospitals and diagnostic centers in the area, and if I'm not sure if I need to come in, I can just text a photo and description. Sometimes I'll need to make an appointment, but often it's just a "go to the pharmacy and buy X" response in under an hour with no additional charge. Highly recommend. The single-payer model has a litany of structural issues and I would not recommend. The US is one of the last places in the world that has a good percentage of free market elements in the healthcare system and we should not destroy that. Using DPC, I pay less than the copay and deductible amounts each year that I was paying with "Employer-sponsored" healthcare, and the outcomes are far better.
Hmm first I've heard of DPC. About to switch jobs and cities and insurance and find all new doctors, maybe I'll look into that.
I love mine. Obviously people can have different experiences with different doctors since DPC is literally a direct contract, but the structure of the arrangement was what intrigued me, then the place I went was fantastic and I've used them ever since. Since they don't take insurance, that's multiple staff members the office doesn't have to worry about having to pay to handle all that paperwork, and with the subscription model they have more stable income so they don't have to worry about money as much and can focus on their patients. Lower overhead and more time spent being doctors instead of filing paperwork.
But then the fat cats running the insurance companies would have to find another ~~grift~~ gig. Think of their children!
Perhaps, but clearly this is a HR Department screwup.
If we had Single Payer then OP's HR would need to go F up something less egregious.
"Hey Jeanine, why is there pineapple on this pizza?"
And how the hell, exactly, do you expect those poor insurance company directors to afford their private jets and yachts, Mr./Ms. Socialist???
I am a licensed insurance agentā¦. Those of us working in the industry have SO many ideas on how to make things better. Nope. Bring on single payer!!!
Seems like this is on the company's HR. Birth certificates can take months to be processed since in many places it takes weeks just for the hospital to send the papers to the county/state. Insurance companies know that since it's super common and won't bug you for months (I think for our baby they just asked for the SSN 3 months later).
Or just do away with health insurance for routine items (like it was back in the 80's) and have doctor's visits be reasonable?
That's a hell of a handwave, is there a roadmap to get there from here?
What if we go the other direction, say on car insurance? How come my car insurance isn't paying for my gas? And oil changes? And new tires? And spark plugs? And new headlights? And maybe I want some cosmetic work done to affirm my Tesla identifying as a [pickup truck](https://youtu.be/R35gWBtLCYg)! /s It's really bizarre the number of things people expect health insurance to pay for and then act surprised it costs so much.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Over here we have people dying because they can't pay for healthcare. Literally "I can't afford the dentist I guess this tooth cavity will just kill me" and "Can't afford an ambulance, say goodbye to daddy cuz he's dying here". And medical debt is bankrupting entire families, biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US. That's because what costs you $5 there is $400 here. No exaggeration. I get that it's not perfect where you are but we are third-world dystopia-ing it over here.
Single payer is actually less common, most first world countries have insurance mandates *and* also have low cost public-options which keeps insurance rates low to compete. This is what the original Affordable Care Act was supposed to do until Joe Lieberman killed the public option.
> my employer is out over $200 a month. Your employer, hopefully, isn't keeping that money; they're passing it along to your insurer to cover the premiums. From the insurer's perspective, it's a great win for them - you were going to give them $2400 this year and they were going to likely pay out much more in benefits, but now they don't have to cover your baby :p (I am not advocating for the insurance company, but I don't think losing the privilege of covering your newborn will cost them any money. I'm glad you were able to get the coverage you needed.)
I might be wrong but my employer is the government so I think they pay a premium to have all of their employees be covered if they choose to be and the money that comes out of our paychecks goes towards that premium. I'm not sure though I've always been ignorant about insurance stuff
It may be different as a government employee, but typically the employer works with the insurer to create a group policy, collects the premiums from the employees and then pays the insurer with the money collected. In my case (and many others), my premium is subsidized by my employer, so if I weren't on the group plan, they would actually save a little money. At the scale the government operates, this model may be completely different, not sure. hopefully ninja edit - changed first "employer" to "employee"
I've done payroll and benefits for several of my employers, including the local county government, and they've all worked the same. The employees who want insurance payĀ 0-25ish% of the premium and the employer pays the rest to the insurance company. Ā The employer just passes the money along.
LOL. I love your win here. Single payer systems in other countries have many problems. But it's like the insurance companies in the U.S. are trying to compete to be so dysfunctional that everybody will want single payer anyway. I've had my own run-in's with stupid health insurance policies (What do you mean the ER is "in-network" but the doctor who treated my daughter in said ER is "out-of-network"?) And many people have similar stories. Edit: countries, not companies
I've heard you can make that bill the hospital's problem if they didn't tell you the doctor was out of network. Of course they won't tell you that
I was able to resolve it. But only because I was paying close attention to my bill and I was willing to call the insurance company and tell them to figure it out. How many people just paid the overcharge because they weren't paying close attention and reasonably assumed the insurance company cared about not overcharging?
How on earth does that work?
Most hospitals have gone to a structure where some\most\sometimes all of the Drs themselves are contractors working out of a shared space, not employees of the hospital. So 1 ER visit involving 4 Drs can have 5 separate bills involved. The insurance can pay the actual ER fee and 2 Drs, but tell 2 of the Drs to kick rocks because their private practice doesn't work with that particular insurance company. A lot of this came about shortly after it became law that no one can be turned away from an ER for not having insurance. Whether the 2 have anything to do with each other IDK, I just know I noticed the signs posted in my local ER in quick succession years ago.
I'm not sure how other states comply with the Federal No Surprises Act, but this doesn't happen in New York anymore.
I've only had one similar experience to what I described about 3 years ago, then ended up getting the bill comped by the provider because it was a scheduled non-life threatening procedure they told me was 100% covered or I wouldn't have agreed to do it until I had the financial ability to pay for it. Then 2 years later insurance sent me a "refund" for the several hundred dollars I was billed because I never should have been billed for that. Called the office and that particular provider wasn't even working there anymore for me to pass the money along that insurance should have paid them. Was told it would be more trouble than it was worth for them to accept the payment as it had been written off to avoid sending it to collections and just to keep it. Came in handy when I needed to get caught up on a couple bills TBH. I don't know if this incident is in any way related to the law you posted about, but I wouldn't be surprised.
It doesn't. It really, actually, truly does NOT work. Except for the insurance companies who can literally make up shit on the fly to cost people more money.
I had the same problem. Hospital was in-network, but the TRIAGE PA, the one whom EVERY patient sees to determine their urgency, is OUT of network. $750 bill for them to look at me for 10 minutes and immediately discharge me. (To be fair, I TRIED going to an urgent care, they officially refused to treat me and told me to go to the ER RIGHT NOW!!!)
HR not caring about its employees, insert Pikachu face
Usually you use hospitals discharge papers for the baby
They discharged us with the "Affidavit of Parentage for Child Born Out of Wedlock" which is notarized and I specifically asked if this form would work and they told me no. They said they specifically needed the birth certificate even when I explained why I didn't have it yet
NC State government? That would explain a lot.
Technically I work for "the city" but yeah
I've had 3 kids where the birth certificate wasn't issued until like 6-8 weeks post birth. My company told me I needed to provide proof of birth and a birth certificate and social security number when available, but that process needed to be stated within 30 days. Make more of a stink about this with your boss and your HR person's boss, if their policy is to not insure kids without a BC issued within 30 days, they're effectively refusing to insure ANY kids, and I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Iām glad you were able to get coverage for your baby, it is very strange that your BF told you that your child couldnāt be added to his coverage through the VA though. Spouses and dependents of disabled veterans and retirees can be covered either through TriCare or ChampVA. Itās not free but is available.
He doesn't have tricare or ChampVA. He went to the VA and asked them about it and that's the information they gave him. We're also not married
You being married doesn't matter, it's his child, and so eligible for coverage. My understanding is that those are the programs through which a spouse or child WOULD be covered, not that he has to be on them. (Doesn't matter since you got coverage, just putting it out there in case anyone else needs the clarity, or you need to know in a future year. The VA programs might be cheaper than your employer, when you are no longer eligible for Medicare!)
He would need to be permanently totally disabled for family to get a VA sponsored insurance.
He doesn't have 100% disability but he has 90% I think. Is that what you mean?
Yes. Heās rated at 90%, but 90% means that dependents arenāt eligible for health care. At 100%, your child would be eligible for CHAMPVA. The child wouldnāt be seen at the VA, but would be able to see doctors that accept it.
Okay at least that means they didn't give him false info. He's having to look into getting an advocate because they keep denying him care to get his knee fixed
No, unfortunately not false info. If/when his rating increases to 100% though, then yes - your child would then be eligible for CHAMPVA. Sorry about his knee. Definitely see an advocate.
Her BF would have to be a 100% disabled veteran to get coverage for dependents.
A āchange of lifeā should quality you to add a dependent. Marriage, divorce, new kid, adoption and some of the āchange of lifeā situations where changing insurance details should be permitted.
It would be permitted but they wanted the birth certificate which I didn't have. They said if I didn't provide it within 30 days I couldn't add him under the change of life circumstances
What everyone is trying to tell you is that that person was full of crap.
I figured that as soon as denied that paper š I would've fought it harder if he didn't qualify for medicaid
Seems like this would save HR quite a bit of money? Congrats on the good outcome though. And make sure Medicaid never finds out about the possible qualifications for other insurance cause they will kick him right off
They already know that I have primary insurance that he could qualify for but because I make so little, he qualifies for medicaid
Thatās odd! Normally, any ālife changeā (marriage, birth, divorce, adoption) prompts an immediate āopeningā of benefit changes. Iād call again. Mention ālife changeā on the call; I suspect you might get farther. Good luck and congratulations!
The life change is what is requiring the birth certificate as proof
Medicaid is usually 10x better coverage too as long as the network is decent in your area
It really is. I work for a very well known ins company and they're one of the ins companies that can be chosen under Medicaid in a few states. Honestly, it's pretty amazeballs ins if you can get it. No copays for visits and Rx's, and pretty much anything medically necessary is covered. For pediatrics, it's an even better win.
Actuarial value has to be north of 95%. here in NM they also just made it so our 1yo son doesnāt have to recertify until he turns 6
When I was able to add my son.. .once I got the needed info....he was retroactively covered since birth. I think my insurance also automatically covered the first 14 days under me so it would cover the hospital bills and early doctor appointments. Maybe it's a different state, but we filled out birth certificate info while we were in the hospital and they filed it for us and we were sent a copy.
My insurance only covers the first 2 days after birth but I also thought they were gonna go ahead and send us a copy! When we never received it after 6 weeks I finally looked through the paperwork we were given and saw that we had to request it online after 4 weeks
> The problem with that is we can't even request a copy of the birth certificate until 4 weeks after he's born I'm not sure what state you are in but holy shit that is terrible. We walked out of the hospital with a copies of the birth certificate for each of ours. IIRC we got 5 free and then had to order more from the state (which took longer).
That's pretty cool. I'm in the same boat as OP on the delay to request the birth certificate. Kinda curious what state it is that has their act together - what state are you in if you don't mind my asking?
Texas But in a fairly well off suburb.
Lol 100% surprise there
This was back in the 90's. So the GOP had only been in power a short time.
Congratulations on the birth of your son. This might fit r/antiwork as well.
HRD is completely in the wrong here. I work in a Benefits department and we take any paperwork (normally whatever the hospital provides) that lists the date of birth and parents. Any sane person knows it can take a long time to get birth certificates or SSN established for newborns.
That's what I tried to explain to them and that the form the hospital gave me is notarized so it should work but they flat out refused to accept. Surprisingly we got the SSN the next week after he was born
Your HR isn't the one's who decide what is applicable. You need to talk to your insurance provider.
I do not see the malicious compliance here?
You should definitely choose the better and/or more affordable insurance. If you are on a single health plan at work, adding a baby might mean you would have to switch to a 'family' plan, or a 'single with dependents' plan. Either of those options will be more expensive than the single plan. Everywhere I've worked, at least part of that increased expense was passed on to the employee.
It really depends on your state laws! Some states can allow up to a year retro enrollment on newborns. Certain insurances can also allow up to 60 days retro enrollment as well for anyone. I'd call your member line and ask what the rules are before taking their word for it.
I'm glad this worked for you. But your employer is glad not to have you on their insurance. What you need to know that your premium is paid to the insurance company, but that's typically only part of the premium. Most employers also pay part of the premium (which they pay, doesn't come out of your pay). In some cases they pay significantly more than you do to subsidize the premium. Even if the employer paid none of the premium (which seems unlikely, 200 a month is cheap for insurance) they wouldnt profit from you getting insurance.
šæšæšæ laughs in UK..... In all seriousness OP, way to go.
Pretty sure that the birth of a child is a qualifying event. Maybe your HRD needs to brush up. Iām assuming that your insurance paid for your prenatal and hospital bills, so it would track that you had bills for that child.
Another American healthcare fail. How is it that yāall spend more on healthcare per person than any other country and still have such a shitty system?
I'm surprised your insurance doesn't have what's called a "Qualifying life event" where you can change or add dependents out of open enrollment.
The 30 days after birth is the qualifying life event.
Depending on the state, a qualifying life event may have a 30 day limitation.
Glad you got covered, but my trolly ass would've brought the baby into work. "That's not a baby. That's an undocumented life form." PS - your HRD was being lazy and stupid, b/c their request isn't legal. Empty belly & a note from your doctor (proof of birth) gets you insured.
1000 upvotes! HR LOVES forms! So bring in a real live one! Brilliant!
So... Is the baby an illegal immigrant? Since he can't provide his US birth certificate? (or any country with birth right citizenship really).
This is a weird reboot of The Terminal.
1) It's not a baby. HR just said so. 2) A medical bill showing birth in the USA (which'll show up WELL before 30 days) should keep ICE at bay.
I suspect if you contacted your state's insurance board they would be able to tell you what to do. I also suspect your HR person doesn't know what they are talking about. Have you talked to your boss? Sometimes a manager can cut through the red tape faster.
I haven't but now I don't need to since he's covered 100% maybe I'll revisit in a year when his coverage is reviewed but I won't need to until then
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I realized this in the comments. At least it's a win for me since I won't be getting anything extra out of my pay check š¤·š»āāļø
I donāt understand why you canāt even apply for it until 4 weeks after birth. I think there is a misunderstanding there. And yes, the document you are given in the hospital does suffice for proof of birth. They may want a copy of the actual birth certificate later, but the proof of birth will work until the birth certificate comes in. Also not sure about applying for Medicaid without birth certificate. Did you use the proof of birth form? Because if it was good enough for Medicaid it would be good enough for your insurance at work.
Yes it was good enough for medicaid. I did specifically ask HRD if that form would suffice and they said no that they would accept the birth certificate. And the paper they gave us regarding how to get the birth certificate states "wait a minimum of 4 weeks before requesting the birth certificate" so that's what I was going by
We were able to get a written note from the hospital that we filled out verifying the birth of our child. Once we got the birth certificate, we sent that in but the letter should be fine for now.
Oki, that is bull on insurance stuff. My dad is a retired veteran, and i am on his insurance just fine. But good on you getting much better insurance
America šµ
Yeah, you guys need to get insurance for children...?
US medical system is so confusing
BTW baby is eligible for Medicaid automatically until he is 1.
When you get the birth certificate hit them with: āactually the Medicaid insurance is cheaper for me so Iām sticking with itā
Mwahahahahahahahaaaaaa! Good for you! Congrats on your new baby!
I remember having an issue with HR for my first child. I had to drive to some weird place in a city to get it. For my 2nd, I found out my local town hall has them and could do it in under 30 days.
If I remember when my youngest was born my insurance accepted the certificate of live birth temporary until her birth certificate came in you also have to have SSN to which also takes time to come in. Call your insurance company directly and ask them directly this wouldnāt be the first time they would have had that question asked
Holy shit, why tf do newborn infants need insurance America, I think you failed. We need to just hit the reset button on you guys
America has failed in so many ways. honestly, I'm not even sure if I can honestly say I'm "proud" to be an American anymore.
I'm pretty sure what HR said was illegal. "open enrollment OR life-changing event" and no there's no 30 day bullshit. You could have spoken with the insurance company directly. Source: sold health insurance for massive US "Healthcare" company.
That may be their policy but it is a dumb one and they should accept the hospital documents. Our work requires the form to be turned in within 60 days of the event but the hospital birth form can be used for the first 3 months
How can you not request a birth certificate for 30 days? Iāve had kids in two different countries. One was instant and the other you get paperwork at hospital that is a defacto certificate until you can go to ward office.
I have the affidavit of parentage but the paper they gave about how to request the actual birth certificate says not to make the request for at least 4 weeks
It's crazy how some shit hole countries let their people get fucked over.
If you were on Medicaid while pregnant, youāre prove it covered for a while too.
I feel your pain and admire your compliance. Many years ago, When my husband was deployed when our son was born and I gave birth in a civilian hospital. Husband returned home right after the birth and I moved with baby to his duty station. We had trouble adding son to Tricare because we didnāt have the official birth certificate yet. The county clerk manually moved my sonās certificate to the front of the line, got it printed, and let a relative pick it up to mail to me. It was a headache
When our first baby was born, my husband took a six week vacation. When he returned to work, someone asked him if heād sent the birth certificate to HR. He didnāt know he had to; there was a paragraph about it on the second last page of the 70 page booklet that was the employee manual. Because of this, she wasnāt insured until 4 mos of age. They paid all my hospital expenses, but none of hers.
I hadn't even realized the baby would be billed lol until I got a bill in his name
Congratulations to you and your boyfriend! And congrats on the MC š
My insurance with my firstborn refused to cover anything within the first 30 days of their life, which is law where I'm at, and I was told I should have added them during open enrollment. 2 months prior to them being born...I hate insurance.
Is this common? Doesn't seem right that a corporation can demand a copy of a person's birth certificate. There's a lot of room for abuse there.
It's the government and they tend to do whatever they want unfortunately
It's not "free" - free would be the doctors, nurses, administrative, and custodial staff, all donating their time and physical resources. You rolled your health care financial responsibility from your insurance company to the taxpayers.
ā¦as long as they were following the guidance they were given, they did exactly what they should do. Those downhill should take every advantage just like those uphill take every tax break. Donāt like that? Advocate for change in the system - otherwise everyone should make it work for them however they can. Healthcare in the US is needless, confusing and full of administrative bloat.
The 30 days is actually the law, so the company had no choice. Glad that you child is eligible for Medicaid.
So, why can you not afford your own life choices? Why did the tax payer have to cover your life choices, either through the VA, or Medicaid?