[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Canada strips Jewish National Fund of charitable status

Minnesota State Rep. Vang just admitted that she is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

1100% increase in neurological events since the roll-out of Covid mRNA

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.

Earth is being Pulled Apart by Crazy Space Weather! Volcanoes go NUTS as Plasma RUNS OUT

Gavin, feel free to use this as a campaign ad in 2028.

US To Formalize Military Presence in Syria in Deal With al-Qaeda-Linked Govt

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling Free Palestine Slogan as Anti-Semitism

Two-thirds of troops who left the military in 2023 were at risk for mental health conditions

UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference

Kamala Backs LA Protests After Rioters Attack Federal Officers

Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox partners move ahead with Knesset dissolution plan

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine: Zelensky will leave the country

Man protesting Paramount ICE raid added to FBI's Most Wanted

JUAN O SAVIN- The Plan to Capture America

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?

Rickards: The Truth About Fort Knox And Gold Leasing


All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Question about emplioyee health coverage
Source: /
URL Source: http:///
Published: Oct 16, 2007
Author: /
Post Date: 2007-10-16 02:35:33 by Artisan
Keywords: None
Views: 242
Comments: 7

Thought I'd tap into the wealth of knowledge and experience here.

Can anyone offer any thoughts on the following? It sounds screwy and blanantly illegal to me. I'm trying to help out a friend with this. (By the way don't bother saying 'get a lawyer'. I have a feeling this is too easy to waste money on, and i'm a do-it-yourself-er with a proven track record.)

A new employee of a company is told that now is the time of the enrollment period for the company offered health plan. The new employee (stupidly) signs up (on the phone automated system) but are not given the premium price until after 'agreement' and then a premium quote is given,. (Why anyone would agree to anything without a price quote is beyond me). The employee then decides she does not want the coverage because it is too expensive. and she doesn't want to opt to join their health plan.

The benefits dept then insists that it's too late to refuse coverage, and they contend that the reason they will not stop deducting $50 per week from her check is not because she initially agreed, but because the employee is 'not covered by any other group plan". So they are contending that not only can their company plan be forced on an employee against their will, but that even if the employee had other private coverage ., it wouldn't be adequate grounds for refusal of the corporate plan, unless it was specifically 'GROUP' coverage from a former employer or spouse.

There is nothing at all in the employement contract about this. The employee never agreed to such terms. The ''benefits' woman answers this by insisting that the benefits dept 'has nothing to do with human resources'. she insists there is no way out of it. It is as if they are contending that employment is contingent upon purchasing their own overpriced health plan. The employee also did not give consent for automatic deduction of this amount from her check.

Now i'm no lawyer but i have sued several companies, govt agencies, etc. in the past and won every time without counsel. and it sounds to me like in this case, they can sue the shit out of them. as well as labor board issues. what do you think? ever heard of anything like this?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Artisan (#0)

Sounds fishy. First, $50 a week (deducted from your pretax income, so really about $20) is reasonable. Second, any company would be happy to be rid of her, since she costs them money.

I'd go back and look again. This is bogus. She has some agenda. She is getting a good deal. If she has other coverage, fine. Otherwise, she's a moron.

Honi soit qui mal y pense

Mekons4  posted on  2007-10-16   2:40:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)

It's not a matter of 'she's getting a good deal'. You think over 200 bucks a month is reasonable for a young lady- have you shopped around?

The larger issue is not if it's a good deal but that she doesn't want it. I don't think company offered health care can be a condition of employment if not agreed to in advance. since no contract is valid without consent, this is not a contract and thus not enforceable.

Second, any company would be happy to be rid of her, since she costs them money.

Foolish to fire someone they just hired; plus, they'd need legit grounds to fire her at this point. If they tried to fire her in retaliation for not accepting to purchase their health plan, she probably wouldn't need to work for a long while after getting paid on that one.

Artisan  posted on  2007-10-16   3:05:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Artisan (#0)

I’m thinking your friend has found herself in the murky world of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). This legislation is as messy as it comes, and altho initially intended to ensure that corporate retirement plans weren’t raped by the CEOs, etc, thanks to lobbyists today it’s tentacles extend into company sponsored HC plans. Basically your friend has no rights and resistance is futile because no lawyer worth their salt would touch an ERISA matter (no punitive damages are allowed in a victory - all that is recovererable is the $50 a week she is spending on her benefit package). Add in the attorneys fee and the consumer loses in this battle. IMO, have her bite the bullet and bail out of the program during the next open enrolment period.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-10-16   7:37:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Artisan (#0)

If you work for the railroad, you have to pay for coverage whether you want it or not.

angle  posted on  2007-10-16   10:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Artisan (#0)

You'd have to read all the rules and regs the federales have imposed........and then do the same for the state she is in.

You may think this is expensive for a young woman, but young women get pregnant. Pregnancy is one item that has caused premiums to rise.

rowdee  posted on  2007-10-16   12:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Jethro Tull (#3)

Yes, the hack mentioned ERISA. Seems like one would have to wade into the murky waters of all this BS in order to sort it out. The most galling part is that the person acts as if they are doing it 'in the persons best interest'.

'compulsory health care, whether you like it or not'.

Coercion & deciept is never in anyone's best interest.

Here is a proposed law in CA: Mandatory Health Insurance: SB 48 would require employers to provide health insurance. Non-employees would be required to purchase insurance from the state.

Thanks for the reply, when I find an answer I'll let you know what it was.

Artisan  posted on  2007-10-16   12:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Artisan (#6)

ERISA

I thought so. ERISA, in effect, makes *every* HC plan issued by an employer to an employee a *government* program. It's become a shield for corporations to hide behind and it’s virtual impossibility to dent it. I have extensive personal experience w/ERISA and that's why I suggested that your friend bite the bullet and wait until the open enrollment period to opt out. Good luck!

Jethro Tull  posted on  2007-10-16   12:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]