Child Support-Medicaid even though 50/50

[Isis1]

What are you talking about?

pay no nevermind to that one's comments. we usually don't.

 

[Ohiogal]

ok... it does say that in #1... but in #3 it more specifically says the father has to maintain him on his. In #5 it states that we may keep secondary coverage.

And? Mom was ORDERED to insure her child. She didn't do it.

And #5 does NOT state what you say it states. Here is the actual wording:

5. Secondary Coverage - IT IS ORDERED that nothing in this order shall prevent either party from providing secondary health insurance coverage for the child at that party's sole cost and expense. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a party provides secondary health insurance coverage for the child, both parties shall cooperate fully with regard to the handling and filing of claims with the insurance carrier providing the coverage in order to maximize the benefits available to the child and to ensure that the party who pays for health=care expenses for the child is reimbursed for the payment from both carriers to the fullest extent possible.

Nothing in three states that Father is to provide the ONLY insurance. It was already ordered that BOTH parents were to insure the child on their health insurance. Basically, three states that Father is to add the child NO LATER than the date of the order. But it does not contradict the order that BOTH PARENTS are to have the child insured. Your wife is in contempt of court and if you go after dad be prepared to find your wife in just as much trouble.

No where in there does it state Mother MAY provide secondary coverage and doesn't have to provide insurance as she was ordered prior. In fact it states that there is NOTHING preventing one insurance to be secondary but both parties must cooperate if there are two insurances in coordinating benefits. Mother was ORDERED to insure the child as was father.

 

[mistoffolees]

And? Mom was ORDERED to insure her child. She didn't do it.

And #5 does NOT state what you say it states. Here is the actual wording:


Nothing in three states that Father is to provide the ONLY insurance. It was already ordered that BOTH parents were to insure the child on their health insurance. Basically, three states that Father is to add the child NO LATER than the date of the order. But it does not contradict the order that BOTH PARENTS are to have the child insured. Your wife is in contempt of court and if you go after dad be prepared to find your wife in just as much trouble.

No where in there does it state Mother MAY provide secondary coverage and doesn't have to provide insurance as she was ordered prior. In fact it states that there is NOTHING preventing one insurance to be secondary but both parties must cooperate if there are two insurances in coordinating benefits. Mother was ORDERED to insure the child as was father.

I agree completely - but isn't it rather strange that the court expects BOTH parents to provide health insurance? Seems like a waste of money to me.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree completely - but isn't it rather strange that the court expects BOTH parents to provide health insurance? Seems like a waste of money to me.

I have seen orders like that. I think its a huge waste of money also. However, once in a while it doesn't cost anything to add the kids to the other parent's insurance (because the other parent already has a family plan) so in that instance it makes sense to me.

What strikes me as wierd is that the order says that both of them must carry insurance, yet down below gives them permission to have secondary insurance, which they have already been ordered to provide...because one of them will be providing primary insurance and the other secondary.

 

[mistoffolees]

What strikes me as wierd is that the order says that both of them must carry insurance, yet down below gives them permission to have secondary insurance, which they have already been ordered to provide...because one of them will be providing primary insurance and the other secondary.

That's just normal coordination of benefits stuff. Even if both parents have insurance, one will be primary and one secondary - based on the plans themselves. Basically, the judge is saying that they have to work with the companies on coordination of benefits.

It think what happened is that the judge cut and pasted stuff to come up with this order. He only needed the second half of paragraph 5 (stating that the parents have to work together on coordination of benefits). The first part (that the order does not prevent them from having secondary coverage) is redundant since he has already ordered them each to have coverage. It's pointless to have it there, but it doesn't do any harm.

 

[Ohiogal]

I agree completely - but isn't it rather strange that the court expects BOTH parents to provide health insurance? Seems like a waste of money to me.

Depends on what the child's medical issues are and whether the judge thought it would was worth the risk for this child to EVER be without insurance. It also depends on the employment history of both parents and various other things.

It may not be a waste of money depending on the benefits offered by both insurances, deductibles and premiums as well as medical costs.

 

[LdiJ]

Depends on what the child's medical issues are and whether the judge thought it would was worth the risk for this child to EVER be without insurance. It also depends on the employment history of both parents and various other things.

It may not be a waste of money depending on the benefits offered by both insurances, deductibles and premiums as well as medical costs.

If neither parent has other children, and they both have to go on a family plan at $400.00 a month to provide insurance for the child, then that is $800.00 a month, just for the child's insurance. That is almost 10k a year just to insure the child...and more than a lot of people's rent or house payment.

The secondary insurance is going to cover copays, deductibles, and out of pocket amounts. 4k a year would cover a heck of a lot of unreimbursed costs.

 

[Ohiogal]

If neither parent has other children, and they both have to go on a family plan at $400.00 a month to provide insurance for the child, then that is $800.00 a month, just for the child's insurance. That is almost 10k a year just to insure the child...and more than a lot of people's rent or house payment.

The secondary insurance is going to cover copays, deductibles, and out of pocket amounts. 4k a year would cover a heck of a lot of unreimbursed costs.

Hmmmm... and where did you get the cost of $400.00 a month? We have NO IDEA how much their insurance each cost. They may have very good benefits. That was most likely taken into consideration AT THE TIME of the order. We also don't know the health of the child or what the actual circumstances are.

The POINT is that mom is also ordered to provide insurance. Before she starts screaming contempt she needs to realize that SHE is also liable for insurance and could be found in contempt. The Court order is clear.

 

[LdiJ]

Hmmmm... and where did you get the cost of $400.00 a month? We have NO IDEA how much their insurance each cost. They may have very good benefits. That was most likely taken into consideration AT THE TIME of the order. We also don't know the health of the child or what the actual circumstances are.

The POINT is that mom is also ordered to provide insurance. Before she starts screaming contempt she needs to realize that SHE is also liable for insurance and could be found in contempt. The Court order is clear.

The bolded is simply what family plans tend to average in cost, from my observations.

 

[Ohiogal]

The bolded is simply what family plans tend to average in cost, from my observations.

My husband's family plan cost $40 a week. So again, the $400 figure seems like it is plucked out of thin air.

 

[mistoffolees]

The bolded is simply what family plans tend to average in cost, from my observations.

That's a totally arbitrary figure.

In addition, it's not really reasonable to consider the cost of the family plan. Rather, one should consider the difference between the parent's coverage and the family plan.

For example, my insurance is $379 a month. Adding my daughter brings it up to $480 - so her cost is $101.

We were just considering whether to switch her to my ex's policy since she has better coverage. The monthly 'family plan' for her is $200 more than the individual plan.

And, of course, for many people, the incremental cost is zero - if they already have a family plan because of other children.

Not that any of that matters. The court order says that both parents are to insure the child on their employer's policy. Since Dad is not employed, it is entirely possible that Mom is in contempt while Dad is not.

 

[LdiJ]

That's a totally arbitrary figure.

In addition, it's not really reasonable to consider the cost of the family plan. Rather, one should consider the difference between the parent's coverage and the family plan.

For example, my insurance is $379 a month. Adding my daughter brings it up to $480 - so her cost is $101.

We were just considering whether to switch her to my ex's policy since she has better coverage. The monthly 'family plan' for her is $200 more than the individual plan.

And, of course, for many people, the incremental cost is zero - if they already have a family plan because of other children.

Not that any of that matters. The court order says that both parents are to insure the child on their employer's policy. Since Dad is not employed, it is entirely possible that Mom is in contempt while Dad is not.

Most of the plans that I have been familiar with have been either zero cost or a fairly small cost for the employee, another cost for an employee and spouse, and yet another cost for a family plan. And honestly, most of the family plans I have seen have averaged around $400.00 a month. However, I do know that costs vary depending on how much the employer contributes, and depending on state regulations.

And yes, if they already have a family plan the incremental cost is zero, so it absolutely makes sense to me for children to have dual coverage in that instance.

 

[Silverplum]

I wonder why this STEPdad got TWO PAGES of answers...when any given stepMOM gets her butt handed to her in post #2, #3, #4, #5, and so forth.




Or perhaps the truth, because I'm NOT even a tiny bit confused:



You folks are something else. Really.

 

[Ohiogal]

I wonder why this STEPdad got TWO PAGES of answers...when any given stepMOM gets her butt handed to her in post #2, #3, #4, #5, and so forth.



Or perhaps the truth, because I'm NOT even a tiny bit confused:



You folks are something else. Really.

Love ya, Silver!