A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

California medical coverage



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 12th 03, 10:19 PM
The DaveŠ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default California medical coverage

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.
  #2  
Old August 13th 03, 02:44 AM
TOM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default California medical coverage

The DaveŠ wrote:

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.


Don't know about health insurance, but in Colorado, a child is 18 until
he/she turns 19, meaning child support continues untill the 19th
birthday, not the 18th birthday as in some states...

Tom - Vista, CA

  #3  
Old August 15th 03, 10:03 AM
Chris Owens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default California medical coverage

The DaveŠ wrote:

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.


Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
search on Google.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #4  
Old August 16th 03, 05:27 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default California medical coverage

The DaveŠ wrote:

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.


Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
search on Google.

Chris Owens



Only if you consider a single line following the "Today's listing of puppies
born at the animal shelter" section back on page K-37 to be "widely covered"...

Maybe you're right, though. Some lefty could get a lot of votes bragging about
sponsoring such a bill "for the CHILDREN"...

But nobody would give a damn about the unfairness of it.

Mel Gamble
  #5  
Old August 16th 03, 05:27 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default California medical coverage

The DaveŠ wrote:

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.


Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
search on Google.

Chris Owens



Only if you consider a single line following the "Today's listing of puppies
born at the animal shelter" section back on page K-37 to be "widely covered"...

Maybe you're right, though. Some lefty could get a lot of votes bragging about
sponsoring such a bill "for the CHILDREN"...

But nobody would give a damn about the unfairness of it.

Mel Gamble
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Various MD crimes (obvious ones) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 May 17th 04 04:48 PM
New Milford Hospital EMERGENCY! (John Sussman, MD to pay for new illustrations?) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 May 14th 04 01:35 AM
Medical illustrators: Global effort for babies Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 April 23rd 04 11:34 PM
Medical Illustrators to the rescue! (I hope) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 April 21st 04 05:54 PM
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 6 April 7th 04 04:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.