Elvira

I would get this checked out. AFAIK they cannot boot a spouse off the insurance if his/her employment does not offer insurance. I would assume this includes self-employment.

There must be some ombudsman who deals with this kind of thing - at least I would expect there to be one.

I'm not sure what is worse - dealing with USCIS or medical insurance...

jumping doris

They are like evil twins.

penguinsix

I've been hearing about this "spouse covers = no cover" type of insurance recently (last two years). Some firms are looking to cut costs anywhere they can and if they have the option, they'd rather push the costs to some other company rather than themselves.

I'm not sure what the OP career is (guess I didn't read close enough) but it is a common complaint of expats of all varieties that when one moves, the other is kind of on hold, or has to take a step down in their job to continue working. It can be especially difficult if you are moving to a smaller area, or a place that has only limited opportunities for your field.

I also continued to be amazed at some of the vacation policies reported (I'm getting more and more hesitant to mention mine which seem absolutely gold platted compared to some). But it also gets back to the point that if you are in a small pond trying to land a job, you're often pushed into a corner on some of the benefits.

scrubbedexpat099

You would not have, this is quite a common question, I remember somebody refusing a promotion because it would come with (crappy) insurance and she did not want to lose her spouses cover.

This contradicts your prior comment.

scrubbedexpat099

There is no law that I am aware of that requires Employers to provide cover, so why would there be one that required that it be offered to non employees?

The Office had a re run last week, one of the episodes was about changes to the Medical Coverage.

Elvira

I got the impression that we are talking about the kind of policies that covers the spouse as long as said spouse is not entitled to insurance from another source. This is what we have.

I know a lot of women whose husbands do not have health cover (mostly self-employed) who work SOLELY to get healthcare benefits for their families.

Whether or not it is possible for a company to backtrack on such an arrangement, I don't know. I imagine that would be covered in the employment contract.

If it possible, it is indeed frightening, because I could imagine that it would be a sign of things to come.

Welcome to America...

penguinsix

It varies from state to state. Some are more interesting, such as DC which says "if you provide insurance to the CEO, you have to offer the same package to the janitor." Other states require some assistance if your company is XX big. But generally no, there is no law requiring insurance. It's more of a 'vote with your feet' thing if you don't like the offer.

Elvira

But can they suddenly move the goalposts? i.e. if they cover employee plus spouse at the start, can they at some point in the future say 'sorry, but we will not cover your spouse any longer'?

penguinsix

More and more I'm seeing not an offer of 'health insurance' but an offer of money that is to be spent on health insurance. It's actually a way to pass the buck of blame. If the cost rise, the company isn't necessarily responsible for handling the increases. The benefit is $XXX and the cost my be $XXX+$100 and many people end up blaming the insurance company (and secondarily their company). Next year is $XXX+$150.

Watch the contract and see if they give you a stipend for health insurance or offer a health insurance policy. Also see if the policy they offer you is a kind of 'expat' policy (where they expect you to 'come home' for major medical treatment and just handle emergencies in the US) or whether it is a standard US policy that offer normal stuff too (doctor visits, medicine, etc).

penguinsix

If they say, in the contract, we're going to cover both, then well, it's in the contract. You have a claim. You took the job in 'reliance' of the terms in the contract, and for them to change the terms after the fact is the same as them saying 'we're now going to pay you 10% less each year'. Lawyer time.

If they say 'we provide $XXX for health insurance" then, well, you are kind of out of luck. It is up to you to buy insurance and if the price is more one year than the next, it is something you have to deal with.

It really all comes down to what was in the contract when signed.

jumping doris

I think what I meant was.......some of OH's colleagues are p**sed off because their wives have jobs that don't offer very good health care and they now have to make the choice between giving up the job and income in order to keep the better health care or having a job with not such good health care. Only one person has a self employed spouse and it has been suggested she will have to buy her own health ins. I don't know what she does and if she can afford it.
If I were self employed and earned enough to buy my own and it was as good as the OH's then I would. But looking at the cost of comparable care if I had to buy it would mean I would have to earn a lot more than I did in the UK.

Now I don't know what I mean

Lycanthrop

This is typical in families where the husband is in the trades and self-employed.......seen a lot of it in the NE. Where the wife is FORCED to go to work in order to cover the health insurance.

Whats an "employment contract"? I seem to vaguely recall one back in the mists of time..........wait - that was in the UK........doesn't count! They will do ANYTHING they want, WHENEVER they feel like it........nyet comrade?

We know by now that if a company in the US can slash costs anywhere........they absolutely will (viva....lean!) and with very little (legal) employee protection here and their guns now trained on benefits reduction also, its only going to get worse. Happy happy joy joy............

......."whistling through the graveyard..........."

scrubbedexpat099

I live in an At Will State, so they can tell you not to bother coming in tomorrow, or after lunch.

I presume, but am not sure, that there may be COBRA for any discontinued coverage, perhaps too logical.

I think we are talking generally, not just for ex-pat contracts.

If I was The Decider (ack to GW) then this seems the obvious way to go, you can at least cap costs to a known figure. Similar in many ways to Pensions moving from a Final Salary to Defined Benefits.

scrubbedexpat099

Tell them that you have a very bad employer, of the worst sort, that will not provide you with cover......

Makes me wonder, quite a few Mums I know who may not work full time have income generating side lines. Do they check your tax returns?

Lycanthrop