This is much more likely to be allowable rather than required. An employer that subsidizes spousal coverage will minimize exposure by following this structure.
At a previous employer, employee coverage was 100% employer paid and spousal or family coverage was 100% employee paid. There is likely some cross-subsidization going on in the development of the premiums but the goal was not to provide the same benefits to married and single employees, whereas employers that subsidize a potion of the spousal/family coverage is providing additional compensation to someone solely because they are married or have kids.
Well, COB rules can be complicated, especially for dependents. But for your spouse, the employee is paid primary, the spouse is paid secondary. Of course, whether a plan allows a spouse that has their own employer based coverage on the employee’s plan depends on the rules set by the plan sponsor. They can either allow it, allow it with a spousal surcharge, or not allow it at all. The only plans that allow it these days are so-called “Cadillac plans”
Ok, it seems like there’s two separate issues here. Let’s assume that both spouses work at different employers and both have the option to buy insurance through their employer.
Can you cover both spouses on the same plan?
Can you elect to have dual coverage? (ie cover both spouses on both plans) and if you do, how do the benefits coordinate?
Answers (as I understand them):
Usually yes, but if one spouse is rejecting subsidized coverage through their own employer there is commonly a surcharge. The surcharge is not required by Obamacare… it’s up to the employer.
Usually yes, but the coverage through your own employer will be primary and through your spouse’s employer will be secondary. Health insurance is so expensive these days it’s rarely wise to do this anymore.
I pay a lot for the “family plan” on top of a spouse surcharge, but I think it’s “worth it” for me, because my employer contributes more to my HSA. In other words, even though it’s expensive, it’s free money.
It’s probably not worth it to my wife, but I have no idea since she doesn’t like to share or think about it, lol.
I do not think the restrictions on COB and requiring a spouse to use (not reject) their insurance if offered has anything to do with Obamacare.
This was the case for the Boeing medical plan back when i worked at Blueshield 25+ years ago.
That’s not true. My husband has been on my plan most years, despite having an option from his employer. It is true that you have to declare you have adequate coverage when you turn down your employer’s plan. At least, that’s how it works for me. I suspect it was an administrative choice by your employer if you didn’t have that option.
Okay, maybe i just am totally not understanding what you are describing.
Since we do old quotes every once in a while I am submitting Jackie Kennedy’s advice:
“Read, then think. Listen, then think. Watch, then think. Think-then speak”.
Sadly, the media focused on Jackie’s glamour rather than her intelligence. In a different time, she might have been a very different type of first lady.
The letter signed by house democrats in response to Rep Jaypal’s statements on Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
“Israel remains the only vibrant, progressive, and inclusive democracy in the region. Arab parties serve in the Knesset, women serve at the highest levels of the military, and the country remains an oasis for LGBTQ+ people in a region hostile toward the community. Pluralism flourishes in Israel,” the group said in a statement on Monday.
Weird. He Israeli response to the Palestinian situation has been to use the military. Whether you call it retribution or police action, it’s the military that is the blunt instrument. How does LGBTQ even come into the discussion? We have an analogous situation in our own history. Do these Ds now think that General Custer and Wounded Knee were ok, because we freed the slaves?
My point is I cannot connect any coherent moral position to why one is a national shame while the Israeli is fine. Seems like they just want to make sure two segments, Jews and LGBTQ stay in their tribe. Win at any cost.
More neutral link about it that’s a lot less crucify-y:
People shouldn’t wait to experience a really bad event to see the goodness in good policy or (in this case) the badness of bad policy. Maybe “defund the police/ACAB” is just as bad of an extreme as “smother a suspect like an animal in the street” is.
Some other links on the incident spent more time throwing her past “dismantle the police” comments in her face, which didn’t seem like a necessary or helpful tone to take. Doing good now is more important than dwelling on bad that was done in the past.
It’s unfortunate that “Defund the police”/ACAB became a rallying cry. Some people obviously truly believe it. Other people like me think fundamental reform is needed, and while only some cops are “bad apples”, too many cover up for them, both on the streets and in the bureaucracy.
But “reduce funding for police militarization while revamping standards of conduct and disciplinary procedures, and a significant proportion of cops are bad” is a bad chant.
Not commenting on this woman in particular as I don’t know the details beyond the article. Being an ACAB politician is polarizing though, only flies in safe districts.
I think all but the very most adamant “defund the police” people would think that this is the sort of incident that the police should be invoked with. I’m not sure where she falls on this.
Also, “defund the police” has always been a really stupid name for that movement.