Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it that there is no consideration to extend Cobra past the 18 months ? There were mentions of it here and there but nothing serious. It does not need to be subsitized but there have got to be many people that are loosing health insurance after the 18 months. There are a few states that have done this but why not on a federal level. There would be no cost to this if one pays for the continuation themselves. What am I missing ?
A federal mandate to extend COBRA in all states beyond the standard 18 months has been lobbied against for years by employers in most industries.
Most people who want to extend their COBRA coverage are regular users of health care benefits -- usually for chronic conditions. Keeping such people in an employer's pool of participants raises the average rate of usage for the group -- and insurers will raise rates for everyone in the pool (including the employer) as a result of higher average usage.
The true "cost" to the employer for COBRA is not in the premiums paid by COBRA participants -- it is in more frequent usage of the health care benefits, which can eventually drive up the cost of benefits for all: the employer, the employees, and the former employees who remain in the pool via COBRA.
Ok I have a question, that might have been answered before, but I couldn't find it.
When someone transitions from regular unemployment to the first tier, is there another wait week?
No, there is no "waiting week" between regular unemployment benefits and Tier I.
Unemployment weeks end on Saturday and begin on Sunday. So for example, if you exhaust your regular benefits on Saturday, March 13, you begin Tier I on Sunday, March 14.
Even if the written notification of your eligibility for Tier I is delayed for some reason (e.g., administrative backlog in your state, etc.), your Tier I benefits are retroactive to your eligible date -- in this example, March 14.
No, there is no "waiting week" between regular unemployment benefits and Tier I.
Unemployment weeks end on Saturday and begin on Sunday. So for example, if you exhaust your regular benefits on Saturday, March 13, you begin Tier I on Sunday, March 14.
Even if the written notification of your eligibility for Tier I is delayed for some reason (e.g., administrative backlog in your state, etc.), your Tier I benefits are retroactive to your eligible date -- in this example, March 14.
BTW, as a participant in COBRA myself, I share your frustration! Although the full COBRA premiums are high, the price of comparable coverage in the private insurance market is astronomical.
On an intellectual level, I can appreciate why employers might be opposed to extending the standard COBRA past 18 months. But in practical terms, it seems insane to cut off that option for people in this economy -- particularly as it appears that insurers are raising rates like crazy to get ahead of any future restrictions that may be put on them with the passage of health care reform.
This is so weird. Why is everyone in the House mum on this? It sounds like the bill is ready to go, except for some few items to iron out. It doesn't take long for the House to vote; we've seen that before.
What kind of politicking is going on here? We need to call members of the House and whoever runs the House a set a fire under them. LET'S DO IT STARTING MONDAY.
I will plan on calling every 2-3 hours to check on the status of the bill. I hope others will jump on the wagon with me...
It appears that the disagreement about funding certain aspects of HR 4213 has enough support that the House is trying to negotiate some compromise.
The compromise will have to be sufficient to get the bill passed by the House -- but then also be acceptable to the Senate, which will need to vote again on the bill if the House amends it.
particularly as it appears that insurers are raising rates like crazy to get ahead of any future restrictions that may be put on them with the passage of health care reform.
Yes, they will want to get the baseline rates as high as possible - the first of the "unintended consequences" of HRC but not likely the last.
If you recall, one proposal early on was to let people stay in COBRA indefinitely (up to Medicare age) if they were either 55+ or had been with the employer 10 years. That, especially the 2nd part, was far too extreme to fly.
One thing they could consider would be to extend past 18 months only if laid off, with a small subsidy to the employer to offset at least part of the "adverse selection" cost.
BTW, one HCR provision is that your carrier can't drop you if you get sick - I wonder if that has any significance for a COBRA participant when the coverage has been exhausted?
Yes, they will want to get the baseline rates as high as possible - the first of the "unintended consequences" of HRC but not likely the last.
If you recall, one proposal early on was to let people stay in COBRA indefinitely (up to Medicare age) if they were either 55+ or had been with the employer 10 years. That, especially the 2nd part, was far too extreme to fly.
One thing they could consider would be to extend past 18 months only if laid off, with a small subsidy to the employer to offset at least part of the "adverse selection" cost.
BTW, one HCR provision is that your carrier can't drop you if you get sick - I wonder if that has any significance for a COBRA participant when the coverage has been exhausted?
CC
Only when "sick" is a permanent disability.
My understanding is that under federal law, you can continue COBRA for up to 29 months only if -- within the first 60 days of COBRA coverage -- you become permanently disabled according to the Social Security Administration, and you notify the COBRA administrator before the end of the initial 18-month COBRA period.
Some background on HR 2847 -- and two related bills (HR 4213 and HR 4691) -- to put them all in the current context:
(1) HR 2847 was originally a very large appropriations bill which the House transformed into an exceedingly large jobs creation bill under pressure from The White House to get a jobs creation bill passed before the end of 2009. The House passed HR 2847 and sent it to the Senate for a vote in December 2009.
(2) In February 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) made headlines when he slashed HR 2847 to a bare-bones jobs creation bill. In the process, Reid eliminated the extensions of the cut-off dates for the EUC Tier program and the COBRA premium subsidy, as well as other benefits for the unemployed.
(3) That same month, the Senate passed this amended ("trimmed down") version of HR 2847, and sent it back to the House for passage (minus any benefits for the unemployed).
(4) Reid then resurrected HR 4213 -- The Tax Extenders Act -- and added amendments to that bill which would extend the EUC Tier cut-off dates, the COBRA subsidy, and other benefits for the unemployed through year-end 2010.
(5) Because of the delay in getting HR 4213 passed, the House and the Senate passed The Temporary Extension Act (HR 4691) as a stop-gap -- which extended the cut-off date for the COBRA subsidy to March 31, 2010, and the cut-off dates for the EUC Tiers to April 5, 2010.
(6) HR 4213 was eventually passed by the Senate -- and is now in the House awaiting a vote. The delay in the House is reportedly due to a disagreement on the sources of funding for the programs in this bill and its amendments (including the benefits for the unemployed).
(7) Meanwhile -- back to HR 2847! Recently, the House did pass an amended version of HR 2847 -- and those amendments were changes in the sources of funding (the same issue the House is presently grappling with for HR 4213). The House sent the amended version of HR 2847 back to the Senate for a vote. But before allowing the Senate to vote on HR 2847, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) has referred the bill to the Senate Committee for Appropriations for financial analysis of those sources of funding, as amended by the House.
I can understand people thinking that HR 2847 could theoretically be the vehicle for expanding the EUC Tiers (e.g., Tier V or additional weeks for the existing Tiers). But I think it is unlikely that the Senate will move to put UI benefits back into a bill from which they were cut just a few months ago. Particularly since those benefits are being addressed in other legislation at this time (HR 4213) -- albeit to a lesser extent than many unemployed would like. And to date, we have heard no member of Congress champion a Tier V nor single out HR 2847 as the legislation to provide one.
Bottom Line: From my vantage point at this time, it looks like little more than wishful thinking that the Congress will add more UI extensions into HR 2847. But as we have all seen, the Congress can change positions over time.
Last edited by diorgirl; 03-13-2010 at 09:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
