Employers use federal law to deny benefits

Yet another case where the legislators in this country made a problem where there was not one beforehand. I swear..... just repeal this law and any others, and make it clear that when a person has paid ALL OF THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS, these companies are R E Q U I R E D to pay on these policies.

Bad Press Spherion ! Why would someone want to work for a company that takes advantage of its employees, especially a dying one !

Insurance should be made illegal -their lobbyists bribed our crooked politicos & they do not pay their insured for their losses-the Katrina bunch are a prime example.Our present bunch of corrupt politicos force us to buy auto & the plan is to force us to buy medical-no hope for the hopeless.

The reason things like this happens is that we the people elect some useless lawyers to Congress who cannot make a living otherwise and they become the mouth pieces of lobbyists. We need working people in Congress who know what life is all about and have had to work everyday, provide for their families,no medical insurance, high cost of education, high taxes, and no representation in Washington for the poor working slob. It is time to throw all these buffoons out of Washington and get a whole new slate of working people there who know what the working person has to endure. I for dont think I will ever vote for any no acccount lawyer for any office or any teacher, or professor for any office. They are all sorry lots to have in Wshington because look at the messs the government is in because of these people.

They ought to be tared, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Talk about a** holes.

Don't worry! These vague over-reaching laws will only be used against 'bad people', never good regular Americans.

They always tell you this, and you always lap it up.

So whats new, just more corruption, and the funny thing is everybody that diagrees, does nothin but open and close their mouths, it would be nice if the mute button worked, we have a nation of complainers, and cry babys, oh don't worry tomorrow their will be somtin else to complain about.

What an outrageous abuse of corporate power. That poor widow. I don't know how these corporate thugs sleep at night.

Why should the client even have to SUE for benefits? The company should pay the benefit simply because that was what was implied (or specifically stated) when the insurance policy was sold. But that's beginning to be the norm for insurance companies -- promise anything, deliver nothing.

maybe instead of bickering we could contact our lawmakers and demand they repeal this law.

When I was 32 my particially disabled Marine Vet husband died very unexpectedly of a major heart attach. He had GI life insurance for which the paperwork and premium was paid and sent in a few weeks before he died. A few weeks after the funeral I was notifed the government had declined to pay because....his signature was not on the check. It was on all other papers and he made out the check.
So I hired a lawyer to go with me to Little Rock to do whatever. Knowing the paperwork was completed and holding the check in my hand (without signature) I was told too bad, go home, forget it. Life was very difficult what with a 18 mo old and a 4 year old, but with the help of my parents and much hardwork on my part, I made it.
It does seem as though the big guys manage to crap on the small guys pretty regularly. Always have, always will.

Wake up USA wrote:

The reason things like this happens is that we the people elect some useless lawyers to Congress who cannot make a living otherwise and they become the mouth pieces of lobbyists. We need working people in Congress who know what life is all about and have had to work everyday, provide for their families,no medical insurance, high cost of education, high taxes, and no representation in Washington for the poor working slob. It is time to throw all these buffoons out of Washington and get a whole new slate of working people there who know what the working person has to endure. I for dont think I will ever vote for any no acccount lawyer for any office or any teacher, or professor for any office. They are all sorry lots to have in Wshington because look at the messs the government is in because of these people.

Someone is getting it. The government needs to be representative of the people it serves. That means it can't be made up of just one sector of labor, like we have right now. Then again if we did that politicians would sake their skin and don a new one. Term limits would probably be the best thing for all levels of government including local.

Roger wrote:

They ought to be tared, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Talk about a** holes.

You forgot the most important thing, they should be 'SKINNED' first, then tared, feathered and shipped out of the country on a rail !

pigfart wrote:

So whats new, just more corruption, and the funny thing is everybody that diagrees, does nothin but open and close their mouths, it would be nice if the mute button worked, we have a nation of complainers, and cry babys, oh don't worry tomorrow their will be somtin else to complain about.

You're probably one of those douche bags that has a low paying job, with little or no benefits. You probably expect the folks, like the people in the article to pay more taxes to make up for your worthless life. It is folks like you that deserve nothing.

pigfart wrote:

<quoted text>
funny what you can catch if you put the right bait on your hook........lets see, you have a family and some how the world owes you somtin??? you have a tragedy, and money is gonna help you out, and it always comes down to money, I bet you play the lottery, maybe even go to the casino once in a while, the sooner you take control of your life, the better off you will be, and realize death was on this earth long before money was, and it will be here long after, and just because you get ripped off by some corrupt insurance company, doesn't change the fact that someone died in your family or whatever the case may be. grow up

If money wont fix all, then why does everyone think that the more kids you have the more money the gov't should hand you. It is always the folks that actually pay for something that get screwed. Dirt bags all over this country get awarded money due to some stupid thing they did themselves. We throw millions of $$ in lawsuits at blacks when they lose their job and scream racism. Then something like this and you think they should not get their money.

SharkBite wrote:

<quoted text>You're probably one of those douche bags that has a low paying job, with little or no benefits. You probably expect the folks, like the people in the article to pay more taxes to make up for your worthless life. It is folks like you that deserve nothing.

So you are saying that anyone with a low paying job, with very little benefits, is a douche bag??? I mean I had to read it twice, you just called anybody workin for McDonalds or at a car wash, or a waitress in a restaurant, or a dishwasher, or a field worker, I mean almost anyone gettin minimum wage,...... a douche bag???....talk about arrogance.....it is obvious your mindset

Did you know...employers and insurance companies are trying to make it madatory to have genetic screens done before they hire or insure an employee to "cut down on costs".

Congress Passes Bill to Bar Bias Based on Genes

A bill that would prohibit discrimination by health insurers and employers based on the information that people carry in their genes won final approval in Congress on Thursday by an overwhelming vote.
The legislation, which President Bush has indicated he will sign, speaks both to the mounting hope that genetic research may greatly improve health care and the fear of a dystopia in which people’s own DNA could be turned against them.
Doctors say a fear of discrimination on the part of patients has prevented thousands at risk of genetic disease from taking advantage of tests that might help them make better health care choices. Some patients worry that they may be denied jobs or face higher insurance premiums if a genetic red flag shows up in their medical records.
But with the mapping of the human genome and the rapid discovery of genetic variants that contribute to risk of common diseases like breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes and heart disease, the number of people who might benefit from learning what risks lie in their genes is growing quickly.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who had blocked the bill for months, agreed to let it go forward after the addition of language to protect employers from lawsuits that stem solely from insurance company violations of the law.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce still opposed it, arguing that the fines were excessive and that its limits on the collection of medical information would complicate even routine practices, like recording a request by an employee to take a leave to take care of a parent with cancer.
The legislation, known as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, prohibits health insurance companies from using genetic information to deny benefits or raise premiums for individual policies.(It is already illegal to exclude individuals from a group plan because of their genetic profile.) Employers who use genetic information to make decisions about hiring, firing or compensation could be fined as much as $300,000 for each violation.
While the intent of the law is to prohibit discrimination by insurance companies based on genetic tests, the bill does allow the companies urge patients take them. The goal would be not to deny coverage but to help find the best, and least expensive, therapy for a patient.
The health insurance measure would not go into effect until a year after it becomes law, and the employment measure would take effect only after 18 months. Even then, there may be reason to be cautious. The bill may be hard to enforce, some experts say, and it does not address discrimination by long-term care insurers or life insurers.
“This gives us a weapon and a tool and a voice to try to push people to do what they should, but health care costs are soaring, and the urge to discriminate still exists,” said Nancy Wexler, president of the Hereditary Disease Foundation.“It’s very hard to prove why somebody is firing you.”

SharkBite wrote:

<quoted text>If money wont fix all, then why does everyone think that the more kids you have the more money the gov't should hand you. It is always the folks that actually pay for something that get screwed. Dirt bags all over this country get awarded money due to some stupid thing they did themselves. We throw millions of $$ in lawsuits at blacks when they lose their job and scream racism. Then something like this and you think they should not get their money.

If some one owes you a thousand dollars, and they never pay you.....10 years go by...and you run into them again...do you try to claim that 10 year old debt? will they all of a sudden pay you?...do you remain victimized for 10 years? do you think about it often and allow feelings of dispair to govern your thoughts?...this is what I would do..I would forgive the debt and let go of it, I would take controll of my life and not be a victim to someones corruption. As long as you feel that you are owed...you will also feel that a part of you or yours is gone, and you are not whole, untill you get it back...take control of your life, too many good things in front of you, to be tainted with thoughts of injustice, and wrong doings.

All right, you people, pay attention here.

ERISA was passed in 1974 because of perceived abuses by employers and by employees.
Example: The employee, a married man, is about to retire. His company tells him 'if you take your pension as a single life annuity, you will receive X dollars per month. And when you die, the pension stops. If you cover your wife, you will receive X dollars minus 50%, but your wife will continue to receive the pension payment as long as she lives.' In many cases, the man would conclude that he didn't care about what the wife would do upon his death, so he would take the higher amount. and if he died one month after retirement, that was it for pension money.
ERISA changed that by requiring the wife to sign off on the option of the higher payment, either with a notarized signature, or signed in the presence of a pension fund administrator.

Another part of ERISA required vesting (ownership) of pension money. Prior to ERISA, the employee, upon his employment, would be made a promise. If you work here for 40 years and attain the age of 65, you will receive a pension payment of 50 dollars a month for each year of service.(40 x 50 dollars equals $2000 per month.)
Then the company might terminate the employee at the end of 39 years, for example, and tell him that he had no pension coming to him because he didn't work the full 40 years. Astonishingly unfair, but legal. Vesting under ERISA meant ownership of the pension money, so in the example,
the person would receive 39 x 50 dollars - or $$1950 per month.

Finally, there is something called ERISA preemption. That means the law itself preempted state laws. This works to the benefit of the employee in some areas, but not others.
The life insurance situation is an example of ERISA working against the employee. Congress could change that part of ERISA very quickly.

I hope you have all been paying attention. There will be a brief quiz at the end of the evening.

kevin G, you are an exemplar for the need for protective legislation for employees!
and yes, I am really smart, which is a blessing but simultaneously a curse.