Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    The use of the word "full family" is a phrase I picked up from John
    Hancock.  What I should have said was the "Traditional" family.
    A father, mother and children living under one roof.  
    
    Today... that is not the case for many of us single parents who
    are still required to pay premiums for insurance intended for
    traditional families.
    
    Bill

    
    When I moved to Mass. 9+ years ago I was told that I couldn't
    provide dependent coeverage from my daughter because Mass.
    presumed that the father was responsible for the medical
    coverage.  I explained that her father didn't pay her
    bills when we lived in the same state and they finally
    processed the papers the way I wanted.  It's not that way
    today but there are still remnants of the old biases in the
    system.....
    
    How about the life insurance through Hancock.  I have no spouse
    so obviously I can't get spouse coverage but pay the same for
    my daughter's coverage that is not anywhere near the same.

    The following reply is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous.  If you wish to respond by MAIL, please send
    your comments to me and I'll forward them.
    
    
    
    
    
    I'm the custodial parent, in process of divorcing my spouse whom
    I've been separated from for 1 year.  
    
    When we were married, I picked up medical coverage for him under
    John Hancock.  For the last 3 years, he has lived off my salary, 
    never holding a job for more than a month (he's a junkie).
        
    Based on Massachusetts and New Hampshire state laws, I must continue
    to carry his medical coverage until the divorce is final.  I don't
    like it, but I'll accept it.
    
    Because of his track record with drugs, part of my divorce seeks
    the tightest of restrictions be placed on his visitation rights.
    It also requests the judge order him to maintain a year long
    medically-approved drug abuse program in order to keep his visita-
    tion rights.  (Some of the men here who are non-custodial parents
    probably will think this unfair.  Please understand I want my son
    to know his father, but his father hasn't yet shown he can stay 
    away from the very thing that hurt us.)
    
    If my request is granted, and my ex is to maintain his year long
    treatment program, I must continue to maintain his medical coverage
    for that time period.  Again, this is Massachusetts and New Hampshire
    state law.
    
    Now, my question to you:  I am receiving no child support, no help
    of any kind from him, yet I must continue his medical coverage for
    the next year and half or so?  Is this fair?    

    RE: .4
    
    In my divorce, the Court Agreement states that "Husband is to
    continue to provide medical and dental insurance for Wife, for
    a period of three years from the date of this Agreement".
    
    In Mass (and it looks like New Hampshire, also), this clause (or
    something very close to it) is almost always put in the Agreement, 
    since, under current state law, it legally forces the insurance carrier
    to continue coverage for the ex-spouse.
    
    Since you (author of .4) have custody of your minor child, you most
    likely have "dependent" coverage through John Hancock. 
    
    There is no difference in the amount one pays for "dependent" coverage,
    whether there is one or ten dependents.
    
    So, it ends up that you're not paying any extra for your
    soon-to-be-ex's medical coverage.
    
      Alan 

    The following reply is from the anonymous author of 295.4.
    
    
    
re: .5

By law, under normal circumstances I would not have to continue his medical
coverage.  I did not have to in my first marriage, and would not have had
to in my second marriage EXCEPT for his continuing treatment.

My gripe isn't that it costs me more or less for the John Hancock coverage.
But, medical charges that are only 80% covered leave a 20% balance to be
paid.  Because I am the insured, I am the one billed.

How many times have you had to battle some business for incorrect billing?
The BS is incredible, right?  So, why should I have to spend MY time, MY
energy, talking to these medical providers and trying to explain that I
may be the insured, but he's responsible for payment.  They have no way to
bill him as I have no address for him - so they bill ME!

Meanwhile, because his medical bills aren't being paid and my name is
listed as the insured, MY credit gets ruined.  If I could get him taken
off the list of 'dependents', he sinks or swims on his own and I keep my 
good credit.

    Re: .6
    
    Yes, I had a few similar go-arounds with health care providers my ex
    used. (She even had an address.) :-)
    
    Does your Separation Agreement state that your ex is responsible
    for medical expense balances, over and above insurance benefits?
    
    Mine does. And those times, when I'd receive a bill for my ex's
    balance, I'd first try resolving the issue over the phone.
    
    If I got told that *I* was responsible for the balance because the
    insurance was in my name, I'd send them a photocopy of the portion
    of the Agreement, showing that *she* was responsible.
    
    In the cover letter, I explained to them that any further attempt
    to try to collect from me, or their reporting me to a Credit Bureau
    as "delinquent, would be met by my bringing suit against them for
    harassing me.  
    
    Did they ever end up collecting from her? Beats me.
    
    But at least they got off my back.
    
    If you want, you can contact me via E-mail, or call, if you need
    more info.
    
      Alan

    
    	RE: .7
    
    	Alan,
    
    	 Maybe they got off your back, but did you ever check to see
    	they didn't report you anyways as being delinquent?
    
    	G_B

    RE: .8
    
    George, no I haven't actually requested a Credit Bureau report;
    however, I took out a $100,000 Equity Line of Credit in May.
    
    I'm assuming the bank ran a credit check, and if there had been any 
    problems, I would have been told.
    
      Alan    

    Re .4:
    
    No, I don't think it's fair to have to maintain his medical coverage,
    whatever the circumstances.
    
    Paula

    
My original note [.0] was  meant to solicit comments from other non
    custodial parents who are required to provide medical insurance
    for their child[ren].  Specifically to hear if they felt it was
    unfair that in these situations you only have one option for coverage.
    
    Full family [Traditional] coverage with John Hancock.
    
    By the moderator putting note .4 in as a reply has changed the context
    of this Note.  Can I assume the current readers of this notes file
    do not consider this to be an issue for them.  I've got to believe
    there are a number of us out there is this same predicament?  
    
    
    Re: .4   I personally feel that the courts make tremendous blunders
    when they require [legally] one spouse to provide something for
    the other.  Whatever it is!  When you get divorsed you are ending
    the relationship and all the mutual ties and responsibilities. 
    You want a clean slate and a clean break.  The courts telling you
    that you must pay for something for a period of time just prolongs
    the forced attachments you have.  Its just another example of how
    inept the courts are in understanding the human phyche.  
    
    However, taking my emotional hat off and putting on my intellectual
    hat.  Maybe, just maybe the courts looked at this case and thought
    that if he did not have insurance coverage to allow him to continue
    his rehab he might just quit.  So this way he has no excuse because
    he is insured, regardless of his being gainfully employed or not.
    So the one year moritorium is for him to get his s__t together.
    If he doesn't the problems for this family will be greater than
    "who pays insurance premiums".
    
    But... If he is responsible for paying the balances than you may
    need to do what the prior noter recommended.  Its your only
    alternative.  Assuming you have already tried the obvious alternative
    of talking directly to your ex.
    
    A foot note on the "who pays what" part of this note!  When I was
    first divorsed I was responsible for all the medical bill for my
    children only.  But because my ex had NO financial stake in this
    she would take the kids to doctors. and outpatient clinics, you
    name it, at the drop of a pin.  She even went as far as having a
    doctor prescripe vitamins which she refilled for years.  I was unaware
    they were vitamins since my agreement did not cover over the counter
    medication.  I found out by accident and immediately refused to
    pay for them.
    
    Years later the agreement was modified and was able to get this
    changed so that she was responsible for 50% of the unpaid balances
    and 100% of the unpaid prescriptions.  Amazing how once she had
    financial responsilbity the visits dropped off drastically.
    
    The games people play for love and money.
    
    Bill

    I thought the issues related, which is why I posted .4.  In a sense,
    both cases involve paying for dependent insurance coverage for someone
    not in your "custody".
    
    				Steve

    Re .4
    
    I think we have to keep in mind that the person in .4 is REQUIRING
    the spouse to go to the drug program to maintain visitation rights.
     One cannot push something on another person in this case without
    expecting to be held somewhat responsible as well.  I don't think
    it is unreasonable for the insurance to be carried, especially
    considering it does not cost any more money.  If the requirement
    of the drug program was removed, then I would believe that the
    insurance coverage could also be removed.
    
    I do believe the guy must get his act together, and applaud the
    woman for trying to push him in this direction, as opposed to just
    walking away.
    
    Ed..
    

    The following is from the anonymous author of .4.
    
    
    
re: .11

There seems to be some confusion so, if I may, I'd like to clear it up.
There is no separation agreement - he refuses to sign it.  The first
court appearance is scheduled for sometime in January.

Which leads me to this:  The court hasn't "blundered".  I have received
no order to continue his medical coverage.  It is a state law which exists
in Massachusetts and New Hampshire that requires me to do so.

The continued treatment is Massachusetts state-funded. It is Massachusetts
run, half-way house.  Therefore, no need for John Hancock coverage.  BUT,
Massachusetts says I must cover him for "emergency-only" care.

I'm sure John Hancock would be just as happy as I to have him taken off my
coverage.  Between Feb. & Aug. of 1988, $60K was paid out by Hancock for 
drug treatment.  

In reference to your ex taking your kids to doctors for the slightest of
things, and prescription vitamins, I can sympathize.  My ex runs to the
doctor for everything and John Hancock calls looking for additional info.
on claims I've never heard of.  So... what can you do?


re: .13

As I said earlier, this bum has lived off me for the last 3 years!  I earn
the salary, put the clothes on his back, food in his mouth, and money in
his pocket, to say the least. 

I've fought him for butcher knives, tree branches, 2 x 4s, and alot of
other things because of the drug addictions.  I want the requirement in
place as protection for my son (and myself).  Would you feel safe just
handing your children over to an ex with a record like this OR would you
want some mechanism in place like the one I'm requesting?

I really don't think I owe him s__t!  Not after all he's gotten out of 
this marriage to date.

    
    RE .4  YOU can't make people responsible.  They have to take that
    upon themselves.  Unfortunately there are those leaches out there
    who will [milk the system] and you for all they can.  Only when
    they have NO ONE to turn are they forced to turn to themselves.
    Some folks never do.  They just hit the streets.
    
    I think, in your situation, with the little you've shared you have
    undertaken a tremendous effort to get where you are today and still
    take some of HIS responsibility to maintain his health care in hopes
    that he will clean HIS act up in hopes the HE we become a responsible
    parent.  
    
    I commend you.
    
    Bill