[Vision2020] UI & Discrimination Against Stepchildren
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Tue Oct 25 10:12:29 PDT 2011
Jus' playin' devil's advocate. Hey, call it a hobby!
Say that . . .
1) Mr. Jones is employed.
2) Mr. Jones is married to Mary.
3) Mary has children from a previous marriage.
4) Mary's children do not reside with their mother. Perhaps these children reside with their biological father.
Should health insurance, provided by Mr. Jones' employer, be required to cover Mary's children (identified in #4)?
Suppose Mr. Jones were to "adopt" Mary's children (identified in #4), would they then be covered by the policy?
Two separate approaches with the same goal in mind. Dave VanOver, my UI advisor back when I was UI student, calls it duo-equifinality, or as an ol' saying goes . . .
"There's more than one way to skin a cat."
Seeya round town, Moscow.
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"Honest and true,
As the morning star.
Vote for just two,
Ament and Lamar."
On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:52 AM, "Rosemary Huskey" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the link, Tom. The issue that Saundra raised is that adopted and biological children are covered until age 26 regardless of where they are living. Step children are only covered if they live with their step parent. This is a distinctly different, and frankly, discriminatory application that differs significantly from other public universities and colleges in the state and state employees in general.
>
>
>
> Boise State University: http://hrs.boisestate.edu/benefits/insurance_eligibility.shtml
>
> “Eligible Dependents means: (1) The spouse of the Enrollee and/or (2) the children of an Enrollee or Enrollee's spouse, up to their 26th birthdays, unless the dependent child(ren) are eligible to enroll in their own employer based group coverage.” The term "children" includes natural children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in the process of adoption from time placed with the Enrollee. The term "children" also includes children legally dependent upon the Enrollee or Enrollee's spouse for support where a normal parent-child relationship exists with the expectation that the Enrollee will continue to rear that child to adulthood. However, if one or both of that child's natural parents live in the same household with the Enrollee, a parent-child relationship shall not be deemed to exist even though the Enrollee or the Enrollee's spouse provides support.
>
>
>
> Idaho State University: http://www.isu.edu/humanr/Benefits/medical.shtml
> Dependents: The following individuals qualify as dependents as defined in the State's Group Insurance Contracts and may be covered under group insurance benefits:
>
> Your legal spouse
> Your unmarried children up to their 19th birthday. The term "children" includes natural children, stepchildren, adopted children, or children in the process of adoption from the time placed with you. The term "children" also includes children legally dependent upon you or your spouse where a normal parent-child relationship exists with the expectation that you will continue to rear that child to adulthood. However, if one or both of that child's natural parents live in the same household with you, a parent-child relationship shall not be deemed to exist, even though you or your spouse provides support.
> Dependent children may be eligible up to age 26, so long as they are not eligible for other group coverage after their 25th birthday. “
> The University of Idaho is, I believe, a stand-alone unit in negotiating insurance contracts rather than swimming in the insurance pool with all other state employees, for example BSU, ISU. I am unclear why UI does not join the larger pool with the attendant advantages that larger numbers offer. I hope that a more knowledgeable V2020 reader can address that issue.
>
> Re Bustamante: While the claim has been made that 70,000 emails involving Bustamante must be reviewed, redacted and massaged I call baloney. The vast majority of those emails (if the claimed number is accurate) are undoubtedly junky massive mailings, or committee agendas and meeting times/dates – the flotsam and jetsam of all bureaucracies and professions. Further, the notion that single-minded gnomes are in the basement of the Ad Building beavering away on such minutia is ludicrous. A month has passed and certainly his annual evaluations, student evaluations, and minutes from meetings addressing this resignation/termination should be available. (Of course, it would be helpful if UI had a central records management system, but it is my belief that that position was axed several years ago and records retention is an every-department-for-itself- do-it yourself kind of operation.) It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that the very bad publicity which will result from revealing details of Bustamante’s employment will not be a strong recruitment tool for UI and probably is the basis for the subsequent foot dragging.
>
> Rose
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Tom Hansen [mailto:thansen at moscow.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:25 AM
> To: Rosemary Huskey
> Cc: Saundra Lund; Vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] UI & Discrimination Against Stepchildren
>
>
>
> According to the UI Human Resources' Employees Benefits web page at:
>
>
>
> http://www.uidaho.edu/benefits/whoiseligibleforcoverage
>
>
>
> --------------------------------
>
>
>
> Your Children
> A child under the age of 26; For purposes of the plan, a "child" means your:
> · Biological child
> · Legally adopted child or child placed with you for adoption
> · Stepchild living with you
> · Child for whom you are the legal guardian
> · Child who is required to be covered by a Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMSCO)
>
>
> --------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Tom Hansen
>
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
> "Honest and true,
>
> As the morning star.
>
> Vote for just two,
>
> Ament and Lamar."
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:01 AM, "Rosemary Huskey" <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Saundra and Visionaries,
> What person or committee negotiates insurance contracts for the University
> of Idaho? I remember several years ago when we had concerns about UI
> insurance decisions Saundra and I were told that no minutes were kept of
> those meetings. The road blocks placed in our path for Freedom of
> Information requests made it unfeasible for us to continue to press the
> matter. The lack of transparency, and total absence of accountability was
> appalling and presented a thirty foot brick wall for ordinary citizens to
> scale. Which reminds me, has any information about Bustamante been
> released? It is no wonder that UI is losing credibility across Idaho.
> Rose Huskey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Saundra Lund
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:57 AM
> To: 'Vision 2020'
> Cc: martyt at lmtribune.com; lrozen at dnews.com; benefits at uidaho.edu;
> president at uidaho.edu
> Subject: [Vision2020] UI & Discrimination Against Stepchildren
>
> Visionaries:
>
> Just when I thought the UI was finished sinking to slimy depths with respect
> to employee & retiree health coverage and had started to rebound in a good
> way, I've found I was wrong. Instead, the UI has now descended to new
> unimaginable & unfathomable discriminatory anti-family lows. We received
> our Open Enrollment package in the mail today, and I'm incredibly offended .
> . . and hurt.
>
> You see, a stepchild isn't considered to be a part of the employee's family
> anymore unless he/she lives at home. This is in direct contrast to
> "biological" and "adopted" children who are eligible to be covered by UI
> health insurance until they turn 26 regardless of where they live. Shoot, a
> "biological" child under age 26 could even get married, have children, move
> to another country . . . and *still* be eligible to be covered on his/her
> parent's health care insurance through the UI.
>
> But the stepchildren of UI employees? Nope, sorry -- too bad, so sad. We
> apparently took the wrong approach in encouraging OUR daughter to work
> towards self-sufficiency. Maybe we should just force her to move back in
> with us so we can get her health insurance coverage through the UI again
> (she got booted off when she turned 19; she's 21 now).
>
> And, never mind the fact that my dh has been the ONLY father OUR daughter
> has ever known -- he's been her father since she was not quite two, through
> elementary school, through junior high school, and through high school
> graduation -- which is a lot longer than many marriages last these days, and
> through the wee hours of today. We're still going strong as a family, the
> ONLY family our daughter has EVER known.
>
> According to the UI, my husband is apparently not OUR daughter's "real"
> father in spite of the fact that we are legally married and in spite of the
> fact that my husband lived with OUR daughter full-time from diapers through
> the years when -- were we were a civilized society, all girls between 13 &
> 16 would be sent to a desert island to torment only each other -- and high
> school graduation. And, we're still going strong as a family, the ONLY
> family our daughter has EVER known.
>
> We had her last name legally changed before she started kindergarten so
> there would NEVER be any doubts about who her family was, but none of that
> is good enough for the UI.
>
> Nope -- she's a "just" a stepchild, according to the UI . . . not worthy of
> being considered a part of our family for health insurance purposes.
>
> We found nothing in the UI Open Enrollment materials indicating the
> rationale for this decidedly anti-family definition of children, a
> definition that is at odds with the health insurance definitions of the
> State of Idaho, LCSC, NIC, BSU, ISU, etc. Given the fact that the UI is
> self-insured, it is the UI that is calling the shots -- that definition
> *wasn't* dictated by some big, bad health insurance carrier.
>
> Once again, the UI has taken a position that penalizes its loyal employees
> and their families, and I'm frankly beyond.
>
> It's been difficult enough that virtually each year my dh has been employed
> by the UI, we've gotten poorer & poorer due to no wage increases & wages
> falling further & further behind peer institutions -- let alone inflation --
> but this discriminatory definition of children really is a bridge too far,
> and it seems to me the mental giants behind this crappola are vastly
> overpaid. Waste at the UI? You betcha!
>
> There is, no doubt, a special place in Hades reserved for those at the UI
> responsible for what is essentially an institutionalization of the
> Cinderella effect, but that's unlikely to offer any meaningful solace -- or
> help -- to UI families that happen to encompass young adult stepchildren.
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~Edmund Burke
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20111025/06a92c13/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list