Those Kids Aren’t Really Yours? Asks Corporate U.S.

How would you feel if you had to prove your wife and children were really your own? Well, that’s what is happening to my former colleagues at the Los Angeles Times, reports LA Observed.

Why? To get all those “bogus” dependents off health insurance rolls, of course. Writes LA Observed:

The Tribune Company has come up with a new tactic to cut costs and annoy the hell out of its employees again. It seems that everyone on the staff at the L.A. Times (and so I assume KTLA) has to prove that their spouses and children really are theirs, and thus eligible for medical benefits. Though wasteful and mildly insulting it sounds easy enough, but apparently it’s not. They call it a “Mercer Audit” and its demands have some staffers in an uproar.

Here’s what one staffer, who received scary warnings that his family’s coverage would be cut, wrote in an e-mail to Tribune bosses:

Making honest people fear losing their health insurance – which polls show is a major anxiety throughout the population – is inexcusable. It is no “assurance” to be told that Tribune will make contact before yanking your spouse and kids off their insurance. You have a moral responsibility to proactively inform each employee when their dependents have been verified to the company’s satisfaction so they don’t have to keep worrying.

In addition, Tribune owes an apology to every employee who received one of these threatening letters after they had already provided the paperwork. It may not meet the legal definition of workplace harassment, but the bullying approach of this audit is an affront to everyone who works hard at the Times and the other Tribune properties.

Complicating the matter is that Mercer, the company hired to find the insurance scofflaws, claims to have found “hundreds” of dependents on Tribune insurance rolls that did not belong. Of course, there are thousands of employees working for Tribune, so as a percentage, the number may not really be all that high. I wonder how many parents were taken off the rolls simply because they never received the paperwork or didn’t understand what was going on?

The Tribune claims it is contacting any parent about to lose coverage for a dependent, but as the LA Observed post – and my past experiences – reveal, it’s difficult to trust their promises.

But let’s assume Mercer’s numbers are legitimate. Do you really think these people who are sneaking kids onto their policies are scum? Or are they just everyday working people trying to get health insurance for uninsured nieces and nephews?

Isn’t this additional proof that the health insurance system in the United States simply DOESN NOT work? After all, why are Republicans and Democrats working so hard to reauthorize a law that will provide health insurance to 10 million children even under the threat of a Bush veto?

The bill recently passed by a vote of 265 to 159 in the House, reports The New York Times. The Senate is expected to pass the bill by even larger margins.

“The bill goes too far toward federalizing health care and turns a program meant to help low-income children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year,” complains President Bush. Actually, only one state – expensive New York – has applied coverage for income levels that high. Bush already told the state to piss off.

The real story is that there are more than 4 million uninsured kids out there and another 6 million covered by the federal law set to expire at the end of the month. If Bush vetoes the new law, more and more of those kids will wind up without insurance as federal funding states depend on dries up.

So my questions are as follows: Presuming an economic downturn will hit full force starting next year and continue for at least three years, how many more companies will find ways to terrorize employees out of health insurance? How many companies will simply cut it? How many parents have already lost corporate health insurance?

Feel free to answer in the comments section.

Additional
G.M. and Union Reach Tentative Agreement – Part of the agreement removes $50 billion in health-care liabilities from GM’s books to a trust fund to be run by the union. It also allows GM to tap the United Auto Worker’s pension, which is supposedly over funded until the trust is in place. The agreement is expected to set the tone for other manufacturing companies who no longer want to be responsible for its employees health coverage.

Comments

[landismom]

Health care in this country is a disaster. Sometimes I wonder if the people who are afraid of socialized medicine are dealing with the same health insurance system that I am--and I have what's considered "good" coverage. Yet last year, my insurance company denied a claim submitted by my doctor's office for a visit by my son. The reason? The doctor's office did not put a hyphen into his last name.

I had great fun fixing that mess.

[Summer]

Doctors + Insurance = Hell

That's why there's so many people who just don't go to the doctor in the first place. *sigh*

That said, $83k a year for a family and they get insurance in NY for the kids. That's awesome. My spouse makes good money, and let me tell you, WE can barely afford insurance; of course, we have to have the top tier because of my health issues.

[brettdl]

Landismom: Those are just ploys, aren't they? My favorites:

"We didn't pay your bill because we're not sure you are you, so could you sign this to prove you are you?"

"Do you have other insurance that can be used to pay these bills." Yeah, I regularly keep to health insurance policies in case one decides not to pay.

Summer: The $83,000 thing is complicated. It's essentially designed for families of 4+ living somewhere in NYC and the workplace does not offer any health insurance.

I presume it's like California where more than 50 percent of your income goes to housing, whether owning or renting.

[Elizabeth]

Some of those cases of "fraud" are also presumably hard working grandparents or aunts and uncles who are caring for kids whose parents are unavailable or irresponsible, rather than letting them fall into the child welfare system.

[brettdl]

Good point. It's not easy for grandparents to win full custody as long as the parents are still alive.

[Summer]

I understand that... but, given that for a family of 4 $83k isn't exactly a fortune. You're right. NY's housing is Expensive.

I'm sure there's a complicated scheme to it, but I'm just thrilled that middle class wasn't being left out.

[Sean]

For fear of being the whipping boy here, I have to say this-the methodology might have been sinister but the idea, I believe, behind it, may have been sound. Health care is expensive, no doubt about that. It is, in some part, based on the number of people insured. If there are people not authorized to receive the care being carried on policies, that drives the price up and then everyone suffers. My insurance requires a birth certificate for new children added and a marriage certificate in the case of new spouses. I see no harm in a company verfiying this--albeit in a less draconian manner than the LA Times seems to have adopted.

And everyone seems to lump doctors in with the reasoning of high medical costs. Ok, granted. But what about the malpractice premiums they have to pay to get THEIR insurance? And no, I am not a doctor. In all types of industry, overhead costs are passed on to the consumer. Why should health care be any different. When my insurance goes up, those costs are factored into new hourly rates I charge to my consumers. That is only fair isn't it? Or do Doctors have to bear the cost themselves?

[brettdl]

Summer: Yeah, it's kind of weird to think a family income of $83,000 is barely enough to get by on, but it depends a lot on where you live.

Sean: To be honest, my problem is not with the companies, per se. I recognize the problems they face in balancing fairness from their perspective. (Though in the case of the Tribune, my guess is that the lowest-paid employees are bearing the brunt of this audit.)

My problem is that this nation has created this system where children are penalized health wise when it comes to the family's financial status. (I do believe that all Americans should receive a minimum level of health care regardless of wealth.)

But with kids there are no excuses. Can John Doe, age 5, control the fact that mom and dad live in near or abject poverty? Shouldn’t a government at least ensure that John Doe receives medical checkups and care until he reaches an age of financial self-sufficiency?

To be blunt, I think our culture’s attitude toward health care borders on cruel when it comes to kids growing up in poor families.

[Sean]

I agree with you totally brettdl about the children. If we are going to give health care to illegal immigrants, they should have to be in line BEHIND American children. This is one thing that could be institutionalized in schools if need be-staff medical personnel that can do basic health care for children in schools and access to medical treatments at hospitals if needed.