California medical coverage

[The Dave©]

According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
and it's less hassle for them.

Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.

[TOM]

The Dave© wrote:

> According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
> enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
> kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
> anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
> to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
> guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
> and it's less hassle for them.
>
> Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
> sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
> beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
> state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
> this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.

Don't know about health insurance, but in Colorado, a child is 18 until
he/she turns 19, meaning child support continues untill the 19th
birthday, not the 18th birthday as in some states...

Tom - Vista, CA

[Chris Owens]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
> enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
> kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
> anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
> to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
> guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
> and it's less hassle for them.
>
> Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
> sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
> beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
> state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
> this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.

Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
search on Google.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Mel Gamble]

>The Dave© wrote:
>>
>> According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
>> enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
>> kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
>> anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
>> to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
>> guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
>> and it's less hassle for them.
>>
>> Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
>> sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
>> beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
>> state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
>> this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
>search on Google.
>
>Chris Owens
>
>

Only if you consider a single line following the "Today's listing of puppies
born at the animal shelter" section back on page K-37 to be "widely covered"...

Maybe you're right, though. Some lefty could get a lot of votes bragging about
sponsoring such a bill "for the CHILDREN"...

But nobody would give a damn about the unfairness of it.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

>The Dave© wrote:
>>
>> According to the HR person in my office, California has recently
>> enacted a law that requires already existing medical coverage on their
>> kids to be maintained until age 23, regardless of educational status or
>> anything else. Supposedly, this was advanced by the insurance industry
>> to eliminate the need to verify people's educational status, etc. I
>> guess the theory goes that if everyone is covered, it doesn't matter
>> and it's less hassle for them.
>>
>> Has anyone else heard of this? My first reaction was that it doesn't
>> sound right, but I also know some states make divorced parents support
>> beyond 18, so I know the concept is there. I tried to search the
>> state's website but couldn't come up with anything. Any knowledge on
>> this or suggestions on where to look would be most appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Such a statute would have been widely covered in the news. Try a
>search on Google.
>
>Chris Owens
>
>

Only if you consider a single line following the "Today's listing of puppies
born at the animal shelter" section back on page K-37 to be "widely covered"...

Maybe you're right, though. Some lefty could get a lot of votes bragging about
sponsoring such a bill "for the CHILDREN"...

But nobody would give a damn about the unfairness of it.

Mel Gamble