🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Lindsay wrote:
> 
> Barbara Amero wrote:
> > Then, a few months before the divorce was
 > > granted, I was presented with an estimate of $21,000 for
> > dental care, some of which was covered by the Medical/Dental
> > Insurance Plan that was giving me the boot.
 
> I don't understand Barbara. Why was the Ins. Co. giving you the boot.
> Wasn't your ex- still paying the premiums.
> I don't think they can do this because of a high estimate, IF all the
> premuims were up to date?
> Whether you were divorced or not is irrelevant.

Yes the divorce is relevant. The Ins.Co. gave me
the boot because of divorce. The high estimate
of dental treatment was not an issue. To the
nasty poster who SHOUTED at me a few weeks ago
to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, pay for it myself and
feel good about it, I DON'T NEED TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE REMAINING $16,000 WORTH RIGHT NOW!!!!
AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THE HELL WOULD FEEL GOOD
ABOUT PAYING FOR IT THEMSELVES AND THE PROBLEMS
I HAVE ARE RELATED TO IGRONANT DENTISTS WHO
REMOVED ALL MY PRIMARY TEETH WHEN I WAS 7 YEARS
OLD EXCEPT 4 WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO ACT AS SORT
OF A RETAINER I GUESS, WHO KNOWS, AND WHO SCREWED 
UP IRT OTHER TREATMENT AS A YOUNG ADULT. IF THAT
NASTY POSTER IS READING, GO SOAK YER HEAD IN THE 
TERLIT.

Now, back to the boot. The so-called dependent spouse is
given the boot upon divorce. It's been my understanding 
that such applies to all Ins. Co's. Perhaps the reason is 
that, if the  couple are divorced, then one or the other 
would  not be considered a dependent spouse. And presently
I doubt that Ins.Co's. would cover a wife and an ex-wife.
In the U.S., some folks there were/are? trying to force 
Ins.Co's. to continue covering the person who was the 
so-called dependent spouse after divorce. I don't recall 
if they had any success.

> A friend of mine still has his ex-, and their son, on his company plan
> after 7 years of divorce.
> And I put my children on my new plan after separation. As I understand
> it I could even have included my ex.
> Mike

Having the children covered is no problem, but I've
never heard of continued coverage for the so-called
dependent spouse after divorce. My ex-husband offered
to pay a higher premium to keep me covered on this
Group Plan thru' the University, but was told that he
could not do that. I'll talk to some more people about
this issue. If you want to share the name of the Ins.
Co's. that you say will insure ex-wives thru' the
ex-husband's place of employment, feel free to email me.
(quietly) I don't mean the name of the employers. ;-)

Whatever, given that the divorce rate is approaching
50%, this is an impt. issue for couples to consider --
specifically the person who is the so-called dependent
spouse, not the primary earner. And that person is not
always the woman.

Barbara A. Amero