🚀 go-pugleaf

Little TiMMy wrote:

Barbara Amero wrote: 
> >Which point of view did you not agree with?
[snip] 
> > Did you not agree with my point of view
> > that after divorce private medical/dental
> >Insurance Plans should continue to cover the
> >person who was the dependent spouse? 

> and why should dental and medical plans have to cover 
> people who's spuse devorced them?

It's got nothing to do with who filed for divorce.
They don't cover people (dependent spouse) who divorced 
their spouse, nor if the divorce was mutual. They do,
however, continue to cover the separated spouse who
is listed as the dependent spouse.

Note: Here dependent spouse means the spouse listed
as the dependent spouse on the Ins. Plan. Such does
necessarily mean that the dependent spouse was not
employed. Nor does it mean that the dependent spouse
did not work -- being a homemaker is work. The so-
called "bread winner" does not do his/her job
independent of his/her spouse.

For e.g. during my 22 1/2 year marriage I worked in 
the home as a homemaker and otherwise worked in and 
out of the home. When my husband and I married he was 
an unemployed student (during the academic year) and 
I was working in the work force. After the birth of our
first child, I chose not to return to my full time job. 
For a short time, I worked in the home providing child 
care to another woman's child and in the home of another
woman across the street. And for a year, my husband and
I were Superintendents of 3 low-rise apt. buildings - one 
of which we lived in rent free (that plus $50, I think,
was our pay). I did most of the work, since he was at
the university much of the time. The most unpleasant,
dangerous work, however, was assumed by him, i.e. 
burning the garbage in the incinerator in the basement.
One day an aerosol can exploded in his face. Fortunately,
he was not injured. On second thought, tho' that was the
most dangerous part of the job, it may not have been the
most unpleasant, since I was the one left to deal with
the cheap, negligent, rude, horrible owners. Generally,
I scrubed the floors and stairs of the 3 low-rise apt. 
bldgs.(3 story, plus basement), but he also at times
assumed this responsibility. Snow removal was also his 
responsibility, a job which another student often did 
(paid by us) due to my husband's time commitment at the 
univeristy. After that I also worked part-time in the work 
force (banks, supermarkets, hospital, medi-center, etc.) 
as well as some self-employed work, including owning and 
operating a business (from a winterized 2-car garage on
the property) during the latter years of the marriage. 
And, of course, continued to _work_ in the home as a 
homemaker (yes that's work), wife (yes that's work), 
mother (yes that's work). That's quite a few jobs to do 
all at the same time. 

My health care needs and potential future health care needs 
(as people age they tend to require more health care) were 
taken care of and to be taken care of through an excellent 
Medical/Dental Ins. Plan at my husbands place of employment. 
Generally, this is the arrangement in marriages, i.e. the 
spouse who is the primary earner has the Medical/Dental Plan 
through his/her employment which covers the so-called dependent 
spouse. And like many other women, I did not think that I would 
divorce and therefore thought that I had been responsible, had 
taken care of my present and future Medical/Dental health care 
needs. 

NOTE: This Medical/Dental Ins. coverage was not a "hand-out" 
for/to me as the fellas in here seem to think of such things, 
since I also _worked_ (gawd dang hard!) for the Medical/Dental 
Ins. coverage as wife, mother, homemaker as well as the other 
work mentioned. 

Again, I thought that I was being responsible IRT taking 
care of my present/future medical/dental care needs, 
starting when I was young, i.e. paying for, insuring such 
protection should I need it in the present or future. And 
other than dental care, I made very few claims on this 
insurance until my mid-40s. I'm not a pill-popper so there 
was few claims for drugs. Did not often require anti-biotics.
In fact, I refused drugs during the 7 years I suffered with 
migraine headaches (my body's response to the stress of a 
newborn baby/death of a close childhood friend/move, etc.) 
and instead tried bio-feedback and eventually a lifestyle 
change which miraculously cured the migraine headaches. 
Once one's body responds to stress in a certain way, it tends 
to respond as such again in times of stress. If I'd known that 
the Ins. covered 12 massage therapy sessions per year, I would 
have taken advantage of that! My point is that I was not much 
of a liability for the Ins. Co. Certainly, if such Ins. had not 
been available through my husband's employment, we would have 
acquired such insurance elsewhere.

Again, it was not until my mid-40s that I found myself 
in need of making significant claims on this Insurance. 
Such was not a problem after my husband and I separated 
because the so-called dependent spouse is still covered.
My husband and I did not divorce for some years after the
separation. 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. The day I was
presented with that estimate via snail mail, I was on my
way to meet a friend to purchase a new computer or to 
look at computers with the intention of purchasing such.
We met, looked at the computers, I babbled (as the fellas
in here call it) on the way home, and cheerfully (yes, fellas,
I can be cheerful) made him (yes him) a nice dinner. No doubt 
I was in a state of shock.

I should also note that 3 years after separation, I found
myself on welfare for 2 1/2 years, as many women do. Without 
that private Medical/Dental Ins., the tax payers would have
been paying for claims I made to that Ins. Plan to cover
such costs. If I had been divorced at the time, the tax payers 
would have been paying for such, when tax payers should not
have to pay for such. Now the Ins. Co. that covered me for
more than 20 years will not be paying for such. Note: My
ex-husband was prepared to pay an additional amount to ensure
continued coverage for me on that Ins.Plan, but the Ins. Co.
refused to accept that offer. When I called that Ins.Co. to
see if they could offer me a Plan that I could afford, they
could not. And a man flippantly said that Ins. Co's. expect
people to take care of such needs when they are young and
purchase Insurance, not wait until they are aging or old
with health concerns and then try to purchase Insurance.
I said, I DID!

Does that answer your question IRT why medical/dental
plans should continue to cover the so-called dependent
spouse after divorce, as they do during the marriage
and after separation?

Barbara A. Amero