RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits

RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Amaros -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/5/2008 11:22:11 PM)
C'mon, when Reagan booted all the mentally ill out into the street back in the Early Eighties, you had to know where all this was headed - it's only a question of how fast.

KatyLied -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 7:02:11 AM)
quote: But if you do offer the plan and collect premiums for that purpose but then refuse to pay out benefits you deserve to be shot. The man who was covered was required to work at least one day in order to enforce the policy. He failed to work the one day. His employer and insurance company failed to tell him about that requirement. There is a lot of fault to go around in this case.

MrRodgers -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 7:10:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator I disagree because of a key point... As I read the article, the employer has to refund any premium the employee paid. (I incidentally dont collect premiums, they are just bundled in with the compensation package.) Since the benefits are optional and the employer doesnt HAVE to provide them, I think its quite reasonable for him to drop coverage on a high risk / high claim person who will essentially bust the employee group. Better that one person be handed back their premium and told "we're not covering you" than that the entire company be priced out of the market and thus everyone loses their bennies. REFUND ? How nice. Let's cut the crap...purchasing insurance is the contractual obligation to transfer financial risk and in the case of life insurance...the risk I might...just might die younger than normal and certainly...younger than expected. This death of mine puts my family at financial risk for which my premiums were to purchase some degree of financial security. So the court rules that this law in affect establishes that once I die...all that is legally required is for a return of my premiums and thus the financial risk imposed upon my family because of my early death HAS NOT BEEN transfered at all...so my premiums, however they were collected and paid...purchased nothing and in fact allowed the provider (insurance co.) to earn interest or some income...with those premiums while I was alive. That is a form of 'taking' without compensation. This is 'unjust enrichment' a proven and precedented legal grounds for (civil) litigation...if not outright larceny. (criminal)

DomKen -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 9:00:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: But if you do offer the plan and collect premiums for that purpose but then refuse to pay out benefits you deserve to be shot. The man who was covered was required to work at least one day in order to enforce the policy. He failed to work the one day. His employer and insurance company failed to tell him about that requirement. There is a lot of fault to go around in this case. Failed to tell him and failed to actually send him a copy of the new policy so he couldn't discover it for himself. The guy wasn't at any fault, unless you consider dying of cancer while diligently trying to make sure his wife would be provided for after his death a fault.

KatyLied -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 10:26:13 AM)
He's partially at fault for not knowing what the coverage was, as was his employer and the company for failing to disclose after he repeatedly asked if there was anything else he needed to do.

DomKen -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 12:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied He's partially at fault for not knowing what the coverage was, as was his employer and the company for failing to disclose after he repeatedly asked if there was anything else he needed to do. Once more, he didn't have the policy to read the rules himself and he made a good faith effort to find out the rules and to get the policy to read it himself. Since there was literally no way to find out that the one day of work requirement even existed how could he be at fault. Go read the court's decision where the judge makes it clear.

Alumbrado -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 12:32:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied He's partially at fault for not knowing what the coverage was, as was his employer and the company for failing to disclose after he repeatedly asked if there was anything else he needed to do. 'At fault' would require negligence or intent, these victims are neither, they are simply victims..

popeye1250 -> RE: Employers use federal law to deny benefits (7/6/2008 3:35:48 PM)
Couldn't a lawyer file 100 seperate lawsuits for $4,400 each?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375