Employers use federal law to deny benefits

caring employer, you are indeed a caring employer.
This business of changing life insurace carriers every two years is common, and in most cases, has no adverse consequences. Unfortunately, in a rare case, there are serious consequences, as happened here.
You might ask the benefits attorney (a highly specialized area, by the way) if he or she could negotiate with your insurance carrier the next time you are faced with a rate increase.(I suspect there is some lowballing of rates with a new company attempting to get your business, and then a big increase at the end of the first policy period.)
Good luck.

Christopher wrote:

Yet another case where the legislators in this country made a problem where there was not one beforehand. I swear..... just repeal this law and any others, and make it clear that when a person has paid ALL OF THEIR INSURANCE PREMIUMS, these companies are R E Q U I R E D to pay on these policies.

If you read the article more carefully, you will realize that the problem is in the GOP appointed Supreme Court, not the legislation.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the article more carefully, you will realize that the problem is in the GOP appointed Supreme Court, not the legislation.

The problem is in legislation that requires the result. The Supreme Court didn't make the decision; they refused to review the lower court's decision. The Court only hears a small number of cases per year, despite thousands of requests for review, and typically only takes cases where different circuits have had different results in similar cases. In these matters, though, the legislation is clear, and, as in this case, so is the contract language. Again, as unfortunate as the result may seem, it's still the correct legal result.

Mr. Bill, you are out to lunch on this one.
Congress passed a law with unfortunate unanticipated consequences. It is up to congress to clean up the law, not the U.S. supreme court.

And who controls congress? The party that is on the workers' side? Right.

The U.S. supreme court, in order to grant certiori (review of the case on appeal) needs four members to vote for certiori. They didn't have four members of the court who were in favor of review.)

More fallout from the repugnican K Street strategy and crooked lobbyists like Abramoff et al.

lakerman1 wrote:

Mr. Bill, you are out to lunch on this one.
Congress passed a law with unfortunate unanticipated consequences. It is up to congress to clean up the law, not the U.S. supreme court.
And who controls congress? The party that is on the workers' side? Right.
The U.S. supreme court, in order to grant certiori (review of the case on appeal) needs four members to vote for certiori. They didn't have four members of the court who were in favor of review.)

IS there a party that is on the workers' side?

Right now, we have corporate corrupt classic (the GOP) and corporate corrupt lite (the post-Carter Democrats). Since the same corporate money finances BOTH parties, we do not have a leg to stand on.

I will state, in no uncertain terms, that if you make less than 10 million dollars per year, and you vote rightwing, you are one of three things: a racist, a religious nut, or a retard.

It is time now, to literally take to the streets and demand accountability from our government, by any means necessary. If we do not, in ten years time, we will be nothing more than disposable slaves in the global corporate labor pool.

cyclops rex, I have long been an advocate for the establishment of a labor party, much like labor parties all over the civilized world.

Unfortunately, the unions have invested heavily in the democratic party - look at the support they gave to hillary - and will dilute their influence by now backing Obama.

And, cyclops, if a person makes a significant amount of money - let's say in excess of 250,000 dollars a year, and supports republicans, why does that make him or her a racist, religious nut, or a retard? The person is voting his or her own interests.

lakerman1 wrote:

cyclops rex, I have long been an advocate for the establishment of a labor party, much like labor parties all over the civilized world.
Unfortunately, the unions have invested heavily in the democratic party - look at the support they gave to hillary - and will dilute their influence by now backing Obama.

What went wrong in Labor unions, and the Democratic party, is the same thing that is happening withe environmentalist movement today. All three of these groups are being corrupted by the very same corporate money that has owned the Republican party outright since the Robber Barons of the 1880's.

In the case of the unions, J. Edgar Hoover struck many deals with organized crime syndicates, basically promising not to pursue them too strongly, in return for allowing them to infiltrate and corrupt the Labor movement. After several years of this policy, the labor unions became bloated, corrupt and inefficient, to the point where the average working person could not even tell them apart from corporate management itself. Even today, the popular image of the typical union worker, is the guy with the high school diploma making $35.00 an hour to put hubcaps on Chryslers...

The trouble with the Democratic party, is simply the fact that no one can get elected to high office in this country without a huge campaign budget, a large portion of which comes straight from corporate America. When they get into office, they find themselves beholden to those whose money put them there, knowing that their careers depend on pleasing those people.

lakerman1 wrote:

And, cyclops, if a person makes a significant amount of money - let's say in excess of 250,000 dollars a year, and supports republicans, why does that make him or her a racist, religious nut, or a retard? The person is voting his or her own interests.

Only in the short term. If you are making between 100k and 10m per year, the chances are you are either a highly skilled tradesman (such as a doctor or an engineer) or the owner of a small business.

In that general bracket, people vote republican because they think they are voting against the higher taxes that have always been attributed to the Dems. In doing so, however, they do not realize that they make themselves feeder fish in a sharktank. The true agenda of the GOP is the advancement of global corporatism and monopoly. In this agenda, those in that middle bracket will inevitably be absorbed by some much larger entity. This is because, for all of their crying about the "free market", the heirarchy is very much against competition.

Proof of this can be found in the fact that since Clinton eased regulation of the radio and television industry, we have gone from a diverse, competitive market serving many different people, to the point where there are only 5 or 6 conglomerates controlling 90% of the industry. Gone are the days where you can switch stations on your radio and get a different take, or even a different song, for that matter.

Perhaps "retarded" is a bit strong a term, but it makes for a nice alliteration...