Anonymous wrote:I have no idea what you all are talking about. Both parents have their kids under both of their insurances? So kids are paid for and covered twice? Why?

I'm confused too.

I have no idea what you all are talking about. Both parents have their kids under both of their insurances? So kids are paid for and covered twice? Why?

We just have the family plan through my husband. I only get the dental at work. If something happens to my husband's job it counts as a life event and we can sign up during the year. Paying twice for insurance is stupid, unless you have a major medical issue. I have better dental, so I do the family dental, but the birthday rule kicks in and we have to claim the health dental benefits first and then the "dental"benefits.

Huh? 23:53. That is why the birthday rule applies for health insurance. And what kind of umbrella coverage are you talking about? Is there a health specific one or are you referring the liability kind? If the latter, that doesn't have much to do with this conversation.

No there's no reason to cover them under both plans. And frankly, there is downside other than the wasted money; both insurance providers could try to say the other one is on the hook. If you are extremely risk adverse, get some sort of umbrella coverage instead of two health plans.

OP here,
Yes, I am very familiar with the birthday rule. Since dh is older, our daughter never needed my insurance, except In the rare instance when there was a balance due for bloodworm or something. I just dropped dh and dd, my monthly contribution went down by $400/month. Just wish I had made the switch sooner.

13:29 the birthday rule typically applies as a default, not just based on where you live. So yes OP one of your plans is likely already primary for the kids.

Generally:

"For dependent children the "birthday rule" governs. If a child is covered under both parents' insurance companies (divorced or separated parents excluded), the primary carrier is determined by the plan covering the parent whose birthday, excluding year of birth, occurs earlier in a calendar year. If the other insurance company does not have this provision, the father's plan may be primary"

OP, just make sure you take a look at which plan has better coverage. Our kid was doubly covered for a bit. One thing to note about double coverage is that, for whatever reason, where I live if your child has double coverage, the parent who's birthday comes first in the calendar year is the default primary.

Anonymous wrote:Unless you have a huge health problem and want secondary coverage, it makes absolutely no sense for you to cover anyone except primary. So pick the cheapest/best employer plan to cover your child and then have the other person just cover themselves.

Thanks. This helps a lot!

Unless you have a huge health problem and want secondary coverage, it makes absolutely no sense for you to cover anyone except primary. So pick the cheapest/best employer plan to cover your child and then have the other person just cover themselves.

OP here.
Yes, just trying to decide if their is a real benefit to carrying the entire family under both policies. I carry my husband and child. Husband carries just himself and our child, only because he forgot to add me when we got married. I don't want to keep paying for insurance that we don't use.

I'm considering keeping our daughter covered under both policies and dropping him from mine.

My insurance is better and cheaper (I don't have a monthly premium) so I carry the entire family.

I carry the insurance for the whole family through my work plan.

I carry my children, and my husband gets his own coverage through his company; my company charges a penalty if I try to carry him on my insurance.

What do you mean by your question -- do both of us enroll our children? Why would we do that?

It's time for open enrollment again. I'm wondering if most people sign up the entire family under both parents work health insurance policy. I pay approximately $2,500/year for me, husband, and child.