Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Health Insurance for the Self-Employed?

Posted by Cliff on Fri Dec 01, 2006 05:58 AM
from the an-issue-that-deserves-another-look dept.
SharkJumper writes "Looks like this question has been asked before, but might be due for an update. I'm a self-employed programmer who is about to become a father. Previously, my family's insurance has come through my wife's employer, but she is eagerly looking forward to being a stay-at-home mom. We must look for that elusive low-cost insurance in order to enable her to do this. Losing her insurance is not a huge loss as, due to failed negotiations, the hospital in our city (3rd largest city in the state), along with most of the doctors that refer to it, is dumping the network (largest in the state) that our insurance uses. On the individual coverage plan front, my research shows story after story of deception, fraud, and general run-around or obfuscation by most of the major players and nearly all the minors. With all of the bad experiences out there, I've yet to see a good review of an insurance company. What does the Slashdot crowd use and recommend? Company and plan-type? PPO? HMO? HDHP + HSA (High Deductible Health Plan + Health Savings Account)?"

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: Health Insurance for the Self-Employed 111 comments
A nameless submittor wanted to voice this very valid concern: "I'm a self-employed contract programmer whose COBRA benefits are going to run out early next year. I was wondering what experiences others of similar employ have had obtaining health and disability insurance? What is available? What about rates? Is the coverage any good? What do I need to look out for?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • For better health coverage? by clickety6 (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @06:05AM
    • Re:For better health coverage? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by D.A. Zollinger (549301) on Friday December 01 2006, @07:48AM (#17063938)
      (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 22 2006, @03:56PM)

      While a humorous comment, it highlights what makes the American health care system so unique. We are so fiercely independent, that a good majority of Americans don't like having the government telling us what to do, and this includes how we take care of our body and our health. This system allows for many benefits as well as problems. The most visible problem is the ever-increasing cost of health care, and the number of people like yourselves who are falling through the cracks because good health insurance is only available through employers who can command group rates. On the flip side, because the state is not dictating how health care is conducting itself, American health care is a hot-bed of new procedures and techniques that push the limits of health care because people are willing to pay for an unproven technique even if it has even a small chance of success if the alternative is not acceptable. For example, the second son of a friend of mine was diagnose with Spina Bifida [wikipedia.org] and instead of accepting that his child would be born paralyzed, was able to find a surgeon who was willing to perform surgery on the child while he was still in the womb! [fetal-surgery.com] (notice that of the four hospitals in the world that perform this unique and complicated surgery, all of them are located in the United States)

      As a graduate student, I am faced with paying for a cut-rate, we-don't-pay-for-anything-unless-you-get-hit-by-a- bus student plan, or a much more expensive individual plan. There are very few national health care providers, and you would be well suited to search for and find a regional health insurance company. In the mid-west, I have been leaning towards Anthem [anthem.com] as my insurance provider, and hope to have a plan from them to help me start off the new year.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:For better health coverage? by killmenow (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @07:59AM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by pubjames (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:12AM
        • Re:For better health coverage? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Ihlosi (895663) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:16AM (#17064136)
          Except that isn't true.

          It's true for the spina bifida surgery (I was tempted to disagree, but I re-checked).

          However, this is because the operation is still in a trial phase. It still has to be proven that the intrauterine operation gives a better outcome than a postnatal operation. I guess that all other hospitals around the world are waiting for the outcome - they don't want to be the ones to have performed complex and risky procedures that later turned out to be no better (or worse) than the conventional, tested approach.

          [ Parent ]
      • Re:For better health coverage? by mc6809e (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:48AM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by duffbeer703 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @09:35AM
        • Re:For better health coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by D.A. Zollinger (549301) on Friday December 01 2006, @11:01AM (#17066360)
          (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 22 2006, @03:56PM)

          Actually I don't listen to talk radio, mostly because radio talk show hosts are there to entertain you and they do so by espousing their view on different subjects, without regard to the facts. In academia, what we learn is based on studies and fact, and exploration of ideas and questions about what we observe. While we may have opinions about why things are as they are, those opinions may drive us to study why we think what we think, and explore other options in coming up with a reasonable conclusion.

          There are many factors that are contributing to the increasing cost of health care in the United States, however medicare and medicaid are not reasons why Joe Citizen is paying more for health insurance. As those are government programs, the taxpayer is paying for any fraud. If you are talking about Medicare Part D, and the federal government not being able to directly negotiate drug prices, of course they don't negotiate drug prices, that is the job of the health insurance companies who operate under the Part D rules, they directly negotiate with the drug companies so that they can offer a drug plan that is less expensive than the other Part D plans, so they can attract the seniors, disabled and the poor to their plan! The more they attract, the more clout they have, and the lower the price they can get from the drug companies. Medicare is only reimbursing the health insurance companies depending on how many people have signed up for their plan. For every person they have signed up for their plan, they get a set amount of money from the government. No more or no less than any other health insurance company.

          Part D is a good plan that utilizes the skill-set of an established industry, and doesn't mandate government control over the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, government spending for this program has been much less than originally estimated. Because of Part D more senior citizens, disabled, and poor are able to receive prescription drugs for chronic problems. Also, Part D has been able to actually lower the cost of health care for this particular group of people (compare Part D plans to other prescription drug plans).

          If we had a coherent national health system, costs would be much more reasonable.

          Depends on what you mean by a coherent national health system. Hilary Clinton proposed a coherent national health system in the early '90s but there was too much resistance to the idea. If you mean a nationalized system like Canada or the United Kingdom, the lower cost comes at a loss of growth in development of new procedures and techniques. Consider my earlier example, where if my friend had been in a country with a nationalized health care system, his son would have been born paralyzed, and the government would have had to pay for his care for his entire lifetime. Without investment in new techniques and procedures, he would not have had the opportunity to walk or care for himself. Surely a smaller investment up front is better than a lifetime of costs? However, developing those techniques and procedures can be very expensive, and it is very hard to justify those expenses in a nationalized health care system when the primary focus is on keeping costs low, and utilizing proven techniques and procedures rather than experimental ones.

          While every business is in business to make money, most would take the 2% over cost that medicare and medicaid grant over the alternative; patients without the means to pay for their own health care who default on payments, or declare bankruptcy. There are a lot more stakeholders involved in the United States health care than just insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:For better health coverage? by ozeki (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @03:11PM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by porcupine8 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @09:47AM
      • Ah, anthem = wellpoint by Travoltus (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @09:49AM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by plopez (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @10:21AM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by El Cabri (Score:3) Friday December 01 2006, @11:42AM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by Mr. Slippery (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @03:06PM
      • government telling people what they can't do by falconwolf (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @07:26PM
      • Re:For better health coverage? by b4upoo (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @10:42PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:For better health coverage? by WalterSobchak (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:28AM
    • Re:For better health coverage? by E++99 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @11:40AM
    • or enroll in school by EccentricAnomaly (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @11:59AM
    • Re:For better health coverage? by Just Another Poster (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @12:23PM
    • Re:For better health coverage? by antarctican (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @01:20PM
    • Re:For better health coverage? by Run4yourlives (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @01:25PM
    • Re:For better health coverage? by tddoog (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @02:10PM
    • Insurance or Prepaid Meidcal by socalmtb (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @03:43PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Can't help with specifics by BadAnalogyGuy (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @06:14AM
  • Small business associations (Score:4, Informative)

    by oneiros27 (46144) on Friday December 01 2006, @06:15AM (#17063364)
    (http://www.annoying.org/)
    A while back, on the radio (WTOP in the Washington, DC area), they played an advertisement for a small business association, or something like that. One of the benefits of joining was that they had offered a group health plan to the member companies.

    I don't know for sure if it was specifically a small business association, or that's what I just remember it as, or if it was a local or national thing, but you can try asking around. (or someone else might be able to follow up with some knowledge of these sorts of groups)

    A quick look online suggests that the ASBA [asbaonline.org] has some sort of discount on health insurance ... that might've been what I remember. As does NFIB [nfib.com] ... just type 'small business association' into your favorite search engine.
  • Easy. by AdamKG (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @06:15AM
    • Re:Easy. by Joe Snipe (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @08:47AM
  • Go public. by ColaMan (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @06:25AM
    • Re:Go public. by BoberFett (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @06:29AM
      • Re:Go public. by richy freeway (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @07:16AM
        • Re:Go public. by Redrover5545 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:10AM
          • Re:Go public. by bb5ch39t (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @01:11PM
      • Re:Go public. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @07:24AM
        • Re:Go public. by BoberFett (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @08:01AM
          • Re:Go public. by tepples (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:59AM
            • Re:Go public. by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @10:32AM
          • Re:Go public. by nissu (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @12:27PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Go public. by javaxjb (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @12:33PM
    • Re:Go public. by NeuralAbyss (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @07:51AM
      • Re:Go public. by everphilski (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @11:30AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • What about a trade organisation? by bLanark (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @06:35AM
  • First things first (Score:3)

    by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) on Friday December 01 2006, @06:53AM (#17063612)
    (http://eth1.org/)
    Congratulations on becoming a father !

  • Poor Americans, .. again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stigu (919228) on Friday December 01 2006, @06:59AM (#17063658)
    Seriously, how dare you call yourself the "best country in the world" if you don't even have nationally implemented healthcare?

    Europe, glorious old lady that she is has long ago implemented the National healthcare to make sure that
    A; Everyone has access to proper healthcare.
    B; Everyone automatically pays into the healthcare fund so it can be maintained
    C; Good quality in healthcare is guaranteed by state checkups.


    In those days there were no "private" health insurance companies, but look what trusting in those has brought you? Deception, Fraud, and general run-around or obfuscation from most if not all of the private insurance companies.

    IMHO, healthcare is not, and has never been something companies should be in charge of. A companies purpose is to make money. The state however, if it's run by others then the idiots running the American state, should be more interested in keeping it's taxpayers ALIVE and healthy so they can work and pay taxes next year.
  • Change is needed now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2006, @07:08AM (#17063710)
    First, you are about to find out just incredibly broken our health care system is. I doubt if you will get private insurance, as they are denying older applicants out of hand, and if you have ANY problem forget about it.

    Many states have an expensive health insurance pool that has high deductible insurance that will only take care of you in catastrophic conditions. If you go for the low deductible, expect to find very high premiums and equally high copays.

    With the high deductible plan you can start a health savings account (who has money to save these days?), but that may be your best option.

    Most important, keep your coverage with your wife current as long as you can as you may get your prexisting conditions covered without a waiting period.

    In my circumstance at least, I have found that health insurance companies have no reason to want to insure anyone that may be a liability down the road. I do not see a political solution to this, as congress is corrupt. The best they could do was pass a bill that made it hard for sick people who got burried by medical bills more difficult to declare bankruptcy. And another program that was essentially a handout to drug companies that foisted a compkicated hard to use drug plan onto seniors. That's all they have done. This last congress was the most do-nothing congress ever. It seems the only thing they had time for was to take bribes from abramoff and hit up underage pages for sex and try to cover up the trail later. The health care industry is not much better with their costs outpacing inflation 3 to 1 at least.

    I know neocons are not going to like what I'm about to say, and how important that it is fighting alquaida over in Iraq blah blah blah, but the fact is with what we have spent on this war to knock over a tin horn dictator I bet we could have paid for everybody's current medical expenses in the US, let alone making it affordable.

    If you're healthy and have job, you probably will not won't give what I have to say a second thought. But if your sick as I am and can't find coverage or a doctor, you know how bad it is. If your self employed doubly so. Even if you do have coverage, you have got to be noticing how your insurance premiums are getting more expensive and its covering less, your deductible is more, and prescriptions are through the roof.

    But the greatest crime of the Iraq war is that it has taken attention completely away from the health care crisis. I have talked to my politicians to no avail. Gratefully though, a challenger for state office DID talk about it and it got him elected.

    We had no business screwing around in Iraq (esp. with the WMD big lie) without taking care of our own at home first. It's that simple. If things aren't working for you, it's important to let your politicians and everyone around you know how you feel. Only this way will there be hope for change.

    BTW, make sure that the high deductible health savings account pays for 100% above a certain point. 80%, and you still could (likely)lose your shirt if you get sick.
  • HDHP + HSA by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @07:20AM
  • Blues (Score:3, Informative)

    by tverbeek (457094) * on Friday December 01 2006, @07:33AM (#17063846)
    (http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
    I use an HMO program offered by my state's BlueCross BlueShield company. It's the same plan they sell to employers, but with me paying the full premium. It's not cheap (and for someone with a family it'd be even less so), but it's... affordable, and in the few years I've been using it, it's been a lot easier to budget the monthly premiums than it would have been to pay the medical bills I've had, and definitely made my recent visit to the ER less stressful, knowing I wouldn't have to pay for it.
    • Re:Blues (Score:5, Insightful)

      by baptiste (256004) <mike&baptiste,us> on Friday December 01 2006, @08:17AM (#17064140)
      (http://baptiste.us/ | Last Journal: Monday April 01 2002, @11:27AM)
      Except many people have varying concepts of affordable. I have kids so the BCBS plans for a family run in the range of $600 (barely covers anything) to a typical co-pay 100% plan you'd find at most corporations which runs almost $1100. That's over $13,000 a YEAR for health coverage. It's pretty scary when you're paying as much for health insurance as you are for your mortgage. Healthcare in this country is broken. We spend insane amounts on all the bean counters whose job is specifically to figure out how NOT to cover something and then blow hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on a war fought over a lie and yet universal healthcare is some sort of evil that we can't afford. I know catastrophic illnesses can cost a lot of money. But over the course of, say, 20 years while your kids grow up, how many people are going to even come spent more than 25% of the $260,000 they pay in premiums. I also think it should be illegal for hospitals and doctors to 'negotiate' rates with insurance companies. Why does being self employed, poor, or a small business owner mean you have to pay 2-3 times more for services than someone who works for IBM? Everytime I see those EOBs where 50-75% of the cost is 'negotiated away' - we're all human - if they can survive charging $300 for a procedure, it should cost $300 for EVERYbody, not just people stuck in cubicles. And for those of you who will scream 'I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare in a universal system' you're naive. You already do. Besides that - you're supposed to be all 'support the small businesses' well, healthcare costs are a HUGE expense for small businesses. Imagine how many more would thrive if they didn't have such a disadvantage compared to medium or large size businesses? Good luck finding coverage you can afford. You're going to need it. Like the previous poster said - you almost HAVE to have the co-pay plan with young kids - the doctor visits are frequent. You're pretty much stuck.
      [ Parent ]
  • Chamber of Commerce by njb42 (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @07:46AM
  • Just look around... by Ritchie70 (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @07:52AM
  • Couple of suggestions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by real gumby (11516) on Friday December 01 2006, @07:58AM (#17063998)
    Buying insurance just on your own is expensive. There are various parameters you can fiddle to help (e.g. register kid and parents separately, though this means you don't share a deductible; set your deductible as high as possible -- here the highest I could get was $5000/yr, which really ends up being more like $10K), but it's really expensive -- we were paying about $300 a month and were in perfect health -- that was almost 4K + deductible per annum.

    (it's even worse for a small company under 25 employees!)

    If you're a member of the IEEE or any other "entrepreur" association you qualify for a group policy via them. That's usually a good deal. For example a quick search of "self-employed association" just showed as its first hit an association that offers health insurance. I have no connection and won't shill for them by including the URL.

    If you live in CA I hear Kaiser is quite good though I've never used 'em myself.

    Good luck. You'll find a lot of "well baby" visits will be needed in the first year or so. Well, at more than you need as an adult anyway. The insurance companies usually subsidise them because it's cheaper to catch something in the bud.

    And finally, in all seriousness, consider moving to my home country, Australia. There's a preference for computer programmers under 40, and it's a great place to be or raise a kid. (though I live in California right now myself...)

    Oh and have fun. One thing to be careful of / manage: I basically didn't work for the first couple of years after my kid was born and again when he was perhaps 4-6. That was really great. Try to find a way to balance the time with the family with making sure there's some regular income!
  • IMPORTANT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpartacusJones (848951) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:10AM (#17064094)
    Before you drop your wife's insurance let me tell you what I am currently finding out the hard way. You will be hard pressed to find an insurance policy on a pregnant woman. Group policies can be more forgiving, but so far everyone I've talked to says it is a 'pre-existing condition' and they won't cover my 7-weeks pregnant wife. If you are going to get a policy, your wife can't deliver for 11 months from the date the policy becomes effective or it's not covered.
    I just got out of the Air Force and am now working as an independent contractor. Tricare does have a COBRA-type polkicy I can get but it's very expensive. I can't just get the coverage for my wife, I have to be on the policy, so I'm having to pay about $2200/3 months for it. At least it comes in 3 month chunks, so I won't have to carry it longer than I need it.
    If there weren't that program available to me, I don't know what I'd do. In Georgia where I live there is a Medicade program for pregnant women, but I make too much money to qualify for that. If you make more than $1600/week with a family of 4 (they count the unborn) you make too much. My wife had to have a c-section last time and I saw the bill Tricare got. For everything throughout the pregnancy they paid out over $60k.
    I have heard that if you can't get coverage and you talk to OB docs, they can usually work with you and sometimes you can end up paying less than if you had insurance. I have not looked in to that yet. Good luck!
  • Go for the high deductible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bhmit1 (2270) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:13AM (#17064116)
    (http://bmitch.net/)
    I'd recommend a high deductible plan if you're self employed. You should already have money saved up to weather the rough times, so just add some more to cover the deductible. The amount you save is significant. The baby will most certainly have you going to the doctor a lot. I've used eHealthInsurance [ehealthinsurance.com] myself, and my only complaint is that the fine print is hard to find or not available until after you purchase a policy. But the policies they offer are from the major carriers.

    For the record, the place I got in trouble was picking the cheaper plan and then getting a physical. Burried back in the fine print was a clause that they don't cover anything preventative, but that wasn't obvious when I was ordering the plan or looking through the main section of the booklet. Had I clicked a link to the provider's comparison of all their plans, it would have jumped out like a sore thumb. Personally I think it borders on criminal when a company doesn't make it obvious where you risk owing a lot of money and what coverage is missing that many others would frequently include.

    And a final note, always get the price an uninsured person will be responsible for up front for everything! This is what you'll be stuck paying when the insurance company says they aren't responsible, and you should be able to afford it. My family's neighbor (a doctor), myself, and many others agree, the medical system in the US is broken. Insurance is complicated, costs are going up, and lawsuits are giving insane sums of money for just about anything. My biggest peeve is that you aren't told how much you owe until a month after the procedure is done. Admittedly this is a service and things may fluctuate when you find a problem, but every doctor uses charge codes and their office knows their fee for that code, and the insurance companies know what they have agreed for those codes. But no one will tell you those numbers until after you've had the service. Congress would do a lot for people by requiring every insurance provider to publish how much they cover and what the patent is responsible for on a standard list of charge codes, and make it available before signing up for that coverage.
  • IEEE (Score:4, Informative)

    by shaka999 (335100) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:21AM (#17064170)
    Join the IEEE.

    They have some good group deals for insurance setup just for cases like yours. They also have group life and a few other things that might be of interest.

    Oh, and its a good organization to boot :).
    • Re:IEEE by dgtangman (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @10:49AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Friday December 01 2006, @08:22AM (#17064180)
    (http://ekj.vestdata.no/)
    How about moving to a civilized country ?

    You know, one of those where it's recognized that decent healthcare for everyone is a good thing.

    It's quite silly, the way you do it in USA. It prevents people from acting rationally, to the detriment of all. (it's the same in *parts* of Europe, you guys aren't alone about it.)

    For example, a friend of mine (living in the USA) is currently at home (watching his baby) while the mother works. He works a little evenings and earns a little extra for the family, but little enough that he was still health-insured trough his wife.

    Then he got offered a larger position. He had to turn it down. It'd have put him above the limit where he'd need his own health-insurance, so in the end he'd have ended up working *more* and getting *less*, which is nonsense.

    Everyone is a loser in this scenario:

    • The family doesn't get the extra income.
    • The employer doesn't get the extra work done. (atleast not by the person that was his first choice)
    • The insurance-industry covers both today, paid for by his wifes employer, the two of them wouldn't actually be *more* sick if he worked more.
    • The state (and thus indirectly all projects that benefit from tax-money) don't get the extra tax-money thay he'd have paid if he worked and earned more.

    Stupid. Very stupid.

    It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more.

    There's similar mechanisms in welfare-programs too, where you earn $100 more and get $150 less from welfare. The effects are similar. (it'd have been different if you'd earned $100 more and as a consequence gotten $50 less from welfare, that'd have been fine)

    • Re:How about.. by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @09:25AM
      • Re:How about.. by dunkelfalke (Score:3) Friday December 01 2006, @09:31AM
      • Re:How about.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ihlosi (895663) on Friday December 01 2006, @09:31AM (#17064810)
        I know why you think that, but it's not a "good thing", for a simple reason: What if you don't like you're health care? I can go to another insurer.

        If you see everything as black and white ...

        I can go to another insurer too. A different public one, or a private one. I can go without insurance if I really wanted to.

        I can go to another doctor.

        Me too ! I can go to any doctor in the whole country. And some of the neighboring countries, too.

        State-run medical care doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned. It all depends on the details of the implementation. You're at the mercy of what your government provides, including the infamous "waiting list".

        You're just replacing one waiting list with another one (ordered by who'll pay the most).

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:How about.. by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @01:04PM
        • Re:How about.. by Seraphim_72 (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @05:27PM
      • Re:How about.. by weston (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @04:42PM
      • You have choice in other places as well. by jotaeleemeese (Score:2) Saturday December 02 2006, @07:15AM
      • Re:How about.. by Eivind (Score:2) Monday December 04 2006, @08:16AM
    • Re:How about.. by Bored George (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @09:32AM
    • Re:How about.. by AK Marc (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @10:45AM
    • Remember these words! by tacokill (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @12:21PM
    • Re:How about.. by RexRhino (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @12:48PM
      • Re:How about.. by Grashnak (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @01:19PM
        • Re:How about.. by RexRhino (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @02:10PM
    • Re:How about.. by TaleSpinner (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @02:58PM
  • Look into using an 'umbrella' company (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:26AM (#17064212)
    Also known as "employer of record" - they exist for independents who need "big corp" sorts of benefits like access to health insurance. Here is one that I haved used in the past - MyBizOffice. [mybizoffice.com] Despite the stupid, formerly-trendy name, they are one of the largest out there and do a pretty good job of things.
  • If you're planning on having more children after.. by Assmasher (Score:2) Friday December 01 2006, @08:30AM
  • One option: MEGA through NASE by Jaiden (Score:1) Friday December 01 2006, @08:38AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What about COBRA? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bored George (979482) on Friday December 01 2006, @08:46AM (#17064346)
    (http://boredgeorge.com/)
    Even if your wife leaves her job, she (and the family, if you have a family policy) can stay on her former employer's health insurance for 18 months under COBRA [dol.gov]. But they can charge you the actual cost of the policy plus two percent. (Meaning if she currently plays 80% of the cost of the policy through deductions and the company pays the other 20% percent, after you go on COBRA you'll pay the 80% + 20% + up to 2%. The HR department of her company can tell you the COBRA rates.)

    After the 18 months of COBRA runs out, the insurance company is required to offer you a non-group policy that is not medically underwritten. I think they usually call this a HIPAA policy. This will probably be more expensive than the policy you get through COBRA, but you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.

    It's been a while since I've read the DOL publication on COBRA, so follow the link above to verify that none of the details have changed.