Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

2 million eager for health care on parents' plans

Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:08 PM EDT
us-news, health, us, health-care, dependents, patti-lawson
Carla K. Johnson, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>In this Tuesday, March 30, 2010, photo, Patti Lawson, right, and her daughter Katie Byrne, 22, are photographed on the campus of Gettysburg College, in Gettysburg, Pa. Byrne is a college grad and no longer covered on her mom's health plan, and her temporary job doesn't offer coverage. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)</p>

In this Tuesday, March 30, 2010, photo, Patti Lawson, right, and her daughter Katie Byrne, 22, are photographed on the campus of Gettysburg College, in Gettysburg, Pa. Byrne is a college grad and no longer covered on her mom's health plan, and her temporary job doesn't offer coverage. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Advertise | AdChoices

CHICAGO — Congress voted to overhaul the health care system on a Sunday. On Monday, Patti Lawson e-mailed her employer's human resources office to ask how soon she could get her 22-year-old daughter back on her health insurance.

In about six months, the new law will allow at least 2 million young adults to be covered under their parents' policies. These are the "millennials," those who came of age in the new century and now are struggling to get on their feet during the worst slump since the Depression.

Many can't find jobs, and many who are employed don't have health coverage from their employers.

The law will allow young adults to stay on or return to their parents' insurance until age 26. To qualify, young people must be "dependents" of their parents. They don't necessarily have to live under the same roof.

Lawson, a Gettysburg College administrator in Pennsylvania, said she is hoping to get her daughter back on her health plan because she is tired of playing "a roulette game." Her daughter has just a temporary job that doesn't provide insurance.

"You're banking on your child staying well," said Lawson, who has been a single parent since her husband died of cancer three years ago.

Regulations still have to be written, but here are some of the crucial specifics of the new law, based on a reading of the measure and interpretation by various experts:

_It applies to young adults up to their 26th birthday who don't have access to insurance through their employer.

_There is no dispute the measure applies to young people away at college. It is widely assumed the law also covers other young people living on their own.

_It will include married children but not their spouses or their kids.

_It is unclear whether parents must wait until their health plan's next open enrollment period to sign up their uninsured older children.

_Young adults who live in a different state from their parents should check to see if their parents' health plan covers medical services where they live.

This is the first time the federal government has forced insurance companies to let young adults stay on their parents' policies. More than half the states already have laws that extend the age of dependent coverage. New York and New Jersey push it all the way to age 30 and 31 and would be allowed to keep those provisions.

The new federal law "provides a minimum, not a maximum," said law professor Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University. Also, while many state laws do not apply to coverage from self-insured employer plans, the federal law will, experts say.

Much will depend on regulations to be written by federal health officials.

Among other things, Health and Human Services will have to decide what constitutes "dependent," and the definition will not necessarily be the same one used by the Internal Revenue Service for tax purposes. Also, HHS will have to clear up the issue of whether young people who live far from home can stay on their parents' plans.

Young adults in their 20s are the most likely age group to be uninsured, and nearly 30 percent of them lacked insurance in 2008.

"Given the downturn in the economy and the unemployment rate among young adults, it's a really important provision in the bill," said Sara Collins of the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.

Since 2003, the group has written a report titled "Rite of Passage?" about uninsured young adults and how they often lose health coverage at age 19 or upon high school or college graduation.

"It's a problem that spans the income spectrum," Collins said.

Before the law takes effect, some young adults who are graduating from college or otherwise becoming ineligible to stay on their parents' plans may want to buy insurance through COBRA to bridge any gap in coverage. But that can be expensive; there are also short-term plans that can be found through Web sites like http://www.ehealthinsurance.com.

The law will help Portland, Ore., mother Jessie Edwards sleep better at night. The nurse practitioner will be able to get both her young adult children covered as dependents on her insurance. Her 23-year-old son is losing his insurance this month, and her 25-year-old daughter has been uninsured for two years.

What frightens Edwards most is the possibility of one of them getting into an accident, she said. "What would we do? How would we cover that?"

Pat and John Curry of Augusta, Ga., have two daughters, ages 23 and 21. Without the new law, the older daughter would lose coverage on the family health plan at her next birthday.

"It would be a tremendous relief to us if we could keep them on our insurance," Pat Curry said. "This is something that would give them just a little more time to get their feet under them with the economy the way it is."

Lawson bought her college graduate daughter, Katie Byrne, catastrophic coverage on the independent market, so she wouldn't be completely uninsured while she searches for a job with benefits. But the $100-a-month plan does not include doctor visits. Meanwhile, Lawson's 19-year-old son is still covered.

"My son can go to a doctor if he twists his knee playing soccer and it's a $15 copay," Lawson said. "Then I have a daughter who does not have the same benefits. It illustrates for me what a lot of Americans face."

Under Pennsylvania law, Lawson's employer could choose to offer coverage for dependents up to age 30, but her employer has decided not to do so.

In the meantime, Lawson plans to fill an Easter basket with dental floss, medications and other health items for her daughter.

She is encouraging her daughter to stay healthy while they wait to get her back on Lawson's plan.

___

On the Net:

FAQs on young dependent coverage:

http://www.younginvincibles.org/cover.html

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Carla K. Johnson's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Chicago
  • Public Discussion (226)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Earlie1Deleted
Division by Zero

I find it interesting how this is being portrayed by the media conservatives. My parents' insurance kicked me off (even though I was attending college full-time) at the age of 19. I had to get a physical and get my own insurance policy. My parents would have loved to be able to keep me on their insurance until I finished college but it wasn't an option. The policy was in my name but they helped pay the premium with the condition that I had to keep my grades up. In talking with my coworkers, I get the feeling that most parents of college kids would like to be able to keep them on the family policy.

  • 19 votes
#2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:48 PM EDT
Brent-320354

A lot of people want free stuff, Division by Zero.

But some of us realize that there is nothing truly "free". They may as well have given us all free food and clothes to. I mean, why not? It's free!!!!! The Government is giving it away!!!!

My god, did you have to pay for your electricity too? Cable? Oh, how horrible that must have been for you..... ;-)

  • 13 votes
#2.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:27 PM EDT
NHFishercat

College is not a "right" at this point in time in US history, although everything will be sooner or later from the looks of things.

Myself, I had a FULL TIME professional job and went to "Continuing Education", aka College at night, and took care of myself, don't see why you or anyone else isn't capable of pulling it off. I had some financial lean times but I lived to my level of income and got through it.

Pity meter at 0%, please don't try and divide by that.

  • 6 votes
#2.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:37 PM EDT
Summer-1597193

Um, Division by Zero never claimed it to be "free". All he/she said was that his/her parents didn't have the option of keeping him/her on their insurance - which they would've liked to have been able to do so.

I don't think anyone is saying that parents that do keep their kids on their insurance shouldn't have to pay for it. In some cases, those parents may ask their adult child to reimburse them for their part of the premium - which would be fair, imo.

  • 10 votes
#2.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:40 PM EDT
Darlene Bays

Brent, remember not too long ago about Obamastash...........he is paying for it right? :(

  • 2 votes
#2.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:52 PM EDT
WTBGlobalCommonSense

why not? It's free!!!!! The Government is giving it away!!!!

I would have to give a big bull@!$%# on this.

The parents are paying the same for their kids to be on their insurance at the age of 24 and 25 as they were at the age of 23 (or 22/21 depending on what state).

No one is giving these kids free health insurance except for their parents who choose to do so.

Are you saying that these parents do not have the right to help their own children?

  • 11 votes
#2.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:56 PM EDT
NHFishercat

Um, Division by Zero never claimed it to be "free".

Free or not, some of these "parents" will be of the subsidized variety (not saying DbZ are) and the rest of the people will basically be paying for these "college kids" health insurance well into adulthood. Until age 26? Give me a break, go to work. 26... lol.

  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:01 PM EDT
Division by Zero

You're missing the point, or deliberately trying to ignore it. Many parents of college students already pay for insurance for those college students. The difference being that instead of being rolled up under the family policy, the college kid's policy is at the higher individual rate. Most family insurance policies currently end at age 19 or 24 whether or not the person is still in college. Most 19-24 year olds do not have jobs that offer health insurance, because they typically work fast food or retail jobs. There aren't too many "professional" jobs that one can get without a college degree. Most people that I know in that age range who are out on their own don't even have health insurance because the jobs they work don't pay enough for them to afford it. When they need healthcare it's usually because they're already very sick and haven't gotten better over the span of days or weeks, so they go to the emergency room or to various "urgent care" clinics. The last time I checked, the military isn't ready for an influx of millions of 19-24 year olds, so what's their option?

  • 12 votes
#2.7 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:06 PM EDT
Alex-1337762

Invade Iran. They'll be ready for the influx then.

    #2.8 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:08 PM EDT
    Summer-1597193

    Free or not, some of these "parents" will be of the subsidized variety (not saying DbZ are) and the rest of the people will basically be paying for these "college kids" health insurance well into adulthood. Until age 26? Give me a break, go to work. 26... lol.

    Some will, some won't. These once these kids have access to insurance through their employers they are no longer eligible to stay on their parents insurance.

    • 5 votes
    #2.9 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:09 PM EDT
    Summer-1597193

    Division by zero just mentioned a good point - many college students parents already pay for their kids insurance. However, it is being paid as an individual plan - which is significantly higher cost than if they were allowed to keep the kid on their insurance. So, for many families - this would save them money. Which is a good thing.

    • 11 votes
    #2.10 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:13 PM EDT
    worriedrwnc-1140024

    Summer, sorry to disagree, I write individual policies all the time for young people to get them off the parents group and reduce the monthly premium significantly, especially in cases of only children. The problem with the individual policy vs the group is guarantee issue on group vs underwriting of the individual policy if there are any health issues.

    • 1 vote
    #2.11 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:32 PM EDT
    space guy

    No one is giving these kids free health insurance except for their parents who choose to do so.

    In the situation as described in this article, the company that these parents work for pays for most of their insurance costs. Now those costs are going to go up due to the addition of these quarter century old children. That is why all of these public companies are having big charges against their profits.

    The government knew that this would happen by the way. Just one more reason for these companies to outsource to China.

    • 5 votes
    #2.12 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:37 PM EDT
    Summer-1597193

    worriedrwnc: That may be true in in cases of only children; however, many families don't have just one kid. Basically what I was saying is that by giving parents this option - for many families it would be a money saver. Certainly not every family - so that is something they would need to assess for themselves.

    • 5 votes
    #2.13 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:45 PM EDT
    Paddy Clarke

    But some of us realize that there is nothing truly "free".

    Well Brent, tell that to the freeloaders in the seeded article.

    On second thoughts, don't waste your time, they are beyond logic.

    • 2 votes
    #2.14 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:30 PM EDT
    WTBGlobalCommonSense

    Space Guy-

    Sorry I must have missed it, where did it say that her job covered most of the insurance? Many companies are making employees pay much more than they did even a year ago. And they pay nothing in the way of co-pays and deductibles.

    I lost my insurance and had to go on my husbands, but the company paid much less towards my insurance (bi-monthly payments for one = 40.00/bi-monthly payments for one + dependent/spouse = 130.00) Gods forbid we had any kids then it shoots up to almost 400.00 a paycheck.

    So no, the costs will not go up, simply stay the same (for company and parents) for maybe 4 years if the child qualifies.

    I swear, people used to be able to bitch about kids being lazy good for nothings without wishing them lack of health benefits and lack of help to thrive. Maybe these people just need bigger lawns that they can guard so they can feel good about their lives.

    • 3 votes
    #2.15 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 11:31 PM EDT
    Division by Zero

    When I was hired years ago my employer provided health insurance at no cost to the employee and it was less than $100 a month for the family plan. The health insurance benefits were a major incentive for employment. Now the insurance burden has been shifted to the employee without a commensurate increase in pay. The decision many employees face is whether they want the money to pay the rent or do they want health insurance. The younger employees tend to forgo the health insurance because they would rather be able to spend the money on other things. The older employees are starting to experience health problems and need the insurance. It would make more economic sense if the younger employees (who wouldn't file many claims) would pay premiums into the system so that the overall insurance costs would be lower for the group.

    • 6 votes
    #2.16 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 2:38 AM EDT
    NHFishercat

    When I was hired years ago my employer provided health insurance at no cost to the employee

    Does your company pay for your auto insurance? Does your company pay for your home insurance? Your company providing health insurance is simply a hiring perk (or was before ObamaCare), the company (at one point) was never obligated to offer health insurance. It's amazing how this has gone from a employer fringe benefit to an expectation/entitlement. Done correctly each INDIVIDUAL should be paying for their own health insurance, just like it works for homes and automobile insurance.

    The younger employees tend to forgo the health insurance because they would rather be able to spend the money on other things.

    That's called FREEDOM. Something this country used to favor.

    It would make more economic sense if the younger employees (who wouldn't file many claims) would pay premiums into the system so that the overall insurance costs would be lower for the group.

    Yes, your right, the younger employees hard work should go towards paying for other people, why should they get their own money to advance their own life, greedy scum they are. They should be forced to pay for something they would hardly ever use.

    The late, great, America.

      #2.17 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 10:42 AM EDT
      Division by Zero

      Oddly, my company stopped providing free health insurance in 2002 during the Bush administration, so I'm not exactly sure how you can blame the change on "Obamacare."

      Done correctly each INDIVIDUAL should be paying for their own health insurance, just like it works for homes and automobile insurance.

      Done correctly, each employer should be paying enough so that their employees can afford their own health insurance.

      As for younger employees, health problems that they may have later in life can be detected and treated before they cause catastrophic harm to the individual later. It is better to catch something while someone is in their 20's and it's treatable with an inexpensive prescription or a lifestyle change than to let it go undetected and require longterm hospitalization and expensive specialist physicians when they are in their 40's. The cost of a motorcycle helmet is quite cheap compared to the cost of treating a traumatic brain injury resulting from a crash while not wearing one. Is it better to spend pennies or spend dollars? You have the freedom to be irresponsible, so long as you're willing to live with the consequences, but right now irresponsible people get their medical treatment in hospital emergency rooms and our tax dollars pay for it.

      • 4 votes
      #2.18 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 12:36 PM EDT
      rickace

      NHFishercat

      Does your company pay for your auto insurance? Does your company pay for your home insurance? Your company providing health insurance is simply a hiring perk (or was before ObamaCare), the company (at one point) was never obligated to offer health insurance. It's amazing how this has gone from a employer fringe benefit to an expectation/entitlement. Done correctly each INDIVIDUAL should be paying for their own health insurance, just like it works for homes and automobile insurance.

      Right on. It's sad that so few Americans grasp that. And the notion of reimbursing routine visits to the familty doctor is an odd one as well. Insurance in other areas protects the ensured from major catastrophes ... homeowners are insured against loss of the home by fire, flood, tornado, etc., and motorists are insured against perils like six-digit damages in a lawsuit. Major medical is similar and appropriate, but every visit? That's like a homeowner's policy that pays when you need a new roof or oil burner.

      The late, great, America.

      Indeed. Our once great republic now resembles more closely an oligarchy. We should just crown King Obama and Queen Pelosi and represent who we really are.

      • 2 votes
      #2.19 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 12:37 PM EDT
      Division by Zero

      And the notion of reimbursing routine visits to the familty doctor is an odd one as well.

      Yes, it is an odd notion. Reimbursements came into being, however, to increase the wellness factor. It was perceived as better to get someone into the doctor's office for a routine visit that might detect something serious than to wait until the patient's condition becomes dire and would require much more expensive treatment. The insurance companies figured it was better to spend $100 today than to spend $50,000 in 10 years when the patient required hospitalization. If the patient knows that it's only going to be a $20 copay to go to the doctor when he feels that something just isn't quite right with his health, he's much more likely to go get it checked out than if he knows it will cost $200 for the consultation. The cost of healthcare has gone up but employee pay has not gone up in the same proportion, so without such reimbursement arrangements the health of the population would decrease as fewer people would seek medical treatment until their condition became a crisis.

      • 4 votes
      #2.20 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 12:49 PM EDT
      rickace

      Division by Zero

      I get your point about making it relatively painless for a patient to have something checked out and thus catch problems before they become catastrophic. For many though it's becoming a moot one. As more Americans lose their jobs and insurance plans along with them, they will become like me and have to pay all costs out of pocket. Then they'll find out what health care in the USA is really about: pay through the nose.

      • 2 votes
      #2.21 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 1:22 PM EDT
      NHFishercat

      Oddly, my company stopped providing free health insurance in 2002 during the Bush administration, so I'm not exactly sure how you can blame the change on "Obamacare."

      My post CLEARLY states that ObamaCare will NOW be making employers provide health coverage for it's employees (or pay a payroll tax). Doesn't state ANYWHERE that it is responsible for the stoppage of health care.

      So it has indeed gone from a fringe benefit offered by an employer to attract top talent to an expectation/entitlement by people like yourself and NOW forced upon employers by Obama.

      Done correctly, each employer should be paying enough so that their employees can afford their own health insurance.

      Why is it that employers should be responsible for YOUR health insurance? Employers provide you with a job that they pay you to do, why is anything beyond that THEIR responsibly? Employers are not burdened by worrying if your house is insured. Employers are not burdened if your automobile is not insured. Employers are not burdened if your family gets ZILCH if you unexpectedly pass away and don't have life insurance.

      Why don't we force employers to pay a portion of house/rental and auto insurance? Most employees live somewhere, and most employees drive to work, why isn't THAT the responsibly of the employers also?

      The cost of healthcare has gone up but employee pay has not gone up in the same proportion

      So what, the costs of housing are astronomically higher then what they used to be also, should we create another entitlement program to handle that? Maybe make the "young" pay for it before they even get a house so the "older" people can afford their mortgage (subsidized)?

      It's easy to fix "things" with other people's money. Unfortunately these entitlement programs will cause everything to fail and we ALL lose sooner or later. I know I will use these government metrics (who is rich at what income) to stop at certain levels of productivity as anything more then that you start to lose for working hard.

      • 2 votes
      #2.22 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 1:43 PM EDT
      rickace

      NHFishercat

      Why is it that employers should be responsible for YOUR health insurance?

      Who knows? And you're right -- they don't pay any other insurance (although some offer life insurance). You're also right about employer-provided insurance having become an entitlement of sorts.

      Most employees live somewhere, and most employees drive to work, why isn't THAT the responsibly of the employers also?

      Hehe for some it is. When I lived in Manhattan in the 1990s I walked past the doors of a tall office building of one of the big NYC insurance firms, can't remember which one. It was oh around 6:00 PM. Lining the curb was a fleet of limousines, drivers waiting patiently for their suits to leave work and get driven home in luxury. No doubt the limo shows up at the suit's house in the morning for the inbound commute.

      Now NYC Mayor Bloomberg is a billionaire yet there are times he rides the subway to Gracie Mansion, commuting right alongside Joe and Jane Sixpack.

      If anyone thinks the insurance companies are ripping them off, well it sure does look like it. Life's good if you're a high-level manager at an insurance firm. Real good.

      • 3 votes
      #2.23 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 1:58 PM EDT
      NHFishercat

      Hehe for some it is. When I lived in Manhattan in the 1990s I walked past the doors of a tall office building of one of the big NYC insurance firms, can't remember which one. It was oh around 6:00 PM. Lining the curb was a fleet of limousines, drivers waiting patiently for their suits to leave work and get driven home in luxury. No doubt the limo shows up at the suit's house in the morning for the inbound commute.

      Right, it's a fringe benefit of the employer to offer this to attract top talent, not provided because they have to or the employee is entitled to the limo ride. Some employers (the good ones) have good benefits to attract the best employees as the employer looks at the expense as an investment to make more money based on better/superior product over the competition.

      If anyone thinks the insurance companies are ripping them off, well it sure does look like it. Life's good if you're a high-level manager at an insurance firm. Real good.

      There are a lot of high-level managers from many other market segments besides insurance firms that we can point out. My sisters CPA high levels are living pretty phat. But in the end, a LOT of these people either went through enough education or extremely hard work to get to that level, why should they be "taxed" for their efforts. Isn't that just plain old envy? Some of these people may be working 70+ hours a week. I don't envy that and I don't think it's worth the money to live life like that but some people do to earn that "greedy" paycheck.

      Anyways, have a great weekend, be interesting to see what is the next "right" that Americans should have that the hard working should pay for.

        #2.24 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 3:02 PM EDT
        Reply
        kim-1720329

        So who is supposed to pay the insurance cost for these young "adults"? The parent's employer? Is the young adult going to provide a service to the employer in return for their health benefits? In NJ the insurance company sets a premium for the coverage and then the young adult (or the parent if they so desire) can pay for the insurance. Seems fair to me.

        • 6 votes
        Reply#3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:52 PM EDT
        rickace

        kim-1720329

        So who is supposed to pay the insurance cost for these young "adults"? The parent's employer?

        The parents' insurer(s). If both parents are insured by separate companies, welcome to paperwork hell when both insurers point fingers at the other. If only one is insured, his/her company's insurer becomes laden with an unexpected new risk and will lay that off in higher premiums to his/her employer, who will cut benefits or staff to meet payroll.

        • 2 votes
        #3.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:51 PM EDT
        Reply
        Rixar13

        My kids will finally have access to Health Insurance to see a Doctor when they need to. Bravo President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and all Democrats for helping the American People.

        • 16 votes
        Reply#4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:53 PM EDT
        Brent-320354

        They hadn't until now?

        • 3 votes
        #4.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:44 PM EDT
        Deucalion

        Just like the rest of ObamaCare, a great idea, but there is still no clear way of paying for it. The state I live in can no longer afford to provide basic health coverage to the poor and unemployed.

        Just read the papers prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation regarding H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872. ObamaCare is promising coverage but has no clear plan of paying for it, and most states will be unable to afford their new responsibilities.

        When I was age 26, anyone still mooching off their parents at that age were considered bums.

        When I was 26, anyone still mooching off of their parents were considered bums.

        If anyone is actually able to obtain any of these pie-in-the-sky promises, expect to pay for it. My guess is it will likely cost you more than it would be otherwise for your age 26 or under "child" to buy their own health insurance.

        • 1 vote
        #4.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:29 PM EDT
        Summer-1597193

        Just like the rest of ObamaCare, a great idea, but there is still no clear way of paying for it.

        I would assume that the parents would continue carrying a family policy in order to cover their children until age 26 or until the child gets insurance through their employer. As far as will it cost them more to carry their child than have the child buy and individual policy - depends on the situation. Family policies typically cost the same regardless of how many people are on the plan - so families that have several kids, it would probably be cheaper to keep the kid on their family policy. For families with one kid, it might be cheaper to go with an individual policy for their kids. This gives families the option - there is nothing that requires the parents to carry the kid until they are 26.

        • 7 votes
        #4.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:33 PM EDT
        WatchTheOtherHand

        Its funny to me that this latest generation of 'adults' are still considered children at age 26. I see the future of the human race coming to an end. Not because of war or anything so devastating, but the young now will simply starve to death when their parents are no longer around to feed them.

        • 1 vote
        #4.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:57 PM EDT
        Summer-1597193

        Saying a parent can carry their child isn't quite the same as calling the adult child a child. I will always be my parents' child. Don't get me wrong - I do think that people have to grow up sometime. At the same time, if a parent chooses to carry their child on their insurance, isn't that up to the parent?

        • 9 votes
        #4.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:01 PM EDT
        Deucalion

        Family policies typically cost the same regardless of how many people are on the plan - so families that have several kids, it would probably be cheaper to keep the kid on their family policy.

        I am not an actuary, but having an adult child on a policy that would not be there under existing circumstances, is still adding another person that the insurance company is not required to cover at this time. Simply put, it will raise costs for the insurance company. There is much hype about preventing insurance companies from denying pre-existing conditions, but little in the way of how they adjust their premiums for situations like this. It may be as simple as you describe, but I have yet to find anything simple in this bill.

          #4.6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:05 PM EDT
          WatchTheOtherHand

          Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it ONLY applied to personally owned policies. However, this also affects GROUP rates. Since everyone in the GROUP pays the same premium for this new coverage, everyone now has to pay for that dependent 26 year old "child" in the form of higher premiums.

          • 1 vote
          #4.7 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:07 PM EDT
          Summer-1597193

          Deucalion: Yeah, it will raise costs for the insurance companies - and I could see them passing those increases onto their insureds by raising premiums. As far as I know, there is nothing in this bill that prevents insurance companies from raising premiums. As far as pre-existing conditions go - as far as I know they will be able to still charge more for people w/ pre-existing conditions. Don't get me wrong - I don't think it's a perfect plan, but at least it gives people the option. They can look at all their options and choose what is best for them. Increasing options increases competition - hopefully that competition will help control the rate of increase in premiums. From what I've heard, this bill does start to make some changes that are needed - but is far from perfect. It doesn't address tort reform, for example.

          WatchTheOtherHand: If you are part of a group, you are already paying for other people's dependents through higher premiums. Like I said earlier - family rates are the same regardless of the size of the family. For example, I buy group health insurance through the school I attend. I carry myself and my boys. Some carry themselves, a spouse and one or more child. I pay the same amount as the larger families, yet there are less people in my family. Basically, this is extending what is already in place. Is it perfect - no. At the same time, it does increase options for those that have children still in college or recently graduated and not eligible for benefits yet. I do see where in 2014, it is suppose to change so that parents can still carry the child even if the child's job offers the child insurance - I don't agree with that.

          • 3 votes
          #4.8 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:21 PM EDT
          Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II

          Yeah, never mind that it's unconstitutional. Who gives a rat's behind that the supreme law of the land doesn't give the federal government the power to enact social(ist) programs?

          I hope you people choke on all these illegal (unconstitutional) social(ist) programs.

            #4.9 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 2:54 PM EDT
            Reply
            Metal Guitarist

            You didn't raise anyone.  That's the whole problem right there.

            This is what happens when you choose job over family.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:55 PM EDT
            Metal Guitarist

            You didn't raise anyone.  That's the whole problem right there.

            This is what happens when you choose job over family.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 3:55 PM EDT
            Proud American-252641

            Our daughter has been out of school and on her own since 2005 she is now 22 and yet our insurance company has allowed us to keep her on our policy without question.

            More hype and blather, it may help a few, but the cost in the long run to all of us remains to be seen.

            Especially since we haven't seen all the pork that has been added to this bill, just the fact that the IRS will oversee the enforcement should be enough to make a rational person shudder; at least in my estimation.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#7 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:11 PM EDT
            paxildog

            Don't worry, they're behind closed doors right now, won't allow CSPAN or others to hear or watch, adding more pork and flavors at our expense. Can hardly wait to see what is forced to be paid for with no vote this time. Gotta love that Barry and friends (sarcasm).

            • 3 votes
            #7.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:14 PM EDT
            Alex-1337762

            Yeah when the IRS comes into the equation everyone just holds their breath and waits for the hammer to fall. When the IRS gets involved, it's never a good thing.

            • 3 votes
            #7.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:15 PM EDT
            paxildog

            True 100% of the time.

            • 2 votes
            #7.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:19 PM EDT
            Alex-1337762

            I tell you there is no destructive force in the United States government like the IRS. I've never seen an institution that can do so much damage with the stroke of a pen and a push of a button. I'm sure someone will try and defend the IRS on here, until they get audited anyways. I think their words will disappear when they see their home taken, their business shut down, and all of their money and possessions ferreted away. I would take on a gang of thuglettes armed only with a spork before I'd tangle with an IRS agent.

            • 3 votes
            #7.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:23 PM EDT
            Freedom Writer-801740

            Our daughter has been out of school and on her own since 2005 she is now 22 and yet our insurance company has allowed us to keep her on our policy without question.

            Dont look for that to be the status quo until this takes effect. Ohio just kicked a bunch of so called dependents of the state insurance plan at an estimated cost of 10 million dollars savings to the tax payers and are debating about asking for reimbursement from the people who knew their dependents werent eligible to be on the plan.

            • 3 votes
            #7.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:26 PM EDT
            Deucalion

            How much will all this cost? Let's see...the article claims 2 million people under 26. That figures out to be around 0.6 % of the population. Now, if we just add the approximately 0.16 % homeless, an unknown number of illegal immigrants that will be covered (some estimates as high as 20 million or 6% of the population This accounts for 20.4 million.
            So tack on another 10% of the administrations claim to get us to the 30 million uninsured. This is a broad brush stroke of what we are paying for. Cost estimates vary, but more than likely well over $1 trillion by 2019.
            Therefore, for each of the 30 million uninsured, it's going to cost more than anyone can guess right now. After all of the legal hurdles, insurance company balks, state law suits, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and other political wrangling after the November elections, who really knows what we will have left of ObamaCare even as little as one year from now.

              #7.6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:40 PM EDT
              Ms. Crittenden

              So dramatic and full of crap. You think you are so intitled, yet it is us who is paying for you and us at the same time. Retire already. You can't even tell the truth to defend yourselves.

                #7.7 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 1:33 PM EDT
                Reply
                bkoz

                and the "freeloaders" will have another excuse to be freeloaders!

                • 5 votes
                #8 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:17 PM EDT
                jumpshotjarrod

                bkoz

                Not really.

                How much do you think the average person makes right out of high school or right out of college??

                Check the pay scales on that, think about 400 a month or so for full coverage healthcare, and you'll see very quickly that 'freeloading' has got nothing to do with it.

                • 9 votes
                #8.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:44 PM EDT
                WatchTheOtherHand

                When one person needs another person to pay for something for them.. That's freeloading, plain and simple.

                  #8.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:12 PM EDT
                  Summer-1597193

                  When one person needs another person to pay for something for them.. That's freeloading, plain and simple.

                  By that logic, an infant needing diapers is freeloading. I know, that's probably not what you meant - you probably mean people that are able to work. I can understand what you are saying. At the same time, say a child graduates from college and gets a job. They aren't benefit eligible for 90 days (or more in many companies). What's wrong with their parents insurance covering them until they are benefits eligible? Nothing, imo. That is up to the parents to decide if they want to continue with that or not - there is nothing in the bill that requires parents to continue the coverage for their child.

                  • 7 votes
                  #8.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:26 PM EDT
                  billy-witchdoctor-com

                  By that logic ..you have never been a parent...an infant needing a diaper is a responsibilty.....what is wrong?...if the left doesnt have to do anything the left wont...why do thhink they want government run healthcare...so Pelosi reid obama can decide for you....not a good idea.... what is needed is Jeffersonian Democracy...

                  If the people let government decide
                  what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
                  their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
                  as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

                  • 1 vote
                  #8.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:23 PM EDT
                  Summer-1597193

                  billywithcdoctor - com: I guess you can't catch a bit of intentional exaggeration there. I kind of figure the whole "I know, probably not what you meant...." would clue into that. Yes, I've been a parent - in fact, I'm a single parent of two boys that raises them without assistance while being a full-time medical student and not receiving child support. We live off very tightly budgeted student loans since the school doesn't allow any of us to work while in school. Giving parents the option to either carry their adult children or not carry their adult children on their health insurance until the adult child is 26 is NOT the government mandating that the parents do this. If you don't want to carry your adult children on your insurance - then don't, it's really not that hard of a decision. As far as the rest of the plan - there are good things and not so good things and still other things that need done. It certainly doesn't entirely fix the problems, and it certainly has flaws.

                  • 7 votes
                  #8.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:40 PM EDT
                  WatchTheOtherHand

                  Summer: There is a part of this argument that you are missing. As many have pointed out, if you are part of an employer GROUP plan, you often pay a family rate no matter how many dependents you have on your policy.

                  What parent that still has actual children wouldn't keep their 25 year old on the policy as well. It doesn't change their individual cost. However, the cost of the family policy offered by the company will inevitably increase because more people are covered as a whole.

                  If the cost of a family plan at Company A was $1000 a month and let's say 50% was covered by the company. With this addition of new dependents, the premium might go up to say $1400 a month. Now the company might decide that this is simply too steep and will only continue to cover the cost of the original $500 per employee, hence EVERYONE, even those without any 'adult' dependents will now have to pay $900 a month instead of the $500 per month that they had before.

                  Its a GREAT idea for those who put their 18-26 year old children on the plan, but its ultimately pretty BAD for those who simply only had children under 18 before this change. Now I could go into the long-term effects of such an increase, like people migrating AWAY from group family coverage because they simply can't afford it and may gain no PERSONAL benefit from having this change.

                  Again, Someone ALWAYS has to pay. You can't simply increase a benefit without consequence.

                  As you have stated, you don't benefit from having any dependents that fall under this provision, but are you also okay with the fact that your monthly insurance premium might increase from $500 to $700 because others want to put their adult "children" into their plan?

                    #8.6 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 10:26 AM EDT
                    Summer-1597193

                    As many have pointed out, if you are part of an employer GROUP plan, you often pay a family rate no matter how many dependents you have on your policy.

                    I know this - I've actually pointed this out MANY times on this seed!!!

                    However, the cost of the family policy offered by the company will inevitably increase because more people are covered as a whole.

                    Again, I realize this and I've said this on this seed several times. Also, these rates increase - even if more people aren't added.

                    In other words - I am not missing any part of the argument. I've pointed these things out several times. I never once said that added these adult children would be free - nor did I said it wouldn't impact premiums. However, I realize that premiums increase and would still increase whether this option was put into place or not. Basically, I think the increase in benefit is worth the potential increase in cost. Another thing that I've mentioned is that another provision of this bill is to introduce "exchanges" in which people can purchase insurance across state lines. By doing this, you are increasing competition. Increasing competition helps control costs (though it's not always 100% effective). So, hopefully by creating exchanges, families and individuals will be able to purchase the plan that is best for them - both in regards coverage and cost. This means that insurance companies won't be as quick to increase premiums (theoretically - that remains to be seen if true).

                    • 1 vote
                    #8.7 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 11:08 AM EDT
                    WatchTheOtherHand

                    If you understand the concepts, then why do you keep saying that parents will get to choose whether or not they pay for their 'adult' children on their plan. That isn't even the issue.

                    Everyone will be paying for those adult dependents through higher premiums and they DON'T get a choice in the matter. None. Zip. NADA.

                    To say those premiums would increase anyway is like saying paying $6 a gallon for gas this summer is okay, because it was going to go up to $3.50 a gallon anyway without the change in legislation.

                    As for the exchanges. While I believe they will be hammering out the actual details for many years, I saw NO provision in the bill that will allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The choice of options in the exchange will still be limited to those insurance companies selling policies for each individual state. An exchange is going to be little more than an outlet store for a limited number of policies that companies will offer at a standardized rate. While they will likely have to bid to become part of that exchange, no company is going to offer a bid where they would actually lose money. The cost of healthcare is still going to rise dramatically since this bill largely boosts demand for healthcare services while putting pressure on doctors to reduce supply of services.

                      #8.8 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 12:55 PM EDT
                      Summer-1597193

                      WatchTheOtherHand: I keep saying that parents can choose if they want to carry their adult children in response to people claiming that "slackers" are just "sponging" off their parents. I don't necessarily see that as "slackers sponging off their parents".

                      As far as everyone will be paying for those adult dependents through higher premiums - when anyone without insurance goes to the ER (regardless of age) - those costs are already passed on to your via increased costs, etc. You are already paying for them. This just shifts how you are paying for them.

                      I got my info regarding the exchanges from a physician at my school - it could be inaccurate, but he said that they are suppose to be able to buy insurance across state lines and take it with them if they move. I wouldn't expect the companies to bid where they actually loose money. However, considering most 20 somethings are healthy - they are relatively low risk individuals. So, it costs the insurance companies very little to actually cover them, while they keep getting to charge the family rate - meaning they make more money for a longer period of time by carrying the adult children. It remains to be seen if demand will actually go up - many individuals without insurance already get health care. They either self pay or they obtain free to them services through health departments and emergency rooms. By giving people better access to health care insurance, they will be able to go to their physicians offices instead of the emergency rooms. This basically shifts the burden from the emergency room to doctor offices. Doctor's offices are more affordable than the emergency room. When those uninsured individuals get care in the health department and emergency room - those costs are recovered, by increasing costs to everyone else. This at least gets reduced. As far as the physicians offices go - there is actually a huge push in the medical community to increase primary care. In fact, this years matches shows a significant upswing in the numbers of graduating doctors matching to primary care residencies. Yes, we need to respond by increasing the number of primary care physicians. Which brings me to another point about this - you want more primary care physicians, make medical school and malpractice more affordable. Neither of these issues are addressed in the bill - like I said many times, this bill is not perfect. It doesn't address every issue - and some parts of it probably aren't the best thing to do. But, standing still not doing anything isn't going to fix it either.

                      • 3 votes
                      #8.9 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 2:09 PM EDT
                      Metal Guitarist

                      Either hire someone whom you call a freeloader, give them health care or shut the hell up.

                      Hey, bkoz, how much do you pay for the air God lets you breathe? Ah! I see that you are a freeloader yourself, you hypocrite!

                      • 3 votes
                      #8.10 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 1:56 PM EDT
                      Ms. Crittenden

                      When one person needs another person to pay for something for them.. That's freeloading, plain and simple.

                      Then how about you quit taking social security and medicare out of my check and pay me back every penny I paid toward your retirement care? How about you pay for the debt this country incurred before I was old enough to vote? The system is, you paid for your parents, and we pay for you. The fact is you didn't have to pay much for your parents because they had so many children and made the effort to cover their expenses and you could live off minimum wage back then. Yet you expect the few children you had to pay for you? The babyboomers spent and refused to pay their bills. They know all about freeloading.

                      • 2 votes
                      #8.11 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:13 PM EDT
                      Dave-905627

                      The babyboomers spent and refused to pay their bills. They know all about freeloading.

                      Last I checked, it ain't the babyboomers who are defaulting on their loans, declaring bankruptcy rather than paying their credit card bills, and allowing their homes to go into foreclosure.

                      Just a little clarification for you, ma'am.

                        #8.12 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:46 PM EDT
                        Ms. Crittenden

                        Some of us were scammed by babyboomer businessmen into non fixed interest loans under the poor assumption that we should be able to purchase the same type of house you purchased at our age. After all, we were working as hard if not harder and longer than you did and asking for less. We are not the only generation in serious credit card debt. You would be suprised how many younger people refuse to have anything to do with them. Anyway it all worked out. Some of us were smart enough to see the bubble, and your home values are finally coming within our price range.

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.13 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 3:11 PM EDT
                        rickace

                        Dave-905627

                        This Baby Boomer paid and paid into Social Security for decades, and for what? The money was supposed to be kept in a trust fund. The feds it turns out have been looting that fund (so much for trust) and now all that's left are some cobwebs and a stack of IOUs from Uncle Sam, who's flat broke. Cash flow in the fund has now gone negative (the Einsteins at the CBO had predicted that would happen in 2016).

                        Think when it comes time for me to collect there will be anything to collect from? I don't.

                        • 2 votes
                        #8.14 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 3:21 PM EDT
                        Ms. Crittenden

                        There will be money for you to collect, because generation x and beyond is backing you. But we need help too.

                          #8.15 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 3:41 PM EDT
                          Dave-905627

                          Some of us were scammed by babyboomer businessmen into non fixed interest loans under the poor assumption that we should be able to purchase the same type of house you purchased at our age.

                          Wow. Thank you for a PERFECT example of ""it's not MY fault"".

                          And I'm sure you were trying to buy an 1100 sq/ft house just like I did when was "your age"....

                            #8.16 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 11:09 PM EDT
                            Ms. Crittenden

                            At my age my parents had their first house paid off and sold it for 3 times what they had paid for it. I personally rent my house, but I'm considering a purchase. I've yet to have a mortgage and I refuse to use credit cards, my parents never used credit cards either. I prefer this over taking unnecessary risks. I am completely against the use of credit cards as a means of establishing credit. It's just another banking scam designed to convince people to spend money they don't have, subjecting them to endless fees and debt. But I don't think it's right to blame young people who were drawn into these loans. Where did they get their advice? Who warned them against making these purchases? The loans never should have been available in the first place. It should have been made clear that these houses were over priced through fixed interest rates. The larger the mortgage, I guess the more you can blame the individual. But for many of these people they couldn't afford even a small house where they grew up without a non fixed interest loan. At the same time, I don't believe people who fell into these traps, particularly those with larger loans and credit card debt, should have been bailed out. It would have been better to let the market stablize itself.

                              #8.17 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 12:43 PM EDT
                              Metal Guitarist

                              When one person needs another person to pay for something for them.. That's freeloading, plain and simple.

                              Yeah. Soldiers never pay for their guns and ammunition, do they? I want my money back.

                              • 2 votes
                              #8.18 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
                              RyanMS

                              When one person needs another person to pay for something for them.. That's freeloading, plain and simple.

                              Right, so all those roads you travel on, public schools you went to as a kid, the military that protects you, public transportation, parks, utilities infrastructure, libraries, regulatory bodies (like the FDA who makes sure your food is safe to eat), etc., you just paid for all that by yourself, huh? When people pool their resources, they're able to develop their society far more than if they just hoard everything they have.

                              • 1 vote
                              #8.19 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 10:54 PM EDT
                              Dave-905627

                              Ms Crittenden -

                              Could you please explain WTF you are trying to say?

                              Some of us were scammed by babyboomer businessmen into non fixed interest loans under the poor assumption that we should be able to purchase the same type of house you purchased at our age

                              Then you go on to say -

                              I personally rent my house, but I'm considering a purchase. I've yet to have a mortgage

                              So, therefore, you have ZERO Equity. I won't even go into trying to explain assets as you so eloquently explained -

                              I am completely against the use of credit cards as a means of establishing credit. It's just another banking scam

                              So, how did you buy your car? How did you submit a credit report in order to gain approval for your Rental Agreement?

                              If you're going to be the "self-appointed" spokesperson for "everyone", at least know what the hell you are talking about in the first place!

                              • 1 vote
                              #8.20 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 10:55 PM EDT
                              Ms. Crittenden

                              I was simply offering an opinion, as everyone else does here. I certainly haven't appointed myself any sort of spokesperson, but I find it hard to not have something to say when people from my generation are being accused of being a bunch of freeloaders. I understand assets just fine thank you. I purchased my first car with a large cash down payment. I've never purchased a brand new car because it makes no sense to me to waste money just to roll it out of the shop. You don't need a credit card to have a credit report. I built my credit by paying off loans with cash on vehicles, furniture, and appliances. I've never had an issue obtaining a lease agreement even before my first loan. Apparently, paying your rent on time is considered a form of credit. I have been approved for increasing mortgage loans for years, but have simply not yet decided to act because as I stated earlier the risks in the market. The deals are finally right.

                              • 1 vote
                              #8.21 - Mon Apr 5, 2010 12:48 AM EDT
                              Dave-905627

                              I built my credit by paying off loans with cash on vehicles, furniture, and appliances.

                              And here we are, back in post #8.17

                              I am completely against the use of credit cards as a means of establishing credit. It's just another banking scam designed to convince people to spend money they don't have, subjecting them to endless fees and debt

                              And around we go!!!

                                #8.22 - Mon Apr 5, 2010 10:27 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                mike from wisc

                                My son turns 18 next week. I have enrolled him in college, Payed for the entire 4 years. Now it's up to him from here. Not that I won't help him if he really needs me but at 18 they need to start their own life.

                                • 7 votes
                                Reply#9 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:18 PM EDT
                                Summer-1597193

                                If you paid for the entire 4 years - then you are still taking care of him; he is not starting his own life yet. Not that I have a problem with you paying for his college education - that's great. It's just kind of funny when I hear parents say things like this, yet they are still paying for a major part of their kids daily life.

                                • 7 votes
                                #9.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:25 PM EDT
                                mike from wisc

                                Summer, His dead mother and I saved so he at least was headed in the right direction. I condemn anyone that takes care of or pays their childs way beyond 18. If things weren't the way they are these days I wouldn't have done even that. And by the way.

                                • 4 votes
                                #9.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:28 PM EDT
                                Summer-1597193

                                mike from wisc - Like I said, if you're able to and want to pay for his education - that's great, I don't see anything wrong with that. I was simply pointing out that paying for his college isn't exactly letting him take care of himself entirely.

                                My parents certainly didn't pay for my undergrad nor are they paying for med school for me right now - they weren't/aren't able to. Not a big deal - I've worked by butt off to get scholarships and am taking out a lot of student loans that I'll have to repay. I moved out of my parents house when I was 17 - they haven't paid for anything for me since I've moved out of their house. I couldn't afford to go to college when I first graduated high school - so, I worked. Got married, had a couple of kids, got divorced - by then I was old enough to get student loans without having to put my parents income in, so I qualified for loans and a small grant my first year in undergrad. From then out it's been scholarships mostly with some student loans.

                                • 6 votes
                                #9.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:45 PM EDT
                                fireryone

                                I condemn anyone that takes care of or pays their childs way beyond 18

                                Did you really mean to post that?

                                • 4 votes
                                #9.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:34 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                The Grim Creeper

                                Awesome! If I want to live in my parents' basement, play video games, smoke pot, and listen to Bob Marley all day, I have that option.

                                The World War II generation was fighting and dying for their country, some at the age of 17, and now we're rewarding 'children' who don't want to grow up and take responsibility. If they aren't considered adults until after the age of 26 for insurance purposes, then perhaps we should raise the drinking age to 26 as well. Viva la welfare state!

                                • 11 votes
                                Reply#10 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:18 PM EDT
                                Summer-1597193

                                So who is supposed to pay the insurance cost for these young "adults"? The parent's employer? Is the young adult going to provide a service to the employer in return for their health benefits? In NJ the insurance company sets a premium for the coverage and then the young adult (or the parent if they so desire) can pay for the insurance. Seems fair to me.

                                Probably depends on contracting. Many time family plans for the rate stays the same regardless of how many dependents are listed - having 12 kids on the insurance plan costs the same as having 1 kid on the plan. In many companies, the company pays for a percentage of the plan, and the rest is taken out of the employees check.

                                • 6 votes
                                Reply#11 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:20 PM EDT
                                Ryan-

                                I would imagine that the cost is going to be transferred more so to the employee.

                                • 3 votes
                                #11.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:43 PM EDT
                                Freedom Writer-801740

                                I would imagine that the cost is going to be transferred more so to the employee.

                                I would imagine they are going to divide it up amongst the employees, because god forbid someone who chose to have more kids should have to pay their fair share.

                                • 2 votes
                                #11.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:48 PM EDT
                                Summer-1597193

                                Ryan - that's already been happening. Many insurance companies use to recommend to companies that the company pay 60% of the premium, and the employee pay 40% of the premium. However, with the rising premiums, employers are shifting more of the premium to the employee. Employers might decide to shift more of the cost to the employee, some might not - depends on the employer and their business needs. In the end - the insurance company doesn't really care who pays them, as long as they get paid.

                                • 5 votes
                                #11.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:52 PM EDT
                                Ryan-

                                Summer, I understand that, I pay a portion of my health care costs through my employer. What I was getting at is, people with children or more children are going to pay quite a bit more, and many companies that were not sharing the cost with it's employees, will start.

                                I think it's hard to find many employers who don't make employee's pay a portion, outside union and government jobs.

                                • 2 votes
                                #11.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:09 PM EDT
                                Summer-1597193

                                Ryan - Currently family plans are rated as a family plan cost - regardless of how many children are on the plan. Insurance companies would have to start rating out family plans differently in order to charge larger families more. Not sure if that will happen or not. If it did happen, I certainly could see employers passing on that elevated cost to the employees - it would probably be passed on to the employees that cost more. I have my insurance through the school I'm a student at. I carry a family plan for me and my two boys. I pay the same rate as a classmate of mine that carries himself, his wife and their three kids. If insurance companies rated his family plan as a more expensive plan because they carry 5 people, then I could easily see that increase being passed onto him.

                                • 2 votes
                                #11.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:19 PM EDT
                                worriedrwnc-1140024

                                generally the employer pays a portion of the employee on premium and the employee pays 100% off the additional premium for children / spouse, generally.

                                • 2 votes
                                #11.6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:22 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Molly Weasley

                                With the unemployment rate for that age group as it is, this is a godsend. My own kids are 21 and 23, and I'm thankful I've been able to keep them on my insurance. Otherwise, they'd be out in the cold.

                                When they're working on their own, they can get their own insurance. Until then, this is a great safety.

                                One of the best parts of the Affordable Care Act.

                                • 7 votes
                                Reply#12 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 4:46 PM EDT
                                HeelsnHairMetal

                                I wish I could have stayed on my mother's insurance plan until I got out of college. By the time this law kicks in, Ill be graduated, so its a little late for me. But my mother asked ME when I could sign up to get on her plan. I opted for school instead of jumping out into the work force. Because of that, I dont have any kind of insurance. My mom always wished she could have helped me out by keeping me on her plan. I pay for my own college expenses, and she wanted to help me out. Theres nothing wrong with that.

                                If a parent opts to keep their child on their plan, that is now their right. If they want to pay extra money to do so, that is their right. It doesnt make anybody a "freeloader" or lazy simply because they stay on their parents plan. Parents choose to help their kids out in plenty of ways. And now the law says they have a right to do so. Who are you to tell someone else how they should be taking care of their children, regardless of their age.

                                • 9 votes
                                Reply#13 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:00 PM EDT
                                worriedrwnc-1140024

                                PARENTS

                                Q: How do I get my 21 year old onto my plan?

                                A: Six months from now, insurers will be required to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This applies to all plans in the individual market, new employer plans, and existing employer plans, unless your adult child has an offer of coverage through his or her employer. This requirement will take effect the next time your plan comes up for renewal. Adult children who are on their parents’ plan now but who lose that coverage when they graduate from college will have the option of rejoining their parents’ policy in the new plan year beginning 6 months from now. Those whose parents work at self-insured companies will also be eligible if they do not have an offer of employer-sponsored insurance.

                                Both married and unmarried dependents qualify for this dependent coverage.

                                Beginning in 2014, children up to age 26 can stay on their parent’s employer plan even if they have an offer of coverage through their employer.

                                I copied this from the US Health and Human Services Website, of course I like how it starts with "six months from now" that was three days ago, I wonder how long is a peice of string? It is also not as "immediate" as everyone was lead to believe and does have a few little hick ups in it...

                                  Reply#14 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:18 PM EDT
                                  Summer-1597193

                                  Anyone who thought that immediate meant the day the bill was signed is not very bright, to put it nicely. 6 months basically gives the insurance companies time to re-write policies to cover these people, make other operational changes, make sure computers are updated properly, etc., etc.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #14.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:24 PM EDT
                                  worriedrwnc-1140024

                                  I sure did not think that, but I have plenty of clients that have been calling this week ready to go!

                                    #14.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:34 PM EDT
                                    Summer-1597193

                                    worriedrwnc: I guess they weren't thinking it through. If I had kids that were old enough to be affected by this, I would probably call just the insurance company to find out what their expected time frame is, do I need to wait for open enrollment to enroll my child, what sort of documentation will they need from me, etc., etc. I certainly wouldn't expect them to be ready to sign them up today.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #14.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:49 PM EDT
                                    techman05

                                    I think that only covers like medicare in the next 6 month to be improved. Sounds like 2012 till everything is in place and that's only if a new president or current President Obama don't get pressured to cancel it at election time, so you'll probably get a lot more attempts at the insurance trying to reflect a bad image on the health-care bill before anyone can get tax covered health-care in any decent size.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #14.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:53 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Chuck101

                                    Yea, lets see how long this last before the government figures out there is not enough money in the US treasure to pay for all of this. Medicare will not be the only program to get it services cut.

                                    I never thought the futuristic social concepts of Logon's Run were possible in a civilized society. I am shocked to see the seeds of it materializing in my lifetime.

                                      Reply#15 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 5:33 PM EDT
                                      rickace

                                      Chuck101

                                      I never thought the futuristic social concepts of Logon's Run were possible in a civilized society. I am shocked to see the seeds of it materializing in my lifetime.

                                      I saw Logan's Run in the theaters when I was a teenager. I had an instant crush on Jenny Agutter (Jessica) too ;-)

                                      Speaking of fiction becoming truth ...

                                      In 1995 I read Atlas Shrugged by author Ayn Rand, a fictional tale of a federal government running amok, redistributing wealth under force of law from industrious men like Hank Rearden and Ellis Wyatt to others who hadn't earned it. The heroes were men and women of principle and courage who opposed the government, John Galt being the foremost of the bunch. The novel opens with a street bum asking a passing railroad executve, "Who is John Galt?"

                                      Come 2008, we have candidate Obama telling Joe the Plumber he plans to run the federal government like the feds did in Atlas Shrugged. As his presidency unfolds, we notice that he's making good on that promise. As for John Galt, he's nowhere to be found.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #15.1 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 9:11 AM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      Deucalion

                                      Apologies for the cut and paste error above.

                                        Reply#16 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:33 PM EDT
                                        WatchTheOtherHand

                                        Wow... isn't that a shock... The latest generation of voters who helped elect a man who promised them government cheese by the truckload, is just THRILLED that this law will allow them to sponge off their parents dime just a little bit longer.

                                        Did anyone ask the PARENTS how they feel? I wonder how many families now have to deal with telling their kids, "Sorry I can't AFFORD to keep paying your bills no matter what the law says".

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#17 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 6:48 PM EDT
                                        Summer-1597193

                                        I know a lot of parents that would have liked to keep their children on their insurance through college and until the kid has insurance through their job. The law doesn't say they have to keep the kid on their insurance - it says they have the option. So, if they can't or don't want to then they can tell their kids that they won't be carrying them.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #17.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:03 PM EDT
                                        HeelsnHairMetal

                                        Did anyone ask the PARENTS how they feel? I wonder how many families now have to deal with telling their kids, "Sorry I can't AFFORD to keep paying your bills no matter what the law says".

                                        Some parents are thrilled. They WANT to be able to get their kids back on their plans. They dont mind helping them out if they are trying to find work, in college, or just down on their luck. My mother called me up first thing and asked me did I want to jump back on her plan. In fact, she insisted I look into it.

                                        Other parents are going to do what they always were going to do: let their kids fall off the plan. Its not that hard. If you dont feel like paying for an adult child's insurance, then tell them no. It shouldnt be all of that hard.

                                        • 9 votes
                                        #17.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:08 PM EDT
                                        Ms. Crittenden

                                        BS. Parents should not have a choice. The cost of insurance is based on income, they pay what they can afford. They had these kids, they need to help them out. Too many parents are too blind to see things are harder for their children.

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #17.3 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:35 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Charles 10011

                                        Just wait until part II of this comes along in ten years. That's when all the "children" will be mandated to insure their parents because Medicare went broke. Not in the law now but who knows? Ammended 2019, effective 2020? Let's take it further, if SS goes under, "children" may be mandated to support their parents. Once they get away with one unconstitutional mandate, they can mandate anything, for the greater good of society of course. They'll just reason that parents take care of the first quarter of a child's life, the child(ren) should take care of the last quarter of parents lives. One child, tax-payers pay half. No child, tax-payers pay all. More than two children, the kids get a break! It'll bring all families much closer together, like say in China? India? North Korea?

                                          Reply#18 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:13 PM EDT
                                          Summer-1597193

                                          Carrying an adult child until they are 26 is not a mandatory thing - it is an option that parents can do should they choose to. Until 2014, it is my understanding that parents can utilize this option as long as their adult child doesn't have an offer of insurance through an employer. Once 2014 happens, parents can opt to cover their adult child even if the child has an offer of insurance through an employer.

                                          • 5 votes
                                          #18.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:46 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          BLD

                                          I am so sick of hearing about how all these young kids are walking around close to death. How many really get sick enough they need insurance coverage? I would love to see the stats on how often kids really go to a doctor for things they cannot pay by themselves, for example, a doctor's visit. I bet this daughter has an iPhone or some other cell phone service, a laptop and cable hookup, and other amenities.

                                          In marketing classes in undergrad I remember learning this principle: you either fill a need or create a need. I think the same can be said for problems - they either exist or you create one which enables you to sell something to the American people. In this case, I think they have overstated the seriousness of the problem of being uninsured as it pertains to young people (and maybe even others). My gosh, when I was a kid and entered the work force, you didn't have insurance to pay for your doctor visits. You had only major medical to cover ER visits and surgery. The rest was your responsibility as a person. Yet I don't remember young people dropping over like flies. And when I had my daughter, I paid for those well visits and if it meant I had to forego something, I did.

                                          Look at the H1N1 "epidemic." I know some people got sick, but come on, folks. They made you think we would be facing a pandemic akin to the flu outbreak at the turn of the 20th century or the Black Plague. Now they have TOO much of the vaccine. I didn't get a shot and know many who did and guess what - we didn't get sick.

                                          You know, I think Sheetz and some fast-food restaurants provide insurance or at least access to it. Maybe her daughter needs to go get a job there. Interestingly, we don't know what she does for a living.

                                            Reply#19 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:27 PM EDT
                                            Summer-1597193

                                            BLD - I don't know how many of these young adults are walking around "close to death" as you put it. I do know that without insurance - my asthma medications would cost well over $1000/month. I have insurance that I pay for myself through the school I attend, luckily. I also know of many parents that want to carry their children on their insurance until the child has access to their own health insurance just in case something happens. This simply allows the parents to make that decision. If the parents don't want to continue the child's coverage, then they don't have to.

                                            Yes, places, even fast food restaurants, provide insurance - usually to full-time employees after 90 days or more. This extension of coverage, at this time, only allows people to be covered under their parents until they are 26 or have an offer of insurance from their employer. Basically - it's to help cover a gap in coverage, currently. It is my understanding that in 2014, parents can still carry their adult child to 26 regardless if that child has an offer of insurance through their employer.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #19.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:43 PM EDT
                                            BLD

                                            Sorry, but I see no reason that a parent should be able to carry a 26-year-old child on their policy if that person is married or has a job that provides insurance. If you are mature enough to get married, mature enough to drink and smoke and enter into contracts, then you cut the apron strings and be responsible for yourself.

                                            I assume that you are still very young (at least in my eyes) since you are still in school. I am concerned that your generation is becoming accustomed to the idea of being a socialist country, and only hope that when it happens in full-force, I am no longer alive. What I can tell you is that if you research economies of these nanny-state, socialist countries, you will find they are not that good. If you expect to have the wealth or same economic standing of your parents' with a socialist economy where the govt. provides everything and taxes people to death to pay for it, well, you are going to be surprised.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #19.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:24 PM EDT
                                            Division by Zero

                                            Yes, places, even fast food restaurants, provide insurance - usually to full-time employees after 90 days or more.

                                            I added emphasis to "full-time" because many fast food restaurants and retailers deliberately keep employees at a part-time status. One place that I know of considers anyone working more than 28 hours a week to be full-time, so they deliberately schedule the majority of the staff to only work 26-27 hours a week. It's cheaper for them to have a staff of part-time employees for whom they don't have to provide health insurance than to have mostly full-time employees.

                                            Some business owners do honestly want to provide health insurance for their employees, but some do everything they can to keep from having to do it.

                                            • 7 votes
                                            #19.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:29 PM EDT
                                            Summer-1597193

                                            BLD - I agree and disagree with you. I agree with you that once the adult child has access to insurance through their employer they should no longer be eligible for insurance through their parents. I disagree about the marriage thing - IF the adult child can't be put on their spouse's insurance and isn't yet benefits eligible through their employer.

                                            As far as me being young because I am in school - you are making an inaccurate assumption. I graduated high school, got married, had a family, got divorced then went to undergraduate school. I am now in medical school as a single parent of two boys. You also assume that I want to live in a socialist country - far from that. I am simply saying that allowing parents the option of providing essentially "gap coverage" for their adult children is a good thing.

                                            Division by Zero: You are very right about fast-food employers and retailers deliberating keeping employees as part-time employees. I thought of that after the time to edit the post had passed.

                                            • 9 votes
                                            #19.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:15 PM EDT
                                            rickace

                                            Division by Zero

                                            Some business owners do honestly want to provide health insurance for their employees, but some do everything they can to keep from having to do it.

                                            Did it occur to you that keeping cost of payroll low might be necessary for some business owners to remain solvent? It's better for an employee to pull down part-time wages than none at all.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #19.5 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 9:17 AM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            Dave-905627

                                            I'm just curious when the parents are gonna stop wiping their kids' noses and a$$es.

                                            When are we supposed to expect these "kids" to ACTUALLY GROW UP and become financially RESPONSIBLE for themselves??

                                            Or do we just bend over and foot the bill like the government told us to??

                                            • 4 votes
                                            #20 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:50 PM EDT
                                            Summer-1597193

                                            The government didn't tell you that you had to cover your kids until they are 26. It gave you the option to. If you see providing "gap coverage" to your adult child ad "wiping their noses as asses", then don't provide it. It's that simple.

                                            • 6 votes
                                            #20.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:56 PM EDT
                                            Charles 10011

                                            Having raised 4 children and spent 35 years doing that, I can't imagine how a parent would not keep an uninsured child under their plan if they could. I think the "who pays" for it will be very interesting to watch in the case of an employed child who could have access to a health plan and stays on a parental plan also provided by an employer. How will that work out? If I were the parent's employer, I wouldn't be happy subsidizing the childs employer. That can happen in 2014, right?

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #20.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:17 PM EDT
                                            Summer-1597193

                                            Charles - from what I understand, yeah that could happen in 2014. That is one part of this idea that I'm not a big fan of. I think it's great to give parents the option of keeping their kids on their insurance until the kid has an offer of insurance through their employer or until age 26, which ever comes first. However, I think once the adult child is eligible for insurance through their own insurance, then they need to switch to that coverage for the exact issue you bring up.

                                            • 2 votes
                                            #20.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:07 PM EDT
                                            rickace

                                            Dave-905627

                                            When are we supposed to expect these "kids" to ACTUALLY GROW UP and become financially RESPONSIBLE for themselves??

                                            Who knows. Parenting today sucks compared to what it was when I grew up in the 1960s. Instead of instilling a work ethic like our parents did, many today simply arm their kids with cell phones and high-tech toys, and then turn them loose to play.

                                            I earned my B.S. at age 20 and quickly landed a good job with a health plan. This age 26 stuff is progressive bull@!$%#.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #20.4 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 9:24 AM EDT
                                            dollyrocker98

                                            Dave...you grew up in the 60's? So did I. College was a lot cheaper back then and good paying jobs with benefits were certainly more plentiful then they are today. Ahhh yes, the good old days. Unfortunately, times have changed and those good old days aren't what they used to be.

                                            • 3 votes
                                            #20.5 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 3:15 PM EDT
                                            Dave-905627

                                            follow the posts -

                                            RickAce was born in the 60's

                                              #20.6 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 10:53 PM EDT
                                              rickace

                                              Dave-905627

                                              Actually I was born in the 1950s, smack dab in the middle of the Baby Boom. My clearest memories of parenting back then span the 1960s.

                                              dollyrocker98

                                              College was a lot cheaper back then and good paying jobs with benefits were certainly more plentiful then they are today.

                                              After earning my B.S. in 1975 I landed a great job as a professional software developer. Never had a problem finding work through Y2K when medical issues knocked me out of the game.

                                              Ahhh yes, the good old days. Unfortunately, times have changed and those good old days aren't what they used to be.

                                              Sad, but very true. 2008 was a watershed year. Gone are the good times of the 1980s, 1990s, and the early 2000s. Dying off is gluttony (Hummers, $3,500 TV sets, $400 jeans) as the American way of life, and good riddance.

                                              As the economic collapse unfolds further, Americans will re-learn the lessons of the Great Depression. You don't throw it out, you fix it because you can't afford a new one. More homegrown food to stretch the budget.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #20.7 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 10:07 AM EDT
                                              Dave-905627

                                              my apologies if you felt that was directed at you, Rick!!

                                              I was trying to point that out to Dolly.

                                              As the economic collapse unfolds further, Americans will re-learn the lessons of the Great Depression. You don't throw it out, you fix it because you can't afford a new one

                                              This newest generation has no CLUE about fixing ANYTHING. It's all "disposable" to them.

                                                #20.8 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 10:34 AM EDT
                                                Division by Zero

                                                This newest generation has no CLUE about fixing ANYTHING. It's all "disposable" to them.

                                                Most consumer products are not fixable these days, and even if they can be fixed, it's often more economical to buy a new one. If you can get a home appliance fixed for $50 or buy a brand new one for $65 you might as well buy a new one. I bought a television 5 years ago and it quit working about 2 months ago. I took it to a couple of local tv repair shops and they wanted to charge me $200-$350 to fix it. For just a little bit more I could buy a new tv, so I did.

                                                • 3 votes
                                                #20.9 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 11:30 AM EDT
                                                Dave-905627

                                                Division -

                                                Three words.

                                                Cash

                                                For

                                                Clunkers

                                                Now does it make sense?

                                                Rather than spend nominal charges to keep a car running, throw it out to inherit another 5 or 6 year commitment.....Yeah, GREAT idea there.

                                                  #20.10 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
                                                  Division by Zero

                                                  Rather than spend nominal charges to keep a car running, throw it out to inherit another 5 or 6 year commitment...

                                                  The economic decision of driving an older car really has to be made on an individual basis. For some people having an older car isn't much of an inconvenience. For other people having an older car can be a major inconvenience. If you're retired and don't need reliable transportation to get to work daily, you can put up with the inconvenience of the occasional malfunction. If you live in an area with a robust public transit system having a reliable car isn't critical. If you have easy access to another car, such as one belonging to a spouse, sibling, child, or friend, having a reliable car isn't critical.

                                                  For others, it's not so easy. I used to work in a place that only allowed the hourly employees to have 3 excused absences within a rolling 90-day period. Whether it was for sickness or a car that wouldn't start, they only got 3 excused absences per rolling 90-day period. If one of them had a car problem it really became a critical issue because after that third absence they would very likely get fired. So if an employee had already missed 2 days in the last 90 days for sickness and then one morning the car wouldn't start, it was a major issue for them. Under such circumstances it might make sense to buy a cheap new car than to try to rely on maintaining an older, less reliable car. Needless to say, when we interviewed applicants to work there, we emphasized that they needed to have reliable transportation.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #20.11 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 12:52 PM EDT
                                                  rickace

                                                  Dave-905627

                                                  my apologies if you felt that was directed at you, Rick!!

                                                  I was trying to point that out to Dolly.

                                                  No harm, no foul :-)

                                                  This newest generation has no CLUE about fixing ANYTHING. It's all "disposable" to them.

                                                  Aye. And in fact a lot of stuff on the market today is either unfixable or prohibitively expensive to repair.

                                                  My Dad was born in 1913 and when the Great Depression hit he was living with his sister and mother. Dad was mechanically inclined and learned how to fix just about anything. This served our family well as he saved thousands of dollars in fees paid to repairmen. In his 50s he single-handedly put a new roof on our Cape Cod style house.

                                                  There are men today like that, but they're not as numerous as they were in the olden days when self-sufficiency was more important. I lost my Dad two years ago, and although I still miss him dearly I am content in knowing that he's not alive to witness the systematic destruction under Obama and the Democrats in Washington of the nation he served during WWII and therefter as a civilian until his retirement.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                  #20.12 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 1:13 PM EDT
                                                  Dave-905627

                                                  Okay, I'll play your game, Zero

                                                  How much does a car battery cost? around $80

                                                  How much for an oil change? around $30

                                                  How much does a new car cost? Around $20,000

                                                  Yeah...makes sense.

                                                  Here's a COMMON problem with the current generation - Ask them about what's under the hood of the car they RELY on for their job...they couldn't tell you how many CCA the battery has, what kind of oil goes in the engine, what type of ATF goes in the transmission, what kind of air or oil filter goes on their car - BUT - they can show you their DROID or IPhone and the charger that plugs into the "accessory outlet", the 24Gb hard drive that stores their music in their stereo, their 22"/24"/26" rims and low profile tires...see the trend??

                                                  Even better - ask them when the oil was last changed.

                                                  The sad fact is, when the ""car wouldn't start"" excuse is used, it is normally because the idiot OVERSLEPT.

                                                  now, as Rick pointed out -

                                                  There are men today like that, but they're not as numerous as they were in the olden days when self-sufficiency was more important

                                                  I would LOVE to see this generation being faced with what Rick's parents went through.

                                                  What do you HONESTLY think THAT outcome would be??

                                                    #20.13 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 1:37 PM EDT
                                                    rickace

                                                    Dave-905627

                                                    I used do a lot of my own automotive work but now it's difficult due to several medical ailments. I'm not familiar with the specs you mentioned regarding my own car, but I do have a damned good shop do the work. Last month they replaced the antifreeze, motor oil, and brake fluid. Now using Mobil 1 in the crankcase ... a tad more pricey but IMO worth it.

                                                    I would LOVE to see this generation being faced with what Rick's parents went through.

                                                    What do you HONESTLY think THAT outcome would be??

                                                    I think a lot of them would rise to the challenge, but it will be a steep learning curve considering how far behind they are. Especially for those not mechanically inclined.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #20.14 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 1:52 PM EDT
                                                    Dave-905627

                                                    Rick,

                                                    I learned from my father - he was an accountant, and from my grandfather, who worked in a cigar store.

                                                    As testament to their "inclination", I am still driving the car that my grandmother drove my grandfather to work in, and I learned how to drive in.

                                                      #20.15 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:49 PM EDT
                                                      rickace

                                                      Dave-905627

                                                      As testament to their "inclination", I am still driving the car that my grandmother drove my grandfather to work in, and I learned how to drive in.

                                                      Super! That's the kind of attitude we need more of. In 2008 I sold a 1988 Honda Accord with way over 100,000 miles on it. It still ran well. Had to sell because my dad left me a 2002 Accord when he died two years ago at age 96. It's funny ... even at that age he was a better driver than many of our fellow Long Islanders were!

                                                      • 2 votes
                                                      #20.16 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 3:26 PM EDT
                                                      Ms. Crittenden

                                                      Dave, You just can't stop summing up younger generations like we are all a bunch of good for nothing bums. Honestly, we are not all that bad. RickAce, I agree there are some pretty crappy parents out there, but we are not all crappy parents. I'm sure some people from your generation were crappy parents too. And some of us do know how to fix things, and don't let our kids run around with ipods and text messagers. Those are the kids that are going to get hit by a car walking out into traffic without even looking. You do have to wonder why no one has taught them to look both ways? There are some serious problems I see with the kids today, but it's not all of us parents allowing it. I think the big problem today is parents are working too much and not spending enough time with their kids in general. I personally would rather not have the nicest things, if that means being home with my kids more. As far as knowing how to fix things, my dad fixed everything and even though he had all girls, he taught us how to fix things too. But like Rickace pointed out, they cram engine parts so close together these days you can't get in there to work on them. I would have to agree though the 50's, 60's, and when I grew up in the 70's, and 80's, those were better times. I also agree with you Dave about the Cash for Clunkers plan. I am just waiting to hear about people not being able to make payments on these new loans.

                                                        #20.17 - Mon Apr 5, 2010 1:47 AM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Jeff-Las Vegas

                                                        So when you turn 18 you are old enough to vote, you can drink in many states, you can drive a car and you are no longer considered to be a minor. BUT you still qualify to be a dependent to your parents. Are we going back and then declaring that these minors can no longer vote, drive , drink etc? At what point to those dependent upon the parents go it alone? Do we extend to 30-40-50 or just toss it in and say the Govt will just pay for it all. And , btw , who will be left to pay for it? Already 40% pay no taxes- at what point does that go to 50-60 or more? Do we end up with one poor sucker someplace being the only one left to pay taxes? and God Forbid if he ever wants to retire!

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        Reply#21 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 7:58 PM EDT
                                                        Summer-1597193

                                                        You can't legally drink in any state in the US at 18 - all of them have a minimum legal age of 21 anymore. As far as the insurance goes - this is an option for parents. There is nothing that says they have to cover their adult child until 26. Furthermore, at this time, that option is only available if the adult child is not eligible for insurance through their employer. Basically, it's meant to cover the adult child through college and until they become insurance eligible at their employer - which is taking longer and longer for many people to complete because they can't afford to not work through school, so they take fewer credit hours and longer to complete their degrees. Essentially, it provides the parents the option of providing so-called "gap coverage". As far as who will pay for this - well, considering the families would be paying a family rate for their insurance, it would be the families that are paying for it.

                                                        • 4 votes
                                                        #21.1 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:16 PM EDT
                                                        Jeff-Las Vegas

                                                        I stand corrected on the legal drinking age. Amazing that the law was passed in 1984 when Reagan was Pres. There are some situations where exceptions are made from what i read but not enough to be an issue.

                                                          #21.2 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:26 PM EDT
                                                          BLD

                                                          Summer, do you understand his point about the fact we are approaching (and will soon be at) the point where the majority of this country is paying taxes to pay for the rest of the country? Doesn't that bother you? Do you not realize that just because a person works, they may not pay taxes after deducting their exemptions and standard or itemized deductions? If you research the issue, you will actually find that it's a very small percentage who pay the majority of the taxes.

                                                            #21.3 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:27 PM EDT
                                                            Summer-1597193

                                                            Jeff-Las Vegas. Yeah, I was just going to post a correction saying to say there are some exceptions to that also. :-)

                                                            BLD - Yes, I understand his point. I also realize that currently people are already paying for other people's health care via increased medical costs, etc. Yes, I do realize that not everyone pays taxes. The point that I was making is that allowing parents to opt to continue to cover their children until they are 26 under their plan means that the parents would be paying for that plan. Eventually, some of those parents may be eligible for subsidies to help pay for their insurance; some won't.

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #21.4 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:04 PM EDT
                                                            Jeff-Las Vegas

                                                            Summer- I am not quite comfortable with your point. I do understand that the parents will pay the bills but I strongly suspect there will be some increased costs passed to others. Theoretically, when the companies set their rates they base it on the people insured, their accident rates, ages etc. Adding these children( using the term loosely) to the policies changes the policies and the actuarial basis for the original policies. I do not knot know if that incurs a greater or lesser risk to the insurance company which could/would affect the rates overall. that is one of those accounting deals that none of us are privy to the info on nor would some-many of us believe regardless of the net effect.

                                                            A side note- I think the title of the article is a bit misleading and a bit pro- HCR. I seriously doubt there are two million people just sitting in the wings to get added on to their parents policies. There may be two million eligible but I strongly suspect the actual numbers of people that take advantage of it will be considerably less. To venture a guess probably 50% less but that is just a W.A.G.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #21.5 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 9:56 PM EDT
                                                            Summer-1597193

                                                            Jeff-Las Vegas: I'm sure there will be increased cost - I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't. However, hopefully creating the "exchanges" where people can shop across state lines will increase competition enough that the increase in costs won't be extreme. Many people have pointed out that the vast majority of these 20-somethings that are uninsured are typically healthy individuals - which is true. So, the additional risk should be relatively minimal.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #21.6 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 10:01 PM EDT
                                                            Ms. Crittenden

                                                            At what point to those dependent upon the parents go it alone?

                                                            When enough babyboomers retire from their jobs, or we substantially raise minumum wage and lower the cost of living. Getting jobs back from China, fair trade, not free trade, should be high on the list.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #21.7 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 4:07 PM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            billy-witchdoctor-com

                                                            On Monday, Patti Lawson e-mailed her employer's human resources office to ask how soon she could get her 22-year-old daughter back on her health insurance.

                                                            tell her...soon as she gets a job and pays for it ...that is what I did...pretty simple.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            Reply#22 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 8:16 PM EDT
                                                            authorondo

                                                            Here is what I see with all that's been written. The government and high education (mostly colleges) are forcing children to live off the parents.

                                                            As you get older, you'll come to see the present day government really screwed you.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            Reply#23 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 10:03 PM EDT
                                                            WatchTheOtherHand

                                                            As you get older, you'll come to see the present day government really screwed you.

                                                            So very true.

                                                              #23.1 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 7:41 PM EDT
                                                              Ms. Crittenden

                                                              It's not the government that screwed you. You screwed yourselves and all of us along with you. Your generation ran your government and your generation voted for everything you got. You asked for the moon and no taxes. You allowed corruption and wasteful spending to occur. Maybe someday we too will look back and realize we made mistakes, but we won't pass the blame off on government as though it has nothing to do with us. We will take full responsibility for our vote, our representatives, and accept the fact that majority rules. So many babyboomers have been so confident for so long because they are such a large voting block. It says a lot that we have so many suffering people in this country to take the majority away from them. I can't see ever regreting that. These are changes that needed to happen.

                                                                #23.2 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 10:15 PM EDT
                                                                Dave-905627

                                                                I'm anxious to see what Ms Crittenden's children are going to blame HER for.

                                                                Bitter, are we Ms Crittenden??

                                                                  #23.3 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 11:32 PM EDT
                                                                  Ms. Crittenden

                                                                  I'm not bitter. It just offends me that so often my generation is accused of not trying hard enough. It appears that too often Babyboomers refuse to admit to their own faults and would rather blame it all on anyone other than themselves. I personally would never blame my parents as individuals for the actions of their peers. They would be ashamed to be associated with people who have so little accountability as so many of the people from their generation, here and elsewhere, have shown. I am not sure what my children might blame me for, but I hope they will learn from me as I learned from my parents to be accountable for our own actions, work hard for what we want, and do everthing we can to be good people.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  #23.4 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 12:35 PM EDT
                                                                  Dave-905627

                                                                  It just offends me that so often my generation is accused of not trying hard enough

                                                                  Want an example?

                                                                  How long does it take to get a BA/BS degree now?

                                                                  4 year colleges graduate 53% of students in SIX YEARS

                                                                  Even as colleges nationwide celebrate commencement season, hundreds of schools are failing to graduate a majority of their students in six years, a report says today.

                                                                  Now, let's jump back one generation (25 years).

                                                                  4 year colleges graduating 56.3% in FIVE years

                                                                  Well, good job. Taking an extra year and STILL graduating less people.

                                                                  Now, do we want to open the can of worms regarding the SAT test scores??

                                                                    #23.5 - Sun Apr 4, 2010 11:21 PM EDT
                                                                    Ms. Crittenden

                                                                    An extra year is not bad, considering we are also working two jobs to pay the bills.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #23.6 - Mon Apr 5, 2010 1:02 AM EDT
                                                                    Division by Zero

                                                                    What you don't factor into the average time to complete a BA/BS is the rise of what they used to call the "nontraditional" student, college freshmen who are over the age of 18. The percentage of such nontraditional students has risen steadily over the last 40 years. Nationwide about 4% of college freshmen are over the age of 40. More than 15% of college freshmen are over the age of 22. There are even some colleges where the average student age is over 30. These nontraditional students often continue to work while attending college and can take 6-7 years to complete a BA/BS in the process. To gauge the true length of time to complete a BA/BS one would have to factor out the nontraditional students and only look at those students who start college by the age of 18 and who do not work full-time jobs while in college.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #23.7 - Mon Apr 5, 2010 7:22 AM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Royal T

                                                                    I sympathize with Patty but if this 22 year old continued to take college courses her coverage would continue to age 23. some policies require the student be full time others require that you remain a student.

                                                                    Additionally if we are going to be fair this is an additional expense to the employer and that burden should be shared.

                                                                    Bring back the jobs from india and china and we will get some of these young people employed where they can pick up their own policy coverage.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    Reply#24 - Thu Apr 1, 2010 10:15 PM EDT
                                                                    tdk022755

                                                                    This will be a great benefit to so many young people I see in the hospital. So many have graduated from college and have not been able to find a job. Or if they have found a job, they are not covered by health insurance. This will really help them. Most people for the most part in this age group are healthy but for those who get injured or suffer some type of unexpected illness, it may save their lives. In addition it will enable them to get preventive care which is key to keeping people healthy and out of the hospital.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    Reply#25 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 5:48 AM EDT
                                                                    rickace

                                                                    tdk022755

                                                                    This will be a great benefit to so many young people I see in the hospital.

                                                                    ... and a burden to those who are forced to pick up the tab. Obama's plans to rob Peter to pay Paul aren't sound government.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    #25.1 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 10:13 AM EDT
                                                                    Metal Guitarist

                                                                    The military is a huge burden and I'm forced to pick up their tab.

                                                                    Where's Bin Ladin, you bastards? Either find him and kill him or refund my money!

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #25.2 - Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:56 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    Bighorn

                                                                    The parents will be real happy when they go through enrollment for their 2011 insurance plan and find that their insurance will be going up 50%.

                                                                      Reply#26 - Fri Apr 2, 2010 11:44 AM EDT
                                                                      Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                      Leave a Comment:
                                                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                      FUN STUFF:
                                                                      • Leaderboard |
                                                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                      • The Greenhouse
                                                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                      • Code of Honor |
                                                                      • Company Info |
                                                                      • Contact Us |
                                                                      • Jobs |
                                                                      • User Agreement |
                                                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                                                      • About our ads
                                                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com