Tell me why you think 26 year olds should be covered under parents' insurance

[Anonymous]

I agree that children should be covered through their college years - why up to age 26? Why did this become the cut-off age? Was there some data that the administration used to determine this age? Seems to me that most kids leave college at age 22 or 23 at the latest after 4 or 5 years of undergraduate work. I think 26 is a bit old to be considered a "dependent" that needs coverage from a parent's policy.

Because people felt they were getting something for free and Obama bragged about it during the campaign. Frankly, I think a grace period is nice when you graduate, but this was overkill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when you are a college student, it's a sort of prolonged period of dependence upon one's parents. In some ways, yes you are an adult, in others, it's not like most college students are full time workers with a job that pays for insurance. Heck, can most recent college graduates even find a job these days?

We have a sliding scale for many "adult" thresholds.... when you can drive, have sex (without it being statutory rape),when you can smoke, be drafted, vote, drink.... I don't see anything wrong with setting an age for dependence on parental insurance. As long as the premium is paid, then what's the problem?

And I'm an HR person, I disagree that most or many employers pay for adult child coverage. My firm is extremely generous with health insurance and we don't do this for everyone - only certain executives as part of a negotiated compensation package. The insurance is considered to be in lieu of salary.

I agree that children should be covered through their college years - why up to age 26? Why did this become the cut-off age? Was there some data that the administration used to determine this age? Seems to me that most kids leave college at age 22 or 23 at the latest after 4 or 5 years of undergraduate work. I think 26 is a bit old to be considered a "dependent" that needs coverage from a parent's policy.

But why do you care? How is it negatively impacting.... anyone? They aren't forced to stay. The parent isn't forced to keep them on. The employer isn't forced to pay for it. The insurance company still gets paid. The insurance company still has a right to set premiums that cover their costs. So who is this harming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:these kids keep your premiums lower because they are good risk. they are very cheap to cover and it is the easiest vehicle to continue their coverage which is important and ultimately lowers costs for everyone.

This.

[Anonymous]

I think this has to do very much with American mentality that once you hit 18 get out of my house, you're no longer my problem.

Family is family and if I can help my kids or anyone obtain health insurance why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents are the client for this insurance. Parents have their kids covered on their own insurance when the kids are young. Then the kids grow up, go off to college... parents still care about their kids and want them to be able to go to the doctor, get surgery if they get appendicitis or break their leg, or get diagnosed with cancer, need treatment for mental illness; need to be hospitalized for pneumonia, etc.

If their adult child doesn't have any health insurance, and gets sick or injured and needs hospital care or an operation, parents know if will be very expensive but they will probably help come up with the money, because they want their child to be treated.

So it is in the parents own financial interest to be sure that their adult children have access to health insurance. Many colleges do have plans for students enrolled full time. But kids who don't go to college don't have that option.

Many employers do offer employer subsidized health insurance plans, too. But many young adults aren't able to find work with that benefit.

So for those who aren't able to find other insurance plans, being able to buy a rider on your parents plan (for extra money of course) is a real benefit.... not just to the young adult, but for the parent as well.

You can get plans and always could on you own. They had that option

[Anonymous]

Either cut it off at 22 or allow it forever, paid for by close family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the more we can do to make everyone insured, the better. It's really as simple as that.

+1. Very strange that so many people think that basic healthcare coverage is a priveledge and are intent on finding ways to keep people from accessing it. Nothing endangers prosperity and well being more than serious illness and bankruptcy due to medical bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when you are a college student, it's a sort of prolonged period of dependence upon one's parents. In some ways, yes you are an adult, in others, it's not like most college students are full time workers with a job that pays for insurance. Heck, can most recent college graduates even find a job these days?

We have a sliding scale for many "adult" thresholds.... when you can drive, have sex (without it being statutory rape),when you can smoke, be drafted, vote, drink.... I don't see anything wrong with setting an age for dependence on parental insurance. As long as the premium is paid, then what's the problem?

And I'm an HR person, I disagree that most or many employers pay for adult child coverage. My firm is extremely generous with health insurance and we don't do this for everyone - only certain executives as part of a negotiated compensation package. The insurance is considered to be in lieu of salary.

I agree that children should be covered through their college years - why up to age 26? Why did this become the cut-off age? Was there some data that the administration used to determine this age? Seems to me that most kids leave college at age 22 or 23 at the latest after 4 or 5 years of undergraduate work. I think 26 is a bit old to be considered a "dependent" that needs coverage from a parent's policy.

I agree.

26 is too old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are the client for this insurance. Parents have their kids covered on their own insurance when the kids are young. Then the kids grow up, go off to college... parents still care about their kids and want them to be able to go to the doctor, get surgery if they get appendicitis or break their leg, or get diagnosed with cancer, need treatment for mental illness; need to be hospitalized for pneumonia, etc.

If their adult child doesn't have any health insurance, and gets sick or injured and needs hospital care or an operation, parents know if will be very expensive but they will probably help come up with the money, because they want their child to be treated.

So it is in the parents own financial interest to be sure that their adult children have access to health insurance. Many colleges do have plans for students enrolled full time. But kids who don't go to college don't have that option.

Many employers do offer employer subsidized health insurance plans, too. But many young adults aren't able to find work with that benefit.

So for those who aren't able to find other insurance plans, being able to buy a rider on your parents plan (for extra money of course) is a real benefit.... not just to the young adult, but for the parent as well.

You can get plans and always could on you own. They had that option

My first job out of college did not offer insurance so I paid for one on my own .... It was about 3 x more expensive than what my parents would have paid to keep me on their plan. Moreover, the total amount was almost as much as my room in the group house where I lived. I was literally broke paying for the two combined. No wonder so many young people don't get insurance.

[Anonymous]

Young adults these days are in trouble, not just in the US but in Europe, too. They financially and economically cannot "grow up" as fast as their parents did.

I think just reading the news would answer your question, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think coverage for one year out of college up to the age of 26 is okay. However, there should be a surcharge to the employee. Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

You idiot, someone *is* paying for it. The parents. Or the kids themselves. But, a consumer IS paying for it. The insurance isn't magically bestowed upon the adult child for free.

Some employers are paying for it. My point is that the employee should pick up the tab.

You misunderstand the basics of insurance. Employers are free to require employee contribution for their kids. The reason for mandating coverage is to give kids access to group insurance, not to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

I don't see why folks are up in arms about this part of ACA. Isn't it in everyone's interest to have healthy young people in the insurance pool instead of thinking they're immortal (or not being able to get a job that provides affordable health insurance) and then getting in megabucks accidents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that children should be covered through their college years - why up to age 26? Why did this become the cut-off age? Was there some data that the administration used to determine this age? Seems to me that most kids leave college at age 22 or 23 at the latest after 4 or 5 years of undergraduate work. I think 26 is a bit old to be considered a "dependent" that needs coverage from a parent's policy.

The extension in age to 26 came about because of the poor job market. As college graduates become more and more common, there are far larger numbers of recent grads with no work experience flooding the job market. That plus a lot of older workers who are retraining for new jobs, and the number of entry-level positions is just too small to handle the addition of so many workers into the workforce. So, there is an increasing number of young adults who are finding it necessary to go back for graduate or professional school and there is a growing number of such students who will be 25-26 years old when they get their first job that offers their own health insurance. However, by and large, this is one of the healthiest demographics of adults and hence the most profitable for the health insurance industry. In order to help cover the costs of ensuring that everyone including less healthy never-before-covered individuals, they added the young adult students. As has been pointed out, adding in these young adults is actually a good thing as their premiums will help keep the associated costs of providing insurance to many less-healthy that are now mandated that the insurance companies must insure. The costs are spread out and this keeps those who have always had insurance from seeing skyrocketing costs from adding that large population of expensive-to-insure individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when you are a college student, it's a sort of prolonged period of dependence upon one's parents. In some ways, yes you are an adult, in others, it's not like most college students are full time workers with a job that pays for insurance. Heck, can most recent college graduates even find a job these days?

We have a sliding scale for many "adult" thresholds.... when you can drive, have sex (without it being statutory rape),when you can smoke, be drafted, vote, drink.... I don't see anything wrong with setting an age for dependence on parental insurance. As long as the premium is paid, then what's the problem?

And I'm an HR person, I disagree that most or many employers pay for adult child coverage. My firm is extremely generous with health insurance and we don't do this for everyone - only certain executives as part of a negotiated compensation package. The insurance is considered to be in lieu of salary.

I agree that children should be covered through their college years - why up to age 26? Why did this become the cut-off age? Was there some data that the administration used to determine this age? Seems to me that most kids leave college at age 22 or 23 at the latest after 4 or 5 years of undergraduate work. I think 26 is a bit old to be considered a "dependent" that needs coverage from a parent's policy.

I agree.

26 is too old.

PP's have given you explanations as to why the cut-off is 26. But I am interested in why you think 26 is too old - if the parents and young adult choose this path.

[Anonymous]

Why limit it to 26? If we need to extend the concept of a an adult providing benefits to his or family to include their relatives-by-birth-or-adoption, and we don't want to cut it off at the age of majority, why cut it off at 26?

Oh because it benefits the insurance companies to have young & healthy folks but they want to get rid of them before they get older and start having babies and such. It has nothing to do with benefiting the people, it has everything to do with politicians catering to the groups who own them.