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

[Anonymous]

If everyone could get a job with health insurance, we would not need most of the ACA.

Ok, but still, you can't even purchase private insurance if you don't have income because your field requires an unpaid internship to break in.

[Anonymous]

My parents saw to it that I did not go a single day without insurance. When I graduated from college, they helped me find a decent ins. policy. It took me about 6 months to find a job in my field, and then another 3 months before my benefits kicked in. After 2 years, i switched jobs. Again, I had to obtain my own insurance for 3 months before my benefits kicked in. So, I was about 25 by the time I was settled into a decent-paying job with benefits. It would have been much easier if I'd been able to stay on my parents' policy and I would have been happy to pay them my fair share of the premium. As I did with car insurance throughout high school and college.

[Anonymous]

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

Yes. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I don't think children "should" be covered but I think it's economically wise and socially sound to arrange it so that they "could" be covered. Many people that age are still in school (undergrad, grad, or professional) or just out of school (working in entry-level jobs, and/or paying off student loans). People in these categories almost never buy health insurance if they aren't provided it by their employer, so making it possible through their family's plan is beneficial to everyone. The individual is covered (which saves the costs of emergency care and brings down the costs for everyone by having healthy young people enrolled in the plan), the additional cost to the family is minimal (and can be absorbed by the parents if they choose which frees up funds for loan payments or consumer input into the local economy), and the individual has more flexibility regarding job location and type if they are not facing choices about health benefits or riskiness. And, of course, insurance companies get paid to cover someone who needs very little care and thereby make money.

Of all aspects of the ACA, this one is the most obvious win-win(-win-win) in my opinion.

Exactly. Well said.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why 26 year olds OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER shouldn't be covered under one individual's plan. It's not like it's one price for as many people as you can claim a relationship to. You pay a premium for each additional insured. Those premiums vary based on the age of the insured. Why can't I have my parents on my plan? Why not my sister? I'm paying the premium, I'm not getting anything for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Too old why? If you think that your kid needs to go out and buy insurance in order to own their independence, fine. But if you as a parent want to insure your child when they can't afford it, why not?

Honestly I don't get this. The same people arguing against a mandate are now complaining about having additional options.

PP's attitude strikes me as just one more way people on the right freak out about their "dependency" bogeyman.

[Anonymous]

Premiums are based on the risk of the insured pool. 26 year olds and younger are LOW risk. Including more of them in any insurance pool lowers overall costs. Really. It SAVES money. Because the cost is spread every person pays less even though more people are covered. It's a net win. More people covered by insurance for less cost than just covering parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. I was livid when this was extended because it think it contributes to the problem of extended adolescence we are seeing in young adults. 22 year olds need to grow up and get a job with insurance and not pussy foot around with multiple unpaid internships, travel, and 5 year degrees. I know the economy isn't great for job hunting, but I don't think this helps either. It makes it too easy to slack off and delay growing up to get a real job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why 26 year olds OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER shouldn't be covered under one individual's plan. It's not like it's one price for as many people as you can claim a relationship to. You pay a premium for each additional insured. Those premiums vary based on the age of the insured. Why can't I have my parents on my plan? Why not my sister? I'm paying the premium, I'm not getting anything for free.

That's where you're mistaken. As a PP explained above, many insurances (all I've ever seen offered by my employers) are offered as self, self +1, or family. When family is selected, you pay one price whether you have two children or ten. It's not additional money per child. So in essence, you would be getting a lot for free if you could add extended family for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. I was livid when this was extended because it think it contributes to the problem of extended adolescence we are seeing in young adults. 22 year olds need to grow up and get a job with insurance and not pussy foot around with multiple unpaid internships, travel, and 5 year degrees. I know the economy isn't great for job hunting, but I don't think this helps either. It makes it too easy to slack off and delay growing up to get a real job.

OP here. This was exactly my line of thinking. However, I thank you all for the discussion. I can see the financial benefits for all parties involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. I was livid when this was extended because it think it contributes to the problem of extended adolescence we are seeing in young adults. 22 year olds need to grow up and get a job with insurance and not pussy foot around with multiple unpaid internships, travel, and 5 year degrees. I know the economy isn't great for job hunting, but I don't think this helps either. It makes it too easy to slack off and delay growing up to get a real job.

At many state universities, it take 6 years to get a BA, because getting required classes is difficult, and many students have to stop out to work. A lot of kids don't graduate at 22 anymore. It also takes a couple of unpaid internships just to get access to the good jobs. In Europe, it is even worse. In Italy, young lawyers "volunteer" (i.e. work for free) until they are 30, living at home with their parents and praying that someone retires and a job opens up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. I was livid when this was extended because it think it contributes to the problem of extended adolescence we are seeing in young adults. 22 year olds need to grow up and get a job with insurance and not pussy foot around with multiple unpaid internships, travel, and 5 year degrees. I know the economy isn't great for job hunting, but I don't think this helps either. It makes it too easy to slack off and delay growing up to get a real job.

I think that's up to these families to decide. We shouldn't write healthcare policy in order to teach a parenting lesson.

[Anonymous]

To continue their sense of entitlement.

[Anonymous]

I will take two personal anecdotal examples. My dad was a GS-9 in the federal government when he retired, he was probably a GS-7 when I was in college.

My super smart brother who got a scholarship to college he went to college at 18, 19, 20, 21, then worked for 1 year 22, then law school for 4 years because he had to work his way through school as security guard 23, 24, 25, 26.

I was not so lucky with the DNA so I took 6 years to graduate because I worked my way through college 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Alas, it was 1991 and we were at war and nobody was hiring so I worked part time jobs for 2 years and got a real job at 26.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I don't think children "should" be covered but I think it's economically wise and socially sound to arrange it so that they "could" be covered. Many people that age are still in school (undergrad, grad, or professional) or just out of school (working in entry-level jobs, and/or paying off student loans). People in these categories almost never buy health insurance if they aren't provided it by their employer, so making it possible through their family's plan is beneficial to everyone. The individual is covered (which saves the costs of emergency care and brings down the costs for everyone by having healthy young people enrolled in the plan), the additional cost to the family is minimal (and can be absorbed by the parents if they choose which frees up funds for loan payments or consumer input into the local economy), and the individual has more flexibility regarding job location and type if they are not facing choices about health benefits or riskiness. And, of course, insurance companies get paid to cover someone who needs very little care and thereby make money.

Of all aspects of the ACA, this one is the most obvious win-win(-win-win) in my opinion.

Exactly. Well said.

In certain circumstances, yes. But if the family already is on a family plan, an additional person staying on the family plan will not result in additional premiums. (As an aside, as a member of a one-child family, it always rankled me that my insurance premiums were the same as (and subsidizing) families with four kids.)

Health insurance will never be "fixed" until it is decoupled from employment. It's an anachronism that is no longer supportable under current economic and technological conditions.