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.

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.

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.

Main reason I see is that it'll then be easier for them to get covered later on (no gap in coverage). Are gaps in coverage even as issue anymore? Can't keep up.

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.

Premium payment is an employee benefit. Unless there is a maternity claim [or 2 or 3 ] people in that age group aren't much risk except for accidents. For medical/dental they are past the pediatracs, orthodontia, dermatologist [usually].

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This is a group of kids who have been covered their whole lives, then get out of the system. If we find a way to make it easy to stay in the system, they will continue to get insurance later in life.

Anyway to cover more people is a good thing. This group typically tries to skip health care thinking they won't need it and won't have any problems.

Not many at that age have a job that provides insurance. If they do, it takes too much out of their paycheck to be something they'd want

I think it's strange to cover "kids" that long, even though my own children will benefit from the insurance requirement.

26 is pretty far in to adulthood, if you ask, well, pretty much anyone.