Obamacare allows you to keep your children on your insurance until they are 26....

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well, they will be healthy enough to do whatever they want. Why are you against someone else having health care it when it doesn't cost you a dime?

I've explained this to you before. It does cost me.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance from a company that is now FORCED to cover pre existing conditions will drive up costs while driving out competition. Everyone will pay more because of this stupid bill.

Well, I was talking about this one thing--having your kids on the insurance until they are 26.

You don't have to...you can though.

They have to offer coverage for PEC...there is no indication (TTBOMK) about the cost being the same, lower, or higher.


I do agree that I don't see how the Government can force you to buy insurance. But I do like that insurance companies can now allow you to keep your kid on the employer insurance until they turn 26.

I have no problem covering college kids or military kids. But what percentage of our youth do neither of those things? Thus squandering the opportunity that everyone else is paying for them to have?

That makes no sense.

If I want to pay for my kid (if I had one), it doesn't effect you at all, in any way or in any form.

It makes perfect sense if you can see beyond your own little bubble.

I am forced to join you with a company who's premiums will go up to cover all the pre existing conditions of all the children now covered with those conditions. Everyone will pay more.

You don't really believe that all those health conditions that WILL NOW cost companies billions are just going to eat those costs do you? Or are you under the impression that no children have debilitating illnesses that cost money to treat?

My step daughter has CP and diabetes. She has had a dozen surgeries and tons of other medical care related to her condition. All this was done and paid for with private insurance, savings and special charitable programs. Not Obamacare.

It's unnecessary and will now lump you in a pool with other children like her. Thus raising YOUR premiums for my child.

 

[Warrior102]

Anyway, it's not free asswipe; it's paid for in full.

It is free, asswipe.
It's called Tricare.

 

[candycorn]

Well, they will be healthy enough to do whatever they want. Why are you against someone else having health care it when it doesn't cost you a dime?

Who's paying for all this "free" healthcare, asswipe?

Dum dee dum dum; obviously you believe the cost is being forced upon the employers, when in fact that is only the case if the employer chooses to pay the cost. Most employers will just pass the cost on to their employee as the employer is not mandated to pick up the tab. Many companies already do this with the employee's dependents including their spouse. The employee can put everyone in his/her family on the policy, but the employer will only cover a percentage of the employee's premium. The extra cost of covering the rest of the family comes out of the employee's pocket, but that is up to the employer as to how much they choose to pay and how much they choose to pass on to their employee.

Anyway, it's not free asswipe; it's paid for in full.

Absolutely true.

I (I'm showing my liberalism here) would have preferred that you be able to put your aging parents/grandparents onto the insurance as well and pay a higher rate but you're still right.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's fantastic!

Now they can be contributing members to OWS and Obamas reelection efforts without worrying!

Well, they will be healthy enough to do whatever they want. Why are you against someone else having health care it when it doesn't cost you a dime?

Who's paying for all this "free" healthcare, asswipe?

Tax payers pay for the excellent health insurance for congress even though that same congress is against tax payers having that same caliber health insurance.

Under our current Socialist/Republican system, tax payers also pay for the the health care for those who can't or don't choose to pay for their own.

The real question you should be asking is, why are freeloader Republicans/teabaggers against paying for their own health insurance?

 

[driveby]

It can be...it can be critical for anybody... Feel free to explain or not explain. If that is your gambit, I'm confident that you have nothing else.

Considering there is zero proof that keeping "kids" on mommy and daddys plan until the ripe young age of 26 saves jack shit, you're the one that has some splain'n to do. It's a strawman, as i originally stated. What common ailments would be prevented in people between 18 and 26 with all these sooper dooper new preventative healthcare measures?

Well, if you don't have insurance as a great many young people do not, they show up at the free clinics supported by tax payers. Now that they have insurance (or at least can be on their parent's insurance until 26), they can go to private doctors when they are sick and not put it off until it becomes an emergency.

That is one savings and it is quite logical.

I'll send you some crayons. Have someone draw you a picture.

You keep them, you'll need brown and gold crayons to keep drawing your strawmen, the black to emphasize your assumptions of these massive cost savings. The rest you can share with Mr. Shaman and maybe the two of you can together brightly illustrate the wonderfulness of Obamacare.....

 

[Warrior102]

The real question you should be asking is, why are freeloader Republicans/teabaggers against paying for their own health insurance?

We do pay for our own healthcare, numbnuts. It's knuckle dragging inbred Liberals like you we're opposed to "carry" from cradle to grave

 

[candycorn]

I've explained this to you before. It does cost me.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance from a company that is now FORCED to cover pre existing conditions will drive up costs while driving out competition. Everyone will pay more because of this stupid bill.

Well, I was talking about this one thing--having your kids on the insurance until they are 26.

You don't have to...you can though.

They have to offer coverage for PEC...there is no indication (TTBOMK) about the cost being the same, lower, or higher.


I do agree that I don't see how the Government can force you to buy insurance. But I do like that insurance companies can now allow you to keep your kid on the employer insurance until they turn 26.

I have no problem covering college kids or military kids. But what percentage of our youth do neither of those things? Thus squandering the opportunity that everyone else is paying for them to have?

That makes no sense.

If I want to pay for my kid (if I had one), it doesn't effect you at all, in any way or in any form.

It makes perfect sense if you can see beyond your own little bubble.

I am forced to join you with a company who's premiums will go up to cover all the pre existing conditions of all the children now covered with those conditions. Everyone will pay more.

You don't really believe that all those health conditions that WILL NOW cost companies billions are just going to eat those costs do you? Or are you under the impression that no children have debilitating illnesses that cost money to treat?

My step daughter has CP and diabetes. She has had a dozen surgeries and tons of other medical care related to her condition. All this was done and paid for with private insurance, savings and special charitable programs. Not Obamacare.

It's unnecessary and will now lump you in a pool with other children like her. Thus raising YOUR premiums for my child.

Children do...but it will be more than offset by the millions of more premiums that are being fed into the healthcare system by giving persons 7 more years to insure their kids/college aged young adults.

More or less when there are kids with debilitating diseases, the increases are not felt by everyone in the company on the group insurance.

It likely isn't the case across the board but it is the case in most of the country.

Even it if wasn't...your indicating that if William up in accounting has a kid with CP or diabetes and we should not cover his kid because it may cost me and my assistant a few bucks a month is pretty sick and twisted and disgusting and morbid and....well....sad.

 

[candycorn]

The real question you should be asking is, why are freeloader Republicans/teabaggers against paying for their own health insurance?

We do pay for our own healthcare, numbnuts. It's knuckle dragging inbred Liberals like you we're opposed to "carry" from cradle to grave

26

Asswipe.

 

[Warrior102]

The real question you should be asking is, why are freeloader Republicans/teabaggers against paying for their own health insurance?

We do pay for our own healthcare, numbnuts. It's knuckle dragging inbred Liberals like you we're opposed to "carry" from cradle to grave

26

Number of men you had in 2011?

 

[candycorn]

Considering there is zero proof that keeping "kids" on mommy and daddys plan until the ripe young age of 26 saves jack shit, you're the one that has some splain'n to do. It's a strawman, as i originally stated. What common ailments would be prevented in people between 18 and 26 with all these sooper dooper new preventative healthcare measures?

Well, if you don't have insurance as a great many young people do not, they show up at the free clinics supported by tax payers. Now that they have insurance (or at least can be on their parent's insurance until 26), they can go to private doctors when they are sick and not put it off until it becomes an emergency.

That is one savings and it is quite logical.

I'll send you some crayons. Have someone draw you a picture.

You keep them, you'll need brown and gold crayons to keep drawing your strawmen, the black to emphasize your assumptions of these massive cost savings. The rest you can share with Mr. Shaman and maybe the two of you can together brightly illustrate the wonderfulness of Obamacare.....

well, as i said in the OP and you promptly ignored....I don't see how the government can force you to buy insurance.

I do think this is a wonderful stipulation of the legislation though. A total win-win-win.

Try to stay within the lines.

 

[candycorn]

We do pay for our own healthcare, numbnuts. It's knuckle dragging inbred Liberals like you we're opposed to "carry" from cradle to grave

26

Number of men you had in 2011?

Probably the number of men you've had last night.

 

[Warrior102]

26

Number of men you had in 2011?

Probably the number of men you've had last night.

Thanks for cofirming fatso.
Have another ding-dong.

 

[whitehall]

Four years short of 30 and Barry thinks they should be treated like children and supported by taxpayers. God help us when the whole thing clicks in.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well, I was talking about this one thing--having your kids on the insurance until they are 26.

You don't have to...you can though.

They have to offer coverage for PEC...there is no indication (TTBOMK) about the cost being the same, lower, or higher.


I do agree that I don't see how the Government can force you to buy insurance. But I do like that insurance companies can now allow you to keep your kid on the employer insurance until they turn 26.



That makes no sense.

If I want to pay for my kid (if I had one), it doesn't effect you at all, in any way or in any form.

It makes perfect sense if you can see beyond your own little bubble.

I am forced to join you with a company who's premiums will go up to cover all the pre existing conditions of all the children now covered with those conditions. Everyone will pay more.

You don't really believe that all those health conditions that WILL NOW cost companies billions are just going to eat those costs do you? Or are you under the impression that no children have debilitating illnesses that cost money to treat?

My step daughter has CP and diabetes. She has had a dozen surgeries and tons of other medical care related to her condition. All this was done and paid for with private insurance, savings and special charitable programs. Not Obamacare.

It's unnecessary and will now lump you in a pool with other children like her. Thus raising YOUR premiums for my child.

Children do...but it will be more than offset by the millions of more premiums that are being fed into the healthcare system by giving persons 7 more years to insure their kids/college aged young adults.

More or less when there are kids with debilitating diseases, the increases are not felt by everyone in the company on the group insurance.

It likely isn't the case across the board but it is the case in most of the country.

Even it if wasn't...your indicating that if William up in accounting has a kid with CP or diabetes and we should not cover his kid because it may cost me and my assistant a few bucks a month is pretty sick and twisted and disgusting and morbid and....well....sad.

As expected you completely missed the point.

FORCING COMPANIES TO COVER BANK BREAKING ILLNESSES WILL COST ALL OF US.

The proper solution would have been to create a separate pool for such illnesses. Thus confining the costs to those that need the services. If necessary swap subsidies for corn or oil to this program to enable it to maintain. I am not responsible for someone else's poor behavior and should not be forced to pay for it.

Obama knew that forcing companies to cover major conditions will bankrupt those companies in the long run. Thus leading to a single payer system. He just threw in a few little freebies to entice idiots to think its a good thing. If not overturned we WILL be on a single payer system within two decades.
Obama, if he wins, single handidly destroyed our system. It needed fixing not scrapped.

 

[Warrior102]

Four years short of 30 and Barry thinks they should be treated like children and supported by taxpayers. God help us when the whole thing clicks in.

Hell, I had already been serving my country for nine years and had two WESTPACS under my belt by the time I was 26 !!!

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a reason why birds sometimes have to throw fledglings out of the next before they fly on their own.

Democrats don't have the brains of a park pigeon.

 

[driveby]

Well, if you don't have insurance as a great many young people do not, they show up at the free clinics supported by tax payers. Now that they have insurance (or at least can be on their parent's insurance until 26), they can go to private doctors when they are sick and not put it off until it becomes an emergency.

That is one savings and it is quite logical.

I'll send you some crayons. Have someone draw you a picture.

You keep them, you'll need brown and gold crayons to keep drawing your strawmen, the black to emphasize your assumptions of these massive cost savings. The rest you can share with Mr. Shaman and maybe the two of you can together brightly illustrate the wonderfulness of Obamacare.....

well, as i said in the OP and you promptly ignored....I don't see how the government can force you to buy insurance.

I do think this is a wonderful stipulation of the legislation though. A total win-win-win.

Try to stay within the lines.

You ignorantly suggested conservatives should support this portion of Obamacare. Conservatives don't support nanny state policies and forcing unnecessary regulations on American companies.

Wouldn't it be more wonderful if they could stay on until they are 36? or 46? or 56?

 

[Katzndogz]

26 might be too young. Next will be an extension to provide insurance and support up to the age of the child's retirement, if the parents live that long.

The object seems to be to shift the burden of sustaining an individual to the last class of persons that was actually productive.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The real question you should be asking is, why are freeloader Republicans/teabaggers against paying for their own health insurance?

We do pay for our own healthcare, numbnuts. It's knuckle dragging inbred Liberals like you we're opposed to "carry" from cradle to grave

Typical that you ignored the first two points I made and then lied about it. Here's the part of my post you're afraid to address:

Tax payers pay for the excellent health insurance for congress even though that same congress is against tax payers having that same caliber health insurance.

Under our current Socialist/Republican system, tax payers also pay for the the health care for those who can't or don't choose to pay for their own.

 

[auditor0007]

I've explained this to you before. It does cost me.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance from a company that is now FORCED to cover pre existing conditions will drive up costs while driving out competition. Everyone will pay more because of this stupid bill.

Well, I was talking about this one thing--having your kids on the insurance until they are 26.

You don't have to...you can though.

They have to offer coverage for PEC...there is no indication (TTBOMK) about the cost being the same, lower, or higher.


I do agree that I don't see how the Government can force you to buy insurance. But I do like that insurance companies can now allow you to keep your kid on the employer insurance until they turn 26.

I have no problem covering college kids or military kids. But what percentage of our youth do neither of those things? Thus squandering the opportunity that everyone else is paying for them to have?

That makes no sense.

If I want to pay for my kid (if I had one), it doesn't effect you at all, in any way or in any form.

It makes perfect sense if you can see beyond your own little bubble.

I am forced to join you with a company who's premiums will go up to cover all the pre existing conditions of all the children now covered with those conditions. Everyone will pay more.

You don't really believe that all those health conditions that WILL NOW cost companies billions are just going to eat those costs do you? Or are you under the impression that no children have debilitating illnesses that cost money to treat?

My step daughter has CP and diabetes. She has had a dozen surgeries and tons of other medical care related to her condition. All this was done and paid for with private insurance, savings and special charitable programs. Not Obamacare.

It's unnecessary and will now lump you in a pool with other children like her. Thus raising YOUR premiums for my child.

Statistically speaking, having more young people in the pool will bring costs down, not increase them. Overall, young people are not a big risk. So your argument is a fail.