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

[alan1]

B. My spawn have insurance available to them through their employers
Question: If my spawn choose to not purchase insurance through their company sponsored plan, am I therefore required by law to add them to mine? Am i required by law to pay for it merely because they are under 26?

Of course not. You are not required to do anything.

The law regulates insurers, requiring them to give you an option ("A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years of age. "). Whether or not your family chooses to exercise that option is your business.

Are you saying I have the option to not purchase medical insurance even if I can afford it and it is available to me? I was pretty darn sure part of the bill requires people to have insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

Are you saying I have the option to not purchase medical insurance even if I can afford it and it is available to me? I was pretty darn sure part of the bill requires people to have insurance.

Of course you have that option. There will now be a tax disincentive to going without insurance but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

 

[alan1]

Are you saying I have the option to not purchase medical insurance even if I can afford it and it is available to me? I was pretty darn sure part of the bill requires people to have insurance.

Of course you have that option. There will now be a tax disincentive to going without insurance but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

So, I pay either way, that's not much of a choice.

"Tax disincentive"? Are you familiar with the term "neuro-linguistic programming"?

 

[Greenbeard]

So, I pay either way, that's not much of a choice.

Passing your risk onto the rest of society isn't going to be costless for you, nor should it be. That doesn't change the fact that you can choose to go without health insurance.

Regardless, no one is forcing you to keep your children on your insurance policy until they're 26. You simply have that option.

 

[alan1]

So, I pay either way, that's not much of a choice.

Passing your risk onto the rest of society isn't going to be costless for you, nor should it be. That doesn't change the fact that you can choose to go without health insurance.

Regardless, no one is forcing you to keep your children on your insurance policy until they're 26. You simply have that option.

My position is that my choices should be costless to society. It's not societies responsibility to spend money on me because of my choices.

Also, I noticed you partial quoted me. It was merely a question.

 

[MeBelle]

Not sure. I have no kids but our company allows you to place, apparently, an unlimited number of kids on the insurance policy as long as you pay the premiums of course. Aging parents on fixed incomes are facing raising healthcare costs with no raise to speak of in their fixed incomes.

It would seem as though there is room for a trade-off there if you wished to pay for it.

I for one, kind of like it.
When my Mother retired, part of her retirement package was lifetime health insurance. When she turned the magic age of 65 she was forced onto Medicare and her primary insurance became her secondary insurance. She cannot find a Primary Care Doc to take her Medicare insurance, so when she gets ill she ends up in the ER. Not a very effective use of taxpayer dollars when private industry was willing to keep her on their health insurance rolls. She still has to pony up her share of the premiums and deductibles for Medicare. She didn't have to do that with the insurance provided her on retirement.

You're penalized for growing older. I can hear a lot of conservatives say that this is a lack of planning. It would be especially heartless to state it but I can see them saying just that, can't you?

To make matters worse, your mom is one of the more well off than many stories I have heard.

How so? She doesn't have a doctor, because no doctor will accept Medicare in a 120 mile radius and she costs the government more money when she gets ill. Why is it that she is forced to have basically no health care now, under the government Medicare program, when she had full access to health care under private paid insurance?

 

[EriktheRed]

You are asking me to answer a completely hypothetical and false question (false because I raised them to be responsible members of society).

Excuse me???

Hypothetical, yes, but "false"??

Let's recap:

...if they couldn't afford insurance or insurance wasn't available to them, would you WANT to put them on your healthcare insurance? A simple yes or no will suffice.

That's the question, what's your answer?

They can afford it, and it is available. It is hypothetical in my situation.

And if you look at the question you yourself quoted, there was no denying it was hypothetical.

I already stated that I covered them on my plan when they were minors and when full time college students. That's the honest answer.

Edit to add:
That's one of things I don't like about message boards. people construct a very specific scenario trying to paint somebody into a corner. I can answer in a realistic way that is exactly how my situation is, and they don't like my answer. Alternatively, I could answer the very narrow confines of the scenario they created and meticulously panted and they will want to apply that answer to a much broader scope than the specific scenario they created.
I choose to not get trapped in their snare.

The question very simply is if you could put your offspring on your insurance if they had no other access, would you.

 

[alan1]

Excuse me???

Hypothetical, yes, but "false"??

Let's recap:



That's the question, what's your answer?

They can afford it, and it is available. It is hypothetical in my situation.

And if you look at the question you yourself quoted, there was no denying it was hypothetical.

I already stated that I covered them on my plan when they were minors and when full time college students. That's the honest answer.

Edit to add:
That's one of things I don't like about message boards. people construct a very specific scenario trying to paint somebody into a corner. I can answer in a realistic way that is exactly how my situation is, and they don't like my answer. Alternatively, I could answer the very narrow confines of the scenario they created and meticulously panted and they will want to apply that answer to a much broader scope than the specific scenario they created.
I choose to not get trapped in their snare.

The question very simply is if you could put your offspring on your insurance if they had no other access, would you.

Exactly, it was a hypothetical, made up, false situation.
Do you want to talk about issues? Or do you just want to nitpick what I said and attempt to box me in because you disagree with what I said and how I answered?

 

[EriktheRed]

They can afford it, and it is available. It is hypothetical in my situation.

And if you look at the question you yourself quoted, there was no denying it was hypothetical.

I already stated that I covered them on my plan when they were minors and when full time college students. That's the honest answer.

Edit to add:
That's one of things I don't like about message boards. people construct a very specific scenario trying to paint somebody into a corner. I can answer in a realistic way that is exactly how my situation is, and they don't like my answer. Alternatively, I could answer the very narrow confines of the scenario they created and meticulously panted and they will want to apply that answer to a much broader scope than the specific scenario they created.
I choose to not get trapped in their snare.

The question very simply is if you could put your offspring on your insurance if they had no other access, would you.

Exactly, it was a hypothetical, made up, false situation.
Do you want to talk about issues? Or do you just want to nitpick what I said and attempt to box me in because you disagree with what I said and how I answered?

What's the issue here which is stopping you from answering a simple question?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Right wingers posting here seem to think there is something wrong with one's children being covered by the parent's health insurance.

As long as it costs society nothing, it seems to me that's no one's business but the parent, child and insurance company.

The rw doesn't have a problem with the socialist system we currently have where the rest of us have to pay the bills for those who can't or don't but, as usual, they want to control what other people do with their private business.

 

[candycorn]

I for one, kind of like it.
When my Mother retired, part of her retirement package was lifetime health insurance. When she turned the magic age of 65 she was forced onto Medicare and her primary insurance became her secondary insurance. She cannot find a Primary Care Doc to take her Medicare insurance, so when she gets ill she ends up in the ER. Not a very effective use of taxpayer dollars when private industry was willing to keep her on their health insurance rolls. She still has to pony up her share of the premiums and deductibles for Medicare. She didn't have to do that with the insurance provided her on retirement.

You're penalized for growing older. I can hear a lot of conservatives say that this is a lack of planning. It would be especially heartless to state it but I can see them saying just that, can't you?

To make matters worse, your mom is one of the more well off than many stories I have heard.

How so? She doesn't have a doctor, because no doctor will accept Medicare in a 120 mile radius and she costs the government more money when she gets ill. Why is it that she is forced to have basically no health care now, under the government Medicare program, when she had full access to health care under private paid insurance?

I've heard of people who just live with the pain...no transportation to doctors that would see them.

Unless it's an emergency, the agencies are no looking to expand their census so it becomes an acute situation where massive resources are brought in at once...thus the cost is higher.

 

[candycorn]

My kids are 21 and 23, they carry their own insurance, they aren't piggy-backed onto mine.

Good for you and them. Let me ask you this. What if they couldn't afford their insurance? Would you want to be able to extend your insurance to cover their healthcare?


Don't make me laugh.

You're able to put them on your health insurance through your employer. Thats hardly "supporting" them.

BTW, 18 is an adult, not a child.

No kidding. So for some reason, they're not able to buy beer either?

Anyway, if they couldn't afford insurance or insurance wasn't available to them, would you WANT to put them on your healthcare insurance? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You are asking me to answer a completely hypothetical and false question (false because I raised them to be responsible members of society).
They are responsible adults and thus they put themselves into a position to not only be able to afford health insurance but then they actually purchased it just in case.
As a responsible parent, I covered their insurance while they were minors and when they were full time college students.

Laws about purchasing alcoholic beverages are completely unrelated, I'm not sure why you felt the need to include that and put a question mark at the end of the sentence.

Yes it's a hypothetical which is why I added in the phrase "would you want to"....allowing for the hypothetical.

Please answer the question.

We know you won't because you don't want to sound like a hypocrite or a moron.

 

[Ravi]

I for one, kind of like it.
When my Mother retired, part of her retirement package was lifetime health insurance. When she turned the magic age of 65 she was forced onto Medicare and her primary insurance became her secondary insurance. She cannot find a Primary Care Doc to take her Medicare insurance, so when she gets ill she ends up in the ER. Not a very effective use of taxpayer dollars when private industry was willing to keep her on their health insurance rolls. She still has to pony up her share of the premiums and deductibles for Medicare. She didn't have to do that with the insurance provided her on retirement.

You're penalized for growing older. I can hear a lot of conservatives say that this is a lack of planning. It would be especially heartless to state it but I can see them saying just that, can't you?

To make matters worse, your mom is one of the more well off than many stories I have heard.

How so? She doesn't have a doctor, because no doctor will accept Medicare in a 120 mile radius and she costs the government more money when she gets ill. Why is it that she is forced to have basically no health care now, under the government Medicare program, when she had full access to health care under private paid insurance?

Where does she live, that sounds pretty strange.

Also, you aren't required to use Medicare part B, which is medical not hospital insurance, from what I understand. So there is no reason she can't find a doctor using her other policy. Sounds like she got some bad advice/information.