Thanks Democrats...daughter will have to quit job to stay on insurance.

[Ravi]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

 

[Sarah G]

Thanks to the GREAT Health Care Reform...there is now a loophole in which insurance companies can drop coverage on college students IF THERE IS AVAILABLE COVERAGE (NO MATTER HOW BAD) through an employer, even if it is a part-time job that has horrendously bad insurance.

So...even though my daughter is a full time student, as long as she is working to help pay for college and that part-time job carries some minimal crap insurance - her solid coverage she has through us is gone.
So her choice is to either quit the job or stay insured.

The reason companies are dropping the coverage is due to the higher expense of coverage due to the reform. (the only stipulation before the health care plan was that the child must be a full time student)

Thanks

They ask me whether I want to buy the healthcare plan at enrollment time every year. If a person is on his/her spouse's insurance, they forego the coverage.

I don't think you know what you're talking about once again.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Thanks to the GREAT Health Care Reform...there is now a loophole in which insurance companies can drop coverage on college students IF THERE IS AVAILABLE COVERAGE (NO MATTER HOW BAD) through an employer, even if it is a part-time job that has horrendously bad insurance.

So...even though my daughter is a full time student, as long as she is working to help pay for college and that part-time job carries some minimal crap insurance - her solid coverage she has through us is gone.
So her choice is to either quit the job or stay insured.

The reason companies are dropping the coverage is due to the higher expense of coverage due to the reform. (the only stipulation before the health care plan was that the child must be a full time student)

Thanks

Two things here:

1. I'm really curious what part time job your daughter has that is offering coverage. Most employers I know don't even consider starting coverage until you're full time, or at the very very least at 30 hours a week. I know my Mom has been seeing Target phase out or cut hours on full time employees in favor of part time employees that they don't have to offer coverage for.

2. This is why the plan is unpopular on the Right and Left together. Without the Public option, the "Reform" didn't do enough and just empowered the corporations to get a huge pay day. We were best off leaving things alone if we weren't willing to go 100% of the way.

 

[sangha]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

1) They have decided to no longer offer that "enticement"
2) It ended because the insurer decided to not offer it and they're not dropping your daughter
3) Yes you would

So, it turns out that no one is being denied coverage, including your daughter. All 5500 families are covered and their student children are covered by their employer.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

1) They have decided to no longer offer that "enticement"
2) It ended because the insurer decided to not offer it and they're not dropping your daughter
3) Yes you would

So, it turns out that no one is being denied coverage, including your daughter. All 5500 families are covered and their student children are covered by their employer.

1) They "decided" to no longer offer the enticement because the government is forcing them to cover other people.
2) That makes no sense.
3) That is stupid, they offered it for over 20 years - what makes you somehow know they would have dropped it anyway?

 

[VaYank5150]

Ahh so the insurance company is cutting costs?

The only stipulation in the 22 years I have had coverage is that the child had to be a student.
In the 3 page letter, they state the reason for this change is due to higher cost in the coming years due to the HCR act. That in order to keep employee contribution from dramaticc increases is to cut coverage.

Sounds like your daughter works for a shitty employer. I would recommend she change jobs. Does she work at 7-11 or something?

 

[Ravi]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

 

[sangha]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are lying about both the facts and the result

 

[sangha]

The comprehension and use of context among liberal posters here is as bad as I have seen anywhere else.

1) Full coverage of students has been provided by this major carrier for over 20 years. (Free market system whereby this is used as enticement to attract and keep good employees)
2) The 20 years ended when the government enacted forced coverage upon them that forced them to make significant changes to reduce costs....naturally the fastest way to do that is to reduce those they cover to make up for the new ones they have to cover.
3) If HCR never happened...we wouldn't be in this position.

So...the net result for 5500 families in just this ONE single example...is coverage is being removed for kids going to college and paying all or a portion of their way...to make way for government forced coverage to basement living 25 year olds who are not in college and has no job.

Period.
You can argue semantics all day long - this is the RESULT.

1) They have decided to no longer offer that "enticement"
2) It ended because the insurer decided to not offer it and they're not dropping your daughter
3) Yes you would

So, it turns out that no one is being denied coverage, including your daughter. All 5500 families are covered and their student children are covered by their employer.

1) They "decided" to no longer offer the enticement because the government is forcing them to cover other people.
2) That makes no sense.
3) That is stupid, they offered it for over 20 years - what makes you somehow know they would have dropped it anyway?

1) You are lying when you the insurer was "forced" to drop your daughter
2) Yes it did. Your daughter is still covered
3) They dropped it. No one forced them to

 

[sangha]

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

Free market hypocrit wants the nanny state to force the insurer to cover his daughter

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Ahh so the insurance company is cutting costs?

The only stipulation in the 22 years I have had coverage is that the child had to be a student.
In the 3 page letter, they state the reason for this change is due to higher cost in the coming years due to the HCR act. That in order to keep employee contribution from dramaticc increases is to cut coverage.

Sounds like your daughter works for a shitty employer. I would recommend she change jobs. Does she work at 7-11 or something?

I'm still curious who offers part time employees coverage these days. Again, I'm seeing more and more employers phase out full time employees for part timers specifically so they don't have to offer coverage.

 

[sangha]

The only stipulation in the 22 years I have had coverage is that the child had to be a student.
In the 3 page letter, they state the reason for this change is due to higher cost in the coming years due to the HCR act. That in order to keep employee contribution from dramaticc increases is to cut coverage.

Sounds like your daughter works for a shitty employer. I would recommend she change jobs. Does she work at 7-11 or something?

I'm still curious who offers part time employees coverage these days. Again, I'm seeing more and more employers phase out full time employees for part timers specifically so they don't have to offer coverage.

I wouldnt assume that the wingnut is telling the truth. He's already lied several times in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Welcome to serfdom, baby. Government tells you what health care you can have.

You seem to have missed the part where the OP is complaining that the healthcare plan didn't go far enough.

 

[VaYank5150]

Sounds like your daughter works for a shitty employer. I would recommend she change jobs. Does she work at 7-11 or something?

I'm still curious who offers part time employees coverage these days. Again, I'm seeing more and more employers phase out full time employees for part timers specifically so they don't have to offer coverage.

I wouldnt assume that the wingnut is telling the truth. He's already lied several times in this thread.

I don't think he is lying per say. Most of the "angry" GOP voters have no clue what is in the healthcare legislation and simply spout the talking points they are given. When you ask them questions about particulars, they often appear disingenuous because they are ignorant of the facts, or simly resort to bashing the government.

 

[sangha]

I'm still curious who offers part time employees coverage these days. Again, I'm seeing more and more employers phase out full time employees for part timers specifically so they don't have to offer coverage.

I wouldnt assume that the wingnut is telling the truth. He's already lied several times in this thread.

I don't think he is lying per say. Most of the "angry" GOP voters have no clue what is in the healthcare legislation and simply spout the talking points they are given. When you ask them questions about particulars, they often appear disingenuous because they are ignorant of the facts, or simly resort to bashing the government.

As true as that may be at times, at other times they have no reluctance to flat out lie

I too am very curious to learn which employer is offering coverage to part timers

 

[bodecea]

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

Free market hypocrit wants the nanny state to force the insurer to cover his daughter

Certainly looks that way.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You don't seem to understand. Before HCR your insurance company could have dropped her if she had access to other coverage. In fact they could have dropped her for any reason whatsoever. Under HCR, they will not be able to drop someone that has access to other insurance after the year 2014.

What you are bitching about is that the change isn't going into effect fast enough to suit you.

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

Are you dense? I really not trying to be disrespectful..but you are not making any sense.
What specific HRC benefit am I wanting to "help" me.
If the HRC act was repealed tomorrow - my daughter keeps insured on our policy, it is because of this crappy bill that she will either lose the coverage or have to quit her job to keep it.

Only thing I can see here is you are all simply being obtuse and wanting to close your mind to reality.
This bill is already wreaking havoc.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

Free market hypocrit wants the nanny state to force the insurer to cover his daughter

Are you completely stupid, or just 3/4 stupid?

The free market has provided the coverage for OVER 20 years, it isn't until after the gumnent got involved are the dropping it.
I don't want the nanny state to do anything moron...I want them to get the f*ck out of healthcare unless they plan to fix problems not create them.

 

[Ravi]

You are arguing (AGAIN) with semantics and "what ifs"...I am not, I am stating the result and a fact.

No, you are complaining that a certain provision in the health care bill isn't going into effect soon enough to benefit you.

Are you dense? I really not trying to be disrespectful..but you are not making any sense.
What specific HRC benefit am I wanting to "help" me.
If the HRC act was repealed tomorrow - my daughter keeps insured on our policy, it is because of this crappy bill that she will either lose the coverage or have to quit her job to keep it.

Only thing I can see here is you are all simply being obtuse and wanting to close your mind to reality.
This bill is already wreaking havoc.

Again, your insurance company can revoke her coverage anytime it pleases for any reason whatsoever. Until 2014. Then it will not be able to do so.

I can't figure out if you are stupid or a liar.