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

[Warrior102]

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.

What a blathering ******* idiot.

 

[EriktheRed]

I have two sons - one 28, the other 26. Once they graduated from college, you knuckle dragging welfare case, they ASSUMED their student loans and all of their EXPENSES as ADULTS. Just becuase a failure like you lives in Mommy's basement until you're 28, doesn't mean all of America does. There are those that would rather SUCCEED in life, vs. sucking off the government teat and their PARENTS for the rest of their lives.

Stupid asswipe.

Hey asshole, do you not have a choice as to whether you keep insuring your kids 'til they're 26?

They got their own insurance/jobs/mortgage/automobiles post college, asswipe. It's called being a responsible, successful adult.
Perhaps you should try it?

Wow, what a fuckin' stupid wingnut you are. You either totally don't get the point or you're just saying this shit to be an asshole.

Either way, you didn't answer my question: do you have a fuckin' choice or not?

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks to Obamacare my son saved $2200 on health insurance last year and got better coverage

 

[Greenbeard]

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're mixing concepts. Group insurance already has protections against pre-existing condition exclusions, it has for years. The twenty-somethings this provision of the law affects are dropped from the family insurance policy due to age constraints in the policy, not due to pre-existing conditions.

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.

This is nonsensical.

1. Not only did such pools exist in many states, the Affordable Care Act created new ones in every single state to extend their reach. Unsurprisingly, they haven't been particularly effective. They simply are not a long-term solution.
2. Publicly subsidized high-risk pools do "force" you to pay for them.

Obama knew that forcing companies to cover major conditions will bankrupt those companies in the long run. Thus leading to a single payer system.

This is rightwing paranoia with little basis in reality. In fact, it doesn't even have a basis in the right's own thinking: the rightwing approach to Medicare reform (exemplified by Paul Ryan) explicitly assumes that what you're saying is not the case.

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

Back in 2010, before "repeal-and-replace" shrank to "repeal." the Republican "replace" legislation contained exactly this provision.

 

[alan1]

Some of the conservatives here stated that they didn't like this stipulation of the President's Healthcare plan. While there are legitimate concerns over the legislation--I don't see how you can be forced to buy health insurance--this is (or at least should be) one of the absolute wins for all involved.

The public gets to keep their college aged kids on their employer insurance

The insurance companies get 7 to 8 more years of premiums

The young adults/kids get good insurance while they are starting their careers or working on their degrees

Preventative health (which is much cheaper than emergency care) increases so the use of often-times publicly funded emergency rooms is less thus saving the public money

I'm curious why the conservatives are against this. Are you also against sending your kids to college?

My kids are 21 and 23, they carry their own insurance, they aren't piggy-backed onto mine.
Gee, I must have raised them to be responsible adults like my parents raised me, rather raising them to expect me to support them until they turn 26.
BTW, 18 is an adult, not a child.

 

[candycorn]

Some of the conservatives here stated that they didn't like this stipulation of the President's Healthcare plan. While there are legitimate concerns over the legislation--I don't see how you can be forced to buy health insurance--this is (or at least should be) one of the absolute wins for all involved.

The public gets to keep their college aged kids on their employer insurance

The insurance companies get 7 to 8 more years of premiums

The young adults/kids get good insurance while they are starting their careers or working on their degrees

Preventative health (which is much cheaper than emergency care) increases so the use of often-times publicly funded emergency rooms is less thus saving the public money

I'm curious why the conservatives are against this. Are you also against sending your kids to college?

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?

Gee, I must have raised them to be responsible adults like my parents raised me, rather raising them to expect me to support them until they turn 26.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

What a blathering ******* idiot.

You're being too hard on yourself. I'm sure you don't smell as bad as you sound.

 

[candycorn]

Thanks to Obamacare my son saved $2200 on health insurance last year and got better coverage

And you had peace of mind too...

This is a loser for the GOP....their blind opposition to all things without considering them. Sounds like the payroll tax holiday argument all over again.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

candycorn, very interesting thought. Would that also include being exempt from having medicare dollars withheld from income?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Total fail.

All that part of the law says is that it allows you and I and whomever else to keep their kids on their employer insurance for 7 more years until the age of 26. They pay the premiums, not the taxpayers.

It's okay to oppose something; just be informed about it first.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Rick Perry wants you to have to get your 13 year old daughter immunized against STD's. Perhaps you should brush up on what "conservatives" want there slick.

At any rate, it makes insurance companies allow you to pay them for 7 more years. If anything it helps American companies.

 

[candycorn]

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.

candycorn, very interesting thought. Would that also include being exempt from having medicare dollars withheld from income?

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.

 

[MeBelle]

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.

candycorn, very interesting thought. Would that also include being exempt from having medicare dollars withheld from income?

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.

 

[candycorn]

candycorn, very interesting thought. Would that also include being exempt from having medicare dollars withheld from income?

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.

 

[rdean]

Obama is black. Isn't it obvious?

 

[alan1]

Some of the conservatives here stated that they didn't like this stipulation of the President's Healthcare plan. While there are legitimate concerns over the legislation--I don't see how you can be forced to buy health insurance--this is (or at least should be) one of the absolute wins for all involved.

The public gets to keep their college aged kids on their employer insurance

The insurance companies get 7 to 8 more years of premiums

The young adults/kids get good insurance while they are starting their careers or working on their degrees

Preventative health (which is much cheaper than emergency care) increases so the use of often-times publicly funded emergency rooms is less thus saving the public money

I'm curious why the conservatives are against this. Are you also against sending your kids to college?

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?

Gee, I must have raised them to be responsible adults like my parents raised me, rather raising them to expect me to support them until they turn 26.

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.

 

[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?

 

[alan1]

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.

Total fail.

All that part of the law says is that it allows you and I and whomever else to keep their kids on their employer insurance for 7 more years until the age of 26. They pay the premiums, not the taxpayers.

It's okay to oppose something; just be informed about it first.

One interesting thing about that though, is that since people are forced to buy health insurance, and since employers are forced to provide it for offspring up until the age of 26, tell me something.........
A. My employer is forced to allow me to put my spawn on my company supported insurance.
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?

I read through quite a bit of the health insurance law, and did numerous searches and I couldn't find an answer to that scenario.

 

[alan1]

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.
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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.