ShawnChris13
Member
- Nov 12, 2013
- 652
- 46
- 16
Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?
Doubtful. Keeping young adults on parental policies was a way to make the parents pay for the policies at the increased rates because the young adults can't.
Or the other way around. There are plenty of young people who are supporting their parents and who could use this break.
Either way, I cannot understand why anyone would be against families sticking together for the good of the family.
There are some who believe that employers should be allowed to screw over their help. Incredibly, there are some who believe big corporations (insurance, pharma) should be allowed to control medical care - among other things. Why wouldn't those same people be in favor of families helping themselves?
IOW, if "corporations are people too", why shouldn't people get the same breaks that corporations do?
Letting 26 and under staying on their parents insurance was a terrible idea. The whole point of Obamacare is to have an equally distributed market to lower costs. When people are placed on their parents health insurance it's treated as the entire family and the cost is lower when compared to each individual on their own plan.
The numbers require a young population paying full price to off set the costs of claims made by older people. The law negated a large portion of the funds the law was seeking to gain. Policies are going to rise at drastic levels once the market catches up with the loss of those required young people.