I can understand extending coverage for those still in school full time, but after that it is time to GROW UP! I say this as a 25 year old. When I first got out of college and was about to come off my parent’s policy I looked at reasonable short term heatlth coverage. Thankfully, I wound up at a company that offered coverage and now I have an HSA with a 3000 deductible. I am taking a risk until I get the 3000 built up in my HSA, but I am willing to take it. I don’t think we should pander to those slackers. Sure, 20 somethings have other things in mind besides insurance. Most of us do! I can think of tons of other things I would rather spend my money on, but I need insurance. The gov’t shouldn’t be enablers of slackers. They shouldn’t also do this because those 20 somethings are looking at a car and a house, and insurance is not at the top of their list. You can make it work. My wife and I have 2 nice cars, a new home (no ARM, thank you very much!), and health insurance. Graduate, get a job, and start contributing to society.
Rather than insuring the 20-somethings that are working full-time, I think it would make more sense to eliminate the “full-time” college student loophole, and allow continued coverage up to age 22, if still in school, and a dependent.
My son is doing the right thing, working 2 PT jobs, in order to work around his school schedule, and go to school, and not sure if was his fault or the school’s, but ended up dropping just below FT status this semester, so this month I got a letter from the Hellth Ins advising he was cancelled back to Jan 1. So now it is costing me extra for an indiv policy that I couldn’t get eff until Mar 1. I work in P&C and at least we have to send notice PRIOR to cancelling insurance but the HI can backdate their cancels ? ! School didn’t even start until mid-January and he was registered for FT until the school revised his schedule. This rule is premised on the middle & upper class students whose parents can afford to fully support them while in school, but denies benefits to those who are most in need, having to work and go to school, since few if any of the jobs that will work with a school schedule also provide health ins.
I don’t see a need for a student exemption at all. Many schools offer health insurance (not all, but many). There is also the option of going to work while getting your education in order to obtain health insurance. I may be a hard-nose on this because I’ve had to take care of myself my entire adult life, but I think it was better that way. We consider people above the age of 18 to be adults so we should treat them that way; that inculdes obtaining their own insurance even if they are in school. What, I’m an adult if I go straight into the workforce but I’m a child if I go to school? I don’t see the need to distinguish between them.
I have just as many expenses, if not more than the average 25 year old. I went to college, obtained students loans, and deal with some serious (and expensive) health problems. We all make choices. If you choose to work for a company that doesn’t offer insurance, that is your decision. If you choose not to buy insurance, that is your decision. Why should I have to pay more money for already expensive insurance to cover someone who is my age and CHOOSES not to buy insurance. Can we please stop acting like we are entitled to handouts? This country was founded on hard work and independence.
This is just more running around the subject. The real problem in this country is just costly health care. Two incidents in our office pointed this up recently. One was a person with a minor stroke, was given a new shot, charged $7000.00 for the shot alone. Same shot, brand and dosage charge in Canada, $700.00, in Germany $650.00. Another spent two days in hospital with no complications after having a pacemaker installation. Hospital charge $28,000.00. Thats hospital, not the physcian bill. Anyone with personal experience could go on and on. Thats what is driving the case for a universal health care. Remember, we have by far the most expensive system in the world, yet do not have the best delivery system. And we are the only country not to cover every citizen, yet cost per person is the highest. Go figure.
Bandy’s right, this is more than just a problem for the young. Many of us now pay for their own Health Insurance. If you have had coverage, whether under parents or another employer, you should be exempt from pre-existing. Let’s make Health Insurance affordable for everyone. We can give people a tax break for paying for it themselves and give some employers a break for providing it.
By some people’s comments, I think they may have misunderstood. These plans are not asking to cover the young adults for nothing. They would still have to pay whatever the existing premium is for a dependent under the parents’ policy. Is a 19 year old not in college at higher health risk than a 19 year old college student – I can’t see how they would be.
If they are working FT and living independently, they shouldn’t be eligible under the parents’ plan, but if they are still living at home, and the parents’ claim as a dependent for taxes, then that should allow them to remain on the health insurance. If the health insurers and others weren’t so greedy (see other story on CA co that paid bonuses for # of sick clients cancelled), and tried to do more to provide insurance, instead of deny it, so they can pay their execs outlandish salaries, there wouldn’t be so much pressure for the government to step in and do something. It’s that way in any business – do a good job of managing and policing yourself, and you’ll have less problems, if you don’t, don’t be surprised when the public calls for government to step in.
It’s not that we think the person is being covered for free – but that the cost to the insured is (most likely) zero. You have the parent’s employer shouldering the burden of healthcare costs, or the parent shouldering the burden of healthcare costs, for a grown individual who should be shifting for themself.
We tend to baby people in America and not requiring adults to take care of themselves and get their own health insurance is just another way of babying them.
The root of the problem is not the ability to keep students on the family policy but rather the availability of affordable health-care. My recent healthy college graduate, age 21 and now self employed got a quote for $800 month. She is not making the kind of money to be able to afford that at this point.
Actually, you would think group health policies would be happy to keep these young people for the same premium and many parents would be happy to keep them on the family plan even if they had to pay the employer’s share. They’re generally healthier (cheaper) than the older employee population. Is there a tax issue driving this? If the “child” goes without and has an illness or injury, most likely the parents are going to try to step in and try to pay. Of course, they could go on the public dole but I don’t think many would appreciate that either. If would improve the results for the group to keep these young people.
However, I do think that they should start including people’s disabled children in the plan. When they’re young they’re usually in some sort of school but then they’re going to hit a certain age where school is done, often they can’t work or can’t find work and the healthcare cost can become a real burden for the families or they become Medicaid recipients and their middle-class families have to wait with them in clinics or other unfamiliar environments, they have to learn to navigate and strange and unusual system to get healthcare for their child – and often during hours they could be productive and working citizens.
Realistically, 19 is young to toss a kid out on his own. They’re rarely prepared. They’re often still at home. We see a lot of that in personal lines insurance issues, don’t we? And because we may have had to tough something out, doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be done or that we don’t want better for our children.
I can understand extending coverage for those still in school full time, but after that it is time to GROW UP! I say this as a 25 year old. When I first got out of college and was about to come off my parent’s policy I looked at reasonable short term heatlth coverage. Thankfully, I wound up at a company that offered coverage and now I have an HSA with a 3000 deductible. I am taking a risk until I get the 3000 built up in my HSA, but I am willing to take it. I don’t think we should pander to those slackers. Sure, 20 somethings have other things in mind besides insurance. Most of us do! I can think of tons of other things I would rather spend my money on, but I need insurance. The gov’t shouldn’t be enablers of slackers. They shouldn’t also do this because those 20 somethings are looking at a car and a house, and insurance is not at the top of their list. You can make it work. My wife and I have 2 nice cars, a new home (no ARM, thank you very much!), and health insurance. Graduate, get a job, and start contributing to society.
Rather than insuring the 20-somethings that are working full-time, I think it would make more sense to eliminate the “full-time” college student loophole, and allow continued coverage up to age 22, if still in school, and a dependent.
My son is doing the right thing, working 2 PT jobs, in order to work around his school schedule, and go to school, and not sure if was his fault or the school’s, but ended up dropping just below FT status this semester, so this month I got a letter from the Hellth Ins advising he was cancelled back to Jan 1. So now it is costing me extra for an indiv policy that I couldn’t get eff until Mar 1. I work in P&C and at least we have to send notice PRIOR to cancelling insurance but the HI can backdate their cancels ? ! School didn’t even start until mid-January and he was registered for FT until the school revised his schedule. This rule is premised on the middle & upper class students whose parents can afford to fully support them while in school, but denies benefits to those who are most in need, having to work and go to school, since few if any of the jobs that will work with a school schedule also provide health ins.
I don’t see a need for a student exemption at all. Many schools offer health insurance (not all, but many). There is also the option of going to work while getting your education in order to obtain health insurance. I may be a hard-nose on this because I’ve had to take care of myself my entire adult life, but I think it was better that way. We consider people above the age of 18 to be adults so we should treat them that way; that inculdes obtaining their own insurance even if they are in school. What, I’m an adult if I go straight into the workforce but I’m a child if I go to school? I don’t see the need to distinguish between them.
I have just as many expenses, if not more than the average 25 year old. I went to college, obtained students loans, and deal with some serious (and expensive) health problems. We all make choices. If you choose to work for a company that doesn’t offer insurance, that is your decision. If you choose not to buy insurance, that is your decision. Why should I have to pay more money for already expensive insurance to cover someone who is my age and CHOOSES not to buy insurance. Can we please stop acting like we are entitled to handouts? This country was founded on hard work and independence.
This is just more running around the subject. The real problem in this country is just costly health care. Two incidents in our office pointed this up recently. One was a person with a minor stroke, was given a new shot, charged $7000.00 for the shot alone. Same shot, brand and dosage charge in Canada, $700.00, in Germany $650.00. Another spent two days in hospital with no complications after having a pacemaker installation. Hospital charge $28,000.00. Thats hospital, not the physcian bill. Anyone with personal experience could go on and on. Thats what is driving the case for a universal health care. Remember, we have by far the most expensive system in the world, yet do not have the best delivery system. And we are the only country not to cover every citizen, yet cost per person is the highest. Go figure.
Bandy’s right, this is more than just a problem for the young. Many of us now pay for their own Health Insurance. If you have had coverage, whether under parents or another employer, you should be exempt from pre-existing. Let’s make Health Insurance affordable for everyone. We can give people a tax break for paying for it themselves and give some employers a break for providing it.
By some people’s comments, I think they may have misunderstood. These plans are not asking to cover the young adults for nothing. They would still have to pay whatever the existing premium is for a dependent under the parents’ policy. Is a 19 year old not in college at higher health risk than a 19 year old college student – I can’t see how they would be.
If they are working FT and living independently, they shouldn’t be eligible under the parents’ plan, but if they are still living at home, and the parents’ claim as a dependent for taxes, then that should allow them to remain on the health insurance. If the health insurers and others weren’t so greedy (see other story on CA co that paid bonuses for # of sick clients cancelled), and tried to do more to provide insurance, instead of deny it, so they can pay their execs outlandish salaries, there wouldn’t be so much pressure for the government to step in and do something. It’s that way in any business – do a good job of managing and policing yourself, and you’ll have less problems, if you don’t, don’t be surprised when the public calls for government to step in.
It’s not that we think the person is being covered for free – but that the cost to the insured is (most likely) zero. You have the parent’s employer shouldering the burden of healthcare costs, or the parent shouldering the burden of healthcare costs, for a grown individual who should be shifting for themself.
We tend to baby people in America and not requiring adults to take care of themselves and get their own health insurance is just another way of babying them.
The root of the problem is not the ability to keep students on the family policy but rather the availability of affordable health-care. My recent healthy college graduate, age 21 and now self employed got a quote for $800 month. She is not making the kind of money to be able to afford that at this point.
Actually, you would think group health policies would be happy to keep these young people for the same premium and many parents would be happy to keep them on the family plan even if they had to pay the employer’s share. They’re generally healthier (cheaper) than the older employee population. Is there a tax issue driving this? If the “child” goes without and has an illness or injury, most likely the parents are going to try to step in and try to pay. Of course, they could go on the public dole but I don’t think many would appreciate that either. If would improve the results for the group to keep these young people.
However, I do think that they should start including people’s disabled children in the plan. When they’re young they’re usually in some sort of school but then they’re going to hit a certain age where school is done, often they can’t work or can’t find work and the healthcare cost can become a real burden for the families or they become Medicaid recipients and their middle-class families have to wait with them in clinics or other unfamiliar environments, they have to learn to navigate and strange and unusual system to get healthcare for their child – and often during hours they could be productive and working citizens.
Realistically, 19 is young to toss a kid out on his own. They’re rarely prepared. They’re often still at home. We see a lot of that in personal lines insurance issues, don’t we? And because we may have had to tough something out, doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be done or that we don’t want better for our children.
Wow!! So, if you’re unfortunate enough to not be able to find a job with health care, too bad?