Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
I see no problem with this, the 'unlimited cap' or the 'pre-existing provision'. I believe the underlying motivation in these was to get the 'Health industry complex' to fall in line with ACA. I also have believed for a long time that there are risks associated with each of these provisions. HI companies are in the risk coverage business. They should be able to ascertain some premium commensurate with each risk. To the OP, it is a win for the HIC as is commonly said this group (19-26yo) is typically uninsured. By allowing them to be covered by their parents policy potentially the HIC will receive higher revenues than through the alternative.
Last edited by Dickieboy; 06-29-12 at 09:49 PM.
If a 24 yr old "kid" has their own kid, does that kid's kid get included on the (grand)parent's plan?
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
Can anyone explain how the govt. came up with age 26?
Things are so bizzar in this country. 18 you can die for your country, but can't drink till 21. Now you can be carried by your parents health care till 26. Why not 30 or 50, or till the parents die.
It's weird that 5 of you have voted against it, but so far nobody has managed to come up with anything it hurts.
Your alternative and this plan aren't really much different. If a family wanted to charge their kid for remaining on their coverage, they could do that under the ACA. Likewise, under your plan they could chip in to pay for their kids' insurance. The result would be the same either way.
As a world we're steadily heading towards people needing to spend more and more time getting themselves educated. It makes sense that at least some parents would want to help their kids out a bit longer if they're going later in life before they start working.
If a family can continue this family policy to cover the children as they secure their futures in college, entry level jobs or as an apprentice why not have them insured?
Why would any American citizen oppose this ... having more young Americans insured and being responsible as a family group?
The young adults that do not go to school that begin entry level work or the few that start a business cannot afford hundreds each month to open a new policy. This provision helps families and saves billions in tax dollars as there would simply be uninsured young adults and the unfortunate percentage that have a catastrophic incident have coverage now ...instead of landing comatose or paraplegic after an MVA and then on medicaid and burdening the tax payers further.
Think critically people!