• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Policies of the ACA: Young Adults on their Parents' Plan

Should parents be able to enroll their children under the age of 26?

  • Total voters
    26
Phys251

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,437
Reaction score
51,303
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
(Note: THIS IS NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC COMPONENT.)

One of the many policies created by the Affordable Care Act was the ability of parents to enroll their children on their health insurance plan up to the age of 26.

NOT including your position on the ACA as a whole, do you support this SPECIFIC policy or not? I.e., were health care reform completely scrapped, and this one proposal came as a stand-alone bill, would you support it or not?
 
I have been against this provision from Day One.

26? Really? At what point are people adults and responsible for themselves? An argument can be made for 18-21 IF still in school... and even then I'm not really thrilled about it, but can accept it... but beyond that, no.
 
Last edited:
I never liked insurance companies charging X amount for you at 17 years old and on your parents policy and once you hit 18 they jack the cost up 4x for the same coverage. I think a better solution would be to carry over coverage and costs to new adults who have been covered by their parents policy for 3 or more years.
 
Sure, why not? I don't really see any disadvantage to it.
 
radcen said:
I have been against this provision from Day One.

26? Really? At what point are people adults and responsible for themselves? An argument can be made for 18-21 IF still in school... and even then I'm not really thrilled about it, but can accept it... but beyond that, no.
Click to expand...

Some people go to grad/law/biz/med school after they finish college... What exactly is the problem with it anyway? It's OK with me if people stay on their parents' plans until they're 50...
 
Last edited:
I do cover my children.... but I define child as " under 18".

whether I support this or not is irrelevant... we parents are forced to cover kids well into adulthood now, and so we shall... or face punishment.
 
Thrilla said:
I do cover my children.... but I define child as " under 18".

whether I support this or not is irrelevant... we parents are forced to cover kids well into adulthood now, and so we shall... or face punishment.
Click to expand...

Except you're not, and you just completely made that up. :2wave:
 
Thrilla said:
I do cover my children.... but I define child as " under 18".

whether I support this or not is irrelevant... we parents are forced to cover kids well into adulthood now, and so we shall... or face punishment.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't require you to keep them on your insurance... It just allows you to if you want to
 
It is rediculous to allow keeping children as dependents when over 18 years of age on insurance or on FIT forms unless they are disabled. If they can vote, then they are independent, IMHO.
 
teamosil said:
No, it doesn't require you to keep them on your insurance... It just allows you to if you want to
Click to expand...

It requires insurance rates to increase for ALL "family" plans as if they could remain covered until age 26, about 1/3 longer than before. In this share the cost of all in the village mentality, it costs us all more to extend benefits to "just a few more"; a working 19 year old should not have to help support a "dependent" 25 year old.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It requires insurance rates to increase for ALL "family" plans as if they could remain covered until age 26,
Click to expand...

Why would covering 19-26 year olds cause the rates of family plans to increase? You still have to pay for the extra person on your plan, and they probably consume less health care than the average person...
 
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:
ttwtt78640 said:
It requires insurance rates to increase for ALL "family" plans as if they could remain covered until age 26, about 1/3 longer than before. In this share the cost of all in the village mentality, it costs us all more to extend benefits to "just a few more"; a working 19 year old should not have to help support a "dependent" 25 year old.
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't make sense... If you want to keep your kid on the family plan longer, you would be paying the higher family plan rate for longer. It wouldn't change the cost of it unless young adults between 18 and 25 cost more per year than kids between 0 and 18, but it's actually the other way around.
 
If a 24 yr old "kid" has their own kid, does that kid's kid get included on the (grand)parent's plan?
 
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.:mrgreen:
 
It's weird that 5 of you have voted against it, but so far nobody has managed to come up with anything it hurts.
 
teamosil said:
It's weird that 5 of you have voted against it, but so far nobody has managed to come up with anything it hurts.
Click to expand...

I voted against it and stated the alternative I would rather have. Im not sure it hurts anything but I am not sure why they chose that particular method. At 26 you are an adult and should be treated as such. Being on your parents (anything) at that age just seems clingy to me.
 
Baralis said:
I voted against it and stated the alternative I would rather have. Im not sure it hurts anything but I am not sure why they chose that particular method. At 26 you are an adult and should be treated as such. Being on your parents (anything) at that age just seems clingy to me.
Click to expand...

Something seeming clingy doesn't really carry any weight in a policy discussion though IMO. Giving families that option seems like a good idea to me. Everybody is in different situations. Maybe some families will use it as a way to help their kids avoid taking on too much education debt. Maybe they use it to help kids who graduated college in the midst of the recession and got kind of screwed by it get through the rough spot. Who knows. I don't really see how it is any of my business why somebody might want to do it, so without a significant disadvantage to letting people have that option, I think it's a positive thing.

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.
 
radcen said:
I have been against this provision from Day One.

26? Really? At what point are people adults and responsible for themselves? An argument can be made for 18-21 IF still in school... and even then I'm not really thrilled about it, but can accept it... but beyond that, no.
Click to expand...

Why ... my sons are in college and they could not afford a private policy. If the children were on the family policy ...whether students or in entry level jobs most cannot afford to buy insurance and therefore would be uninsured and if a catastrophic accident occurs the tax payers would have this burden of millions of uninsured.

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!
 
teamosil said:
Something seeming clingy doesn't really carry any weight in a policy discussion though IMO. Giving families that option seems like a good idea to me. Everybody is in different situations. Maybe some families will use it as a way to help their kids avoid taking on too much education debt. Maybe they use it to help kids who graduated college in the midst of the recession and got kind of screwed by it get through the rough spot. Who knows. I don't really see how it is any of my business why somebody might want to do it, so without a significant disadvantage to letting people have that option, I think it's a positive thing.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, there really isnt much difference about my preferred method and this other then one seems to place the responsibility on the young adult and the other on the parent. The semblance of moving toward independence and self reliance can be an important thing to a young adult even if its not really much different then what they had before. I mean parents have always had the option to pay for their adult children insurance, just not as directly as they can now.
 
Not only do I agree with this provision, but this is probably the single aspect of the ACA that makes me support it. We currently have young adults, some with significant health issues, going to college or graduate school until they are in their mid-20's. This is not 70+ years ago when most folks just completed high school and then went right into the workplace making money. Nowadays, in order to earn a good living for the most part, college and often beyond is a necessity. Allowing young adults to remain on their parent's plans until the completion of their education is not only logical but appropriate for the times. As a health care provider, I've lost count of how many clients need to cease treatment... or significantly reduce it because they "aged out" of their parents plan and could no longer afford it. This provision helps to prevent this from happening.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not only do I agree with this provision, but this is probably the single aspect of the ACA that makes me support it. We currently have young adults, some with significant health issues, going to college or graduate school until they are in their mid-20's. This is not 70+ years ago when most folks just completed high school and then went right into the workplace making money. Nowadays, in order to earn a good living for the most part, college and often beyond is a necessity. Allowing young adults to remain on their parent's plans until the completion of their education is not only logical but appropriate for the times. As a health care provider, I've lost count of how many clients need to cease treatment... or significantly reduce it because they "aged out" of their parents plan and could no longer afford it. This provision helps to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. Spot on. :thumbs:
 
Phys251 said:
(Note: THIS IS NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC COMPONENT.)

One of the many policies created by the Affordable Care Act was the ability of parents to enroll their children on their health insurance plan up to the age of 26.

NOT including your position on the ACA as a whole, do you support this SPECIFIC policy or not? I.e., were health care reform completely scrapped, and this one proposal came as a stand-alone bill, would you support it or not?
Click to expand...

I don't support extending child hood into the mid 20's.
 
Heres how I feel about this..I think 26 yrs old is past the age of adult responsiblity. The responsibility to be providing for yourself, but im willing to go halfway and say ok parents can keep their offspring enrolled on their health insurance until they are 22 or 23 and IN COLLEGE.
Not cover them to lay around the house and play Xbox..or insure them for working full time. If they are still in school full time or HANDICAPPED..Im good till 23. Twenty Six is overkill and making mommy daddy nannies for an adult person
 
The particulars of health insurance plans should be up to the customer and provider to hammer out between them. If they want to add in a college student at a cost acceptable to both? Sure. Mandate it? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom