• 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
Helix said:
the fact that this is even necessary at all is yet another symptom of our failing employer-based delivery system.

but, given our absolute refusal to change this ridiculous and inefficient system, i vote yes. given the lousy job market, i'd raise the age even higher. after all, the insurance companies want people in this age group covered because they pay in more than they take out in care, and the cashier jobs that we are offering this entire generation don't offer health insurance.
Click to expand...


This is what I find most disturbing about the bill. We did not fix the fundemental problems with our current system. Now after years of this contentious battle, no one will fix our problems with HC for another generation.
 
teamosil vs (pretty much) everybody else

What we have here is a case of competing, or conflicting, rights being debated. Everybody else is arguing equality of opportunity, while teamosil is arguing equality of results.

Equality of opportunity has two sides with somewhat conflicting rights butting heads. Equality of results says that one side should get to overtake the other side and get their way exclusively.
 
cpwill said:
this is incorrect - as the success of HSA's have demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Yeah those are a good way to counter the problem I'm describing. They remove the insurance companies entirely and you can make decisions after the fact. But that doesn't really replace health insurance.

cpwill said:
no it's not. either they make enough money to take on payment, or they don't and rate medicaid. more likely they are lazy and/or generally uninformed. Regardless, no one is stopping them from seeing a doctor.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your point. It seems like you are saying that you would only count it as a hit to their freedom if a specific person is responsible for them not being able to get health care. But that doesn't make sense to me. If I throw you in a pit that you can't get out of, are you any less free than you would be if you fell in the pit yourself?
 
JayDubya said:
There only is one side of this coin.

The law doesn't somehow stop people from going to the doctor. If you can't pay the doctor, making someone else pay the doctor for you and / or making the doctor work perform the task anyway are both examples of using the law to reduce net freedom.

So we're not weighing the value of different freedoms. We're weighing freedom versus coercion.
Click to expand...

No, we're weighing economic coercion against legal coercion. An individual is equally coerced if you prevent them from doing something regardless of whether the tool you use is economic or legal.
 
radcen said:
teamosil vs (pretty much) everybody else

What we have here is a case of competing, or conflicting, rights being debated. Everybody else is arguing equality of opportunity, while teamosil is arguing equality of results.

Equality of opportunity has two sides with somewhat conflicting rights butting heads. Equality of results says that one side should get to overtake the other side and get their way exclusively.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the opportunity/results distinction from anything I'm saying. Allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance policy until 26 is an opportunity that everybody would equally share, right?
 
I do support it, and not just because I am a 22 year old on my parents' insurance. From what I understand you can only be on their plan at 26 if you are enrolled in school. It gives a break to students who most likely can't afford an insurance payment while enrolled in school full time. I may be wrong on that criteria, but that's what I've heard. I've not done too much research into the extended coverage under parents' insurance.
 
washunut said:
This is what I find most disturbing about the bill. We did not fix the fundemental problems with our current system. Now after years of this contentious battle, no one will fix our problems with HC for another generation.
Click to expand...

it will probably have to happen before that. rates have been rising at such a pace that they will make businesses uncompetitive. fewer and fewer jobs will offer coverage, and the coverage offered will be too expensive to buy, or it will be worthless. soon enough, those who foam at the mouth against the PPACA will begin to go bankrupt trying to help their kids, their parents, and themselves. in other words, the problem is going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better.

1993 would have been the best time to change the system. 2010 was almost too late. we've passed the last chance of the easy way to learn. now we'll have to learn the hard way. the sad part is that those who saw it coming decades ago and fought to change it will suffer right alongside of those who fought for the status quo.
 
radcen said:
teamosil vs (pretty much) everybody else

What we have here is a case of competing, or conflicting, rights being debated. Everybody else is arguing equality of opportunity, while teamosil is arguing equality of results.

Equality of opportunity has two sides with somewhat conflicting rights butting heads. Equality of results says that one side should get to overtake the other side and get their way exclusively.
Click to expand...

Young people having access to health insurance is simply far more important than insurers being allowed to choose whether to cover them. Is there something to be said for "freedom" for the insurers? I guess...but not much.
 
teamosil said:
I'm not sure I follow your point. It seems like you are saying that you would only count it as a hit to their freedom if a specific person is responsible for them not being able to get health care
Click to expand...

that is correct - if they are stopped by someone, their freedom is being inhibited.

But that doesn't make sense to me. If I throw you in a pit that you can't get out of, are you any less free than you would be if you fell in the pit yourself?
Click to expand...

yes. you threw me here; my choice was coerced and taken from me.
 
cpwill said:
yes. you threw me here; my choice was coerced and taken from me.
Click to expand...

So? You're still in the pit either way, right? Either way, you are free to do the same things and you lack the freedom to do the same things.
 
teamosil said:
I'm not sure where you get the opportunity/results distinction from anything I'm saying. Allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance policy until 26 is an opportunity that everybody would equally share, right?
Click to expand...

WRONG. It is limitted to ONLY those that have children under 26, THAT CHOOSE TO DO SO, and costs ALL that have a "familiy" plan, since the insurance PERIOD for covering those children is ASSUMED to have increased by up to 1/3 so does its COST. That cost is NOT limitted to only those that CHOOSE the extension, but must be born by ALL to help the privleged few. This is NONSENSE as a mandate, let it be an ADDED COST option for the few that desire it. Do you REALLY think that a working 19 year old should help subsidize the parents of a non-working 25 year old? Get real!
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
WRONG. It is limitted to ONLY those that have chidren under 26, and costs ALL that have a "familiy" plan, since the insurance PERIOD for covereing those children is ASSUMED to have increased by up to 1/3 so does its COST. That cost is NOT limitted to only those that CHOOSE the exptention, but born by ALL to help the privlegeed few. This is NONSENSE as a mandate, let it be an ADDED COST option for the few that desire it. Get real!
Click to expand...

Er what? Why would it cost more to include a 24 year old on your plan than to include a 14 year old? 14 year olds generally have more medical expenses. And how would it raise the cost for anybody? The parents would be paying the family plan rate longer.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WRONG. It is limitted to ONLY those that have children under 26, THAT CHOOSE TO DO SO, and costs ALL that have a "familiy" plan, since the insurance PERIOD for covering those children is ASSUMED to have increased by up to 1/3 so does its COST.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. If you want to cover your child until age 26, you still have to pay the extra premium for the extra person.

Do you REALLY think that a working 19 year old should help subsidize the parents of a non-working 25 year old? Get real!
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what's happening here. Yet another example of someone who hates the ACA despite not actually knowing what's in it.
 
Kandahar said:
That makes absolutely no sense. If you want to cover your child until age 26, you still have to pay the extra premium for the extra person.



Except that isn't what's happening here. Yet another example of someone who hates the ACA despite not actually knowing what's in it.
Click to expand...

WRONG. I am sick of "experts" saying what the PPACA, really says, without supplying it; I can supply links asserting that coverage of dependent children up to age 26 is MANDATED, yet you imply that is somehow not true. The ONLY time that is an added cost to the parent is when the LAST covered child is (or all children are) over 19 and not yet 26 (otherwise it is "free" to that policy holder). Only if the parents could otherwise drop the child AND not simply allow the child to reimburse them for the difference would any extra cost be incurred.

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2010/(CM) Insured.pdf

Insurance policies are for an individual, a married couple or a familiy, no per child rates apply, that I am aware of. Most, currently 90% of medical care insurance, is bought through the employer, as mine was. Extending the MANDATED coverage period for children to age 26 is NOT free (to the insurance provider), nor is it an OPTION, so all "family" plans must then assume about a 1/3 increase in EACH child's coverage period is quite possible, if not very likely. Show me where, in the PPACA, this EXTRA coverage is paid for ONLY by those actually using it (do NOT ask me to "disprove" your assertion). Crickets...
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
I'm not sure where you get the opportunity/results distinction from anything I'm saying. Allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance policy until 26 is an opportunity that everybody would equally share, right?
Click to expand...
That's not a very strong counterpoint. That's like saying a wrongfully convicted person being executed is acceptable because most of the time they do get the right people, and everybody had the same opportunity to participate.

Ok, that's not worded well, but I hope the point is still there.


digsbe said:
I do support it, and not just because I am a 22 year old on my parents' insurance. From what I understand you can only be on their plan at 26 if you are enrolled in school. It gives a break to students who most likely can't afford an insurance payment while enrolled in school full time. I may be wrong on that criteria, but that's what I've heard. I've not done too much research into the extended coverage under parents' insurance.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I'm not sure on this point either, but if what you say is true, then I would accuse the administration of lying-by-omission when they sold HCR to the general public. It was always portrayed at allowing 26 or younger, period. Restrictions such as student status were never mentioned. This is a relatively popular aspect of the law, so I think they would have felt safe in lying-by-omission... if that is what they did do.


Helix said:
it will probably have to happen before that. rates have been rising at such a pace that they will make businesses uncompetitive. fewer and fewer jobs will offer coverage, and the coverage offered will be too expensive to buy, or it will be worthless. soon enough, those who foam at the mouth against the PPACA will begin to go bankrupt trying to help their kids, their parents, and themselves. in other words, the problem is going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better.

1993 would have been the best time to change the system. 2010 was almost too late. we've passed the last chance of the easy way to learn. now we'll have to learn the hard way. the sad part is that those who saw it coming decades ago and fought to change it will suffer right alongside of those who fought for the status quo.
Click to expand...
This could be the law of unintended consequences. Larger corporations will probably still continue to offer health benefits. Smaller and marginally-sized companies may choose to cease offering benefits. Why go through that hassle and expense when the employee is now "required" to have it anyway?

If the employee is lucky, maybe they'll get a 50c/hr raise to help pay for it.
 
radcen said:
That's not a very strong counterpoint. That's like saying a wrongfully convicted person being executed is acceptable because most of the time they do get the right people, and everybody had the same opportunity to participate.

Ok, that's not worded well, but I hope the point is still there.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Can you explain more how you think my position equates to 'equality of results'?
 
teamosil said:
Er what? Why would it cost more to include a 24 year old on your plan than to include a 14 year old? 14 year olds generally have more medical expenses. And how would it raise the cost for anybody? The parents would be paying the family plan rate longer.
Click to expand...

This is an apples to oranges comparison. It costs LESS in premiums (so it costs the insurance company MORE) for the "familiy" to keep their son Johnny, on daddy's policy than for Johnny to get his own policy, and simply make Johnny pay daddy back the difference. It also helps daddy reach his deducatable sooner adding in Johnny's medical expenses. So together, daddy and Johnny pay less for insurance than they normally would for 7 more years, yet Johnny and daddy will incur the SAME medical care costs either way, so that "savings" must be made up by OTHER policy holders.

PS: My dad did this for myself and my two brothers on his auto policy, we paid HIM for our auto insurance, for FAR less that getting our own auto policies.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
If the employee is lucky, maybe they'll get a 50c/hr raise to help pay for it.
Click to expand...

considering that there are multiple people in line for most jobs, i tend to doubt it. what are they going to do, quit and go somewhere else?

brought to you by an America in which "unions had their time, but are no longer needed."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is an apples to oranges comparison. It costs LESS in premiums (so it costs the insurance company MORE) for the "familiy" to keep their son Johnny, on daddy's policy than for Johnny to get his own policy, and simply make Johnny pay daddy back the difference. It also helps daddy reach his deducatable sooner adding in Johnny's medical expenses. So together, daddy and Johnny pay less for insurance than they normally would for 7 more years, yet Johnny and daddy will incur the SAME medical care costs either way, so that "savings" must be made up by OTHER policy holders.

PS: My dad did this for myself and my two brothers on his auto policy, we paid HIM for our auto insurance, for FAR less that getting our own auto policies.
Click to expand...

So is it your contention that they are currently overcharging 18-26 year olds to subsidize the family plans? Or what?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is an apples to oranges comparison. It costs LESS in premiums (so it costs the insurance company MORE) for the "familiy" to keep their son Johnny, on daddy's policy than for Johnny to get his own policy, and simply make Johnny pay daddy back the difference. It also helps daddy reach his deducatable sooner adding in Johnny's medical expenses. So together, daddy and Johnny pay less for insurance than they normally would for 7 more years, yet Johnny and daddy will incur the SAME medical care costs either way, so that "savings" must be made up by OTHER policy holders.
Click to expand...

What you say is true presuming Johnny choses to purchase HI after getting off his parent’s plan. As you know part of the ‘sales job’ for the bill is the fact that it is common for those 18-26 to go uninsured. This begs the question is it better to get something for them being covered by their parents plan OR getting nothing when they go uninsured? Of course the ACA doesn’t allow the latter option but I don’t think you are arguing FOR new law.
 
I happen to look for some answers from OPM (federal) regarding the child care portion. Does'nt affect me,my kid is older than 26.

24. Can I remove my child from my FEHB Self and Family enrollment?
No. Your child will remain covered until his or her 26th birthday

25. Who is responsible for the out-of-pocket health expenses of my child age 22 through 25?
It depends. Generally, the adult child is responsible for any out-of-pocket health expenses charged by the health care provider. You can work with your provider to determine who pays for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by your adult child. We cannot guarantee that the provider will not seek payment from you if your adult child fails to pay.For those who are all for having their adult "child" up to 26 years of age covered.

Do you realize you may be on the hook for your childs medical expenses not covered by insurance? Once enrolled you can't cancel them till age 26. While I think most of us would do what we can for our kids, not sure I would want to be on the hook for my adult offspring.
 
mike2810 said:
I happen to look for some answers from OPM (federal) regarding the child care portion. Does'nt affect me,my kid is older than 26.

24. Can I remove my child from my FEHB Self and Family enrollment?
No. Your child will remain covered until his or her 26th birthday

25. Who is responsible for the out-of-pocket health expenses of my child age 22 through 25?
It depends. Generally, the adult child is responsible for any out-of-pocket health expenses charged by the health care provider. You can work with your provider to determine who pays for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by your adult child. We cannot guarantee that the provider will not seek payment from you if your adult child fails to pay.For those who are all for having their adult "child" up to 26 years of age covered.

Do you realize you may be on the hook for your childs medical expenses not covered by insurance? Once enrolled you can't cancel them till age 26. While I think most of us would do what we can for our kids, not sure I would want to be on the hook for my adult offspring.
Click to expand...

They can't guarantee that the provider won't SEEK payment from you, but that doesn't mean you've incurred any legal obligation to actually pay them. There is nothing in the ACA that would require parents to pay out-of-pocket expenses for their adult children. Furthermore, this is just for FEHB, not for all health insurance plans.
 
Kandahar said:
They can't guarantee that the provider won't SEEK payment from you, but that doesn't mean you've incurred any legal obligation to actually pay them. There is nothing in the ACA that would require parents to pay out-of-pocket expenses for their adult children. Furthermore, this is just for FEHB, not for all health insurance plans.
Click to expand...
I'd bet dollars-to-doughnuts that there is a provision in virtually every plan that holds the primary insured liable for all out-of-pocket expenses. Large corporations don't get to be large by not being savvy in that regard.
 
Kandahar said:
They can't guarantee that the provider won't SEEK payment from you, but that doesn't mean you've incurred any legal obligation to actually pay them. There is nothing in the ACA that would require parents to pay out-of-pocket expenses for their adult children. Furthermore, this is just for FEHB, not for all health insurance plans.
Click to expand...

True about being from the FEHB portion of OPM. The FEHB established what all offered policies must have in the benefits.

If it is your policy, I bet if taken to court, you would be held responsible for the cost.
 
mike2810 said:
I happen to look for some answers from OPM (federal) regarding the child care portion. Does'nt affect me,my kid is older than 26.

24. Can I remove my child from my FEHB Self and Family enrollment?
No. Your child will remain covered until his or her 26th birthday

25. Who is responsible for the out-of-pocket health expenses of my child age 22 through 25?
It depends. Generally, the adult child is responsible for any out-of-pocket health expenses charged by the health care provider. You can work with your provider to determine who pays for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by your adult child. We cannot guarantee that the provider will not seek payment from you if your adult child fails to pay.For those who are all for having their adult "child" up to 26 years of age covered.

Do you realize you may be on the hook for your childs medical expenses not covered by insurance? Once enrolled you can't cancel them till age 26. While I think most of us would do what we can for our kids, not sure I would want to be on the hook for my adult offspring.
Click to expand...

What is FEHB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom