<p>Arg, maybe the head of all of Medicaid should get the ax, but I’d be inclined to look a level or two lower.</p>
<p>Also, this “tech surge” fills me with apprehension. “Adding programmers to a late software project makes it later” is a well-known aphorism for a reason.</p>
<p>"There were signs Monday the site was becoming easier to use, even after an outage that knocked it offline for much of Sunday and early Monday.</p>
<p>A USA TODAY review indicated that visitors to the site sped through the various sections with no problems." </p>
<p>[Insurance</a> for the young could be less than $50 a month](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/28/health-website-down-verizon/3286203/]Insurance”>Insurance for the young could be less than $50 a month)</p>
<p>It’s not like they wanted this to happen. I’m sure this has turned the rest of our presidents hair grey. </p>
<p>Maybe it would just be better at this point to just get to work and get it fixed. These acrimonious hearings just cause us to get older and bitter. </p>
<p>The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we can figure out what parts are really unfair and need to be fixed.</p>
<p>Read the Politicos article on the hearings today and learned that if you are 26 and under and you could be on your parent’s plan, you cannot get a subsidy if you buy a plan on the exchange.</p>
<p>The question was: can the system even verify that or will taxpayers be subsidizing young people who could be on their parents plan.</p>
<p>That seems so wrong. On so many levels.</p>
<p>I mean, who wants their kid to have to be on their plan? </p>
<p>They can’t get catastrophic, which is all they need. Can’t get a subsidy which they might need because of the rise in prices to pay for the older generation. And then THEY will be the ones criticized for being dependent. Lol</p>
<p>And I’ll bet very few 26 and under know that. And I’ll bet the system cannot link the kid to the parent to keep a ‘kid’ from getting an unneeded subsidy.</p>
<p>The kids should get the damn subsidy if we’re handing them out. In their case it’s still a subsidy for the older generation not them. Because they are priced wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. </p>
<p>Data security is a potential nightmare. There is everything there for a identity thief to have a field day. And times millions (eventually). </p>
<p>Is there anything about how this rollout when that fills you with confidence about the professionalism and thoroughness of the people involved? </p>
<p>Who made the decision to stop issuing Rules? Who green light a program that was failing with 200 simulated users just 4 days before launch. How were these vendors selected?</p>
<p>This is a $634 million dollar <em>taxpayer</em> investment.</p>
<p>I don’t see how something sold to the public as ‘if you like your plan you can keep it’, even survives at this’s point.</p>
<p>“I mean, who wants their kid to have to be on their plan?”</p>
<p>If my kid doesn’t have employer subsidized health insurance I have no problem keeping him on our plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TatinG, have you got a cite? In particular, is the rule that you can’t get a subsidy if you could be on your parent’s plan or is it you can’t get a subsidy if you could be on your parent’s employer-supplied plan?</p>
<p>I suspect it’s the latter. If it’s the former, then almost no under-26s could get subsidies. Only the under-26s with no parent living in the United States would be eligible.</p>
<p>I absolutely want my kids on my plan. I have great coverage and am extremely pleased to be able to keep them on my plan.</p>
<p>I have no problem with my kid being on my plan. However, I’m happy to say that my kids do not want to be dependent on us at 26.</p>
<p>26? I had kids at that age.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine that this is a “good” development that kids this age are being encouraged to remain on their parents plan. It just seems wrong on so many levels.</p>
<p>Not that I would kick my kid off my plan, or have an issue with paying, just… what the heck is happening to us?</p>
<p>Who is keeping their plan? The vast majority of people with employer health insurance, everyone on Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare and 2/3+ of people with individual insurance.</p>
<p>Plenty of college graduate spend a few years in Americorps or the Peace Corps and then go to grad school. Staying on their parents’ plan is very good for them. </p>
<p>And I’m pleased that many are doing this. It doesn’t deserve any hand-wringing, i.e., “what is happening to us?”</p>
<p>Where do you see 2/3rds?</p>
<p>The estimates I see range from 50% to 70% (possibly) 80%.
[Obama</a> admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations](<a href=“Investigations: U.S. & World News Investigations | NBC News”>Investigations: U.S. & World News Investigations | NBC News)</p>
<p>In any event we are talking bout many million people. </p>
<p>It would be worth asking Sebelius at her testimony if a premium increase for medical inflation is a ‘significant event’ that voids a policy being grandfathered.</p>
<p>I don’t remember where I read that, but I’ll look for it.</p>
<p>Great. I’m glad you are pleased.</p>
<p>Do you plan to fully fund their 401K/s too? </p>
<p>I think the message this sends to 26 year olds is really kind of frightening. Long term.</p>
<p>But, my kids won’t suffer. They have trust funds. </p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>Can a 25 year old be married and still be on the parent’s plan? What if they have a child?</p>
<p>I’m glad my son is remaining on our plan. I feel fine about it.</p>