<p>I wouldn’t be criticizing people for including their kids in their insurance if my kid had a trust fund. Nothin’ wrong with being rich and being able to supply kids or grandkids with money, but people who are not in that happy situation also want to help their kids.</p>
<p>Actually calmom said upthread that married children can still be on the parent’s plan. Surprising but true. I don’t know about grandchildren; I suspect they cannot be included.</p>
<p>harming many to help a few, that’s what this boils down to. Some believe in this mindset, some don’t. The problem is that those who believe in this mindset never think, or frankly care about unintended consequences.</p>
<p>poetgrl: Your kids have trust funds? How very nice for them.</p>
<p>Mine don’t and DD, now a graduate, has worked since the middle of high school. She’s no slacker, actually works quite hard, but isn’t in the position to pay for her own health insurance now.</p>
<p>I’m very proud of her and am very happy to help her out by having my insurance cover her medical needs.</p>
<p>I’m NOT critical of kids remaining on their parents plan. I am critical of a government policy which gives subsidies to old people, but keeps adults, who need very little insurance, on their parents plans. </p>
<p>I have no problem allowing it. I have issues with not giving subsidies to grown ups</p>
<p>And, yes, from a working class background, back when college was still affordable, and medical care was still affordable, and there were still actual manufacturing jobs that paid a living wage, I was able to make it to the point where I could create trust for my kids. From nothing. </p>
<p>I feel badly for the way we have allowed things to turn out for our own kids in this country. And, you know what momfromme? I DO think that is worth some hand wringing, even if you do not.</p>
<p>Oh for Pete’s sake, poetgrl. This isn’t most kids. This is only ones who can’t find a job with health insurance. Who previoiusly, in that case, would have had no insurance at all, because jobs that don’t have insurance, dont’ pay enough to buy private insurance.</p>
<p>I know–both my kids went uninsured for years. I couldn’t afford to pay for it, they couldn’t, and the up-to-26 hadn’t kicked in yet.</p>
<p>So we crossed our fingers and hoped for the best.</p>
<p>I guess they could have afforded it if they’d had trust funds.</p>
<p>I think perhaps poetgrl’s point is that rather than have the under-26s on their parents’ plan, they ought to buy their own plans on the exchanges and get subsidies, like grownups. They wouldn’t be uninsured in either case.</p>
<p>Right. But if we are going to have an affordable care act, then it should be offered to 22 year olds and 19 year olds too. Period.</p>
<p>Yes CF that is my point.</p>
<p>The Politico information was from one of the questions. It did not distinguish employer plan versus individual plan. </p>
<p>The criticism from the questioner was that the website nowhere warns those young adults that they may not qualify for subsidies if they could be on their parents plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A subsidy in every pot.</p>
<p>A subsidy for a 19 year old is really a subsidy for somebody older anyway argbargy.</p>
<p>I am bit lost on this discussion. So 25 years olds can’t get their own plans with a subsidy?</p>
<p>What if they don’t have parents or parents that don’t have insurance either?</p>
<p>CF - Who does the baby get insured by if the parent is on the grandparents’ plan?<br>
Don’t know if you read my first post on this thread. :p</p>
<p>You dont see the irony in telling into someone to be a grownup, stand on their own two feet and get on the government teet? </p>
<p>Will the honorable gentleman please explain What The Hell!</p>
<p>[Report:</a> ObamaCare Brings Affordable Coverage For Some Young Uninsured | TIME.com](<a href=“http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/28/report-obamacare-brings-affordable-coverage-for-some-young-uninsured/]Report:”>Report: ObamaCare Brings Affordable Coverage For Some Young Uninsured | TIME.com)</p>
<p>Argbargy, insurance for someone that age should barely cost anything. If they can’t afford it it is because its already a program anyway</p>
<p>Keeping under 26yr olds on their parents plans saves the gov’t (US Taxpayer) money because the fewer people on subsidized plans the less costly the program for the gov’t.</p>
<p>Right. I get that Emily. But I still think its wrong. </p>
<p>It keeps them dependent based on artificially inflated costs. It’s like the law that kids aren’t independent for finaid til 24. And older in some cases. </p>
<p>I understand the why. I think it’s also not right.</p>
<p>So rather than ask them to take the baby steps into adulthood we do what?</p>
<p>I will agree that ACA seems to be a unholy perversion of an insurance product. We are using insurance for thing that it cannot mathematically be for. That is charity, not insurance. And it will inevitably break down with a spiral of inflationary costs that will impact private plans and service providers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about ACA rules, but H’s employer instituted this benefit about three or four years ago, and I did get an email from BCBS about a month ago confirming this… they can still be on the plan regardless of marital status. I have a high school friend still in Texas who I saw a couple of months ago, whose son got married last summer. She told me they have kept him on her plan, but then sort of alluded to the fact that they found no reason to inform her employer that he was married; however, she did infer that in his new job, he would be eligible for health insurance sometime this fall. I just think they didn’t research whether he’d be covered or not, but didn’t really know for sure that he wouldn’t be. Don’t ask, don’t tell. I don’t think her son’s new wife was eligible for employer-based health insurance; she had returned to school.</p>
<p>At least with us, we know D2 can remain on our insurance until age 27 whether she’s married or not (which at this point, looks more like she will be by then). I don’t know whether D2’s significant other has health insurance or not. His employer employs less than 50 employees (say that five times fast). We don’t quite know him well enough to ask those sorts of questions. :rolleyes: They are in California. But I would assume if she got married, and he did have insurance through his employer, she’d be required to get it through him, and not us.</p>
<p>^ Parents are free to ask their under 26 yr. old to contribute to the cost of their insurance if they feel it is keeping them dependent. </p>
<p>I might keep my kid on my cell phone plan too - if it makes economic sense.</p>