Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Health Care Law Changes for 2011: Adult Children Included in Parents' Insurance

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Harry Hope Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 05:10 PM
Original message
Health Care Law Changes for 2011: Adult Children Included in Parents' Insurance
Source: ABC News


Jan. 1, 2011

Health Care Law Changes for 2011: Adult Children Included in Parents' Insurance
Obama's Health Care Law Says Your Kids Can Be Covered up to Age 26

By NINA T. GROTH

Under President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, insurers must offer parents the option of keeping their adult children covered under their medical plan until age 26. This mandate will go into effect for most medical insurance plans whose benefit year begins Jan. 1, 2011.

Most health insurance plans previously dropped children from parental insurance plans once they turned 19 or graduated college.

This controversial insurance modification is seen by many Americans as an extension of childhood for adults in their 20s, while for others, the measure is necessary to end the insurance gap that affects many young people.

A 2008 survey conducted by the National Institutes of Health showed that about 30 percent of adults between the ages of 20 and 29 do not have health insurance, a circumstance largely brought on by large numbers of young adults taking nontraditional, temporary or low-paying jobs that do not come with conventional employee benefits such as health insurance. That makes this age group the largest without health insurance.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-insurance-benefits...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Again?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moosepoop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. It's mandatory now
From Tx4obama's link in post #3 below:

Now, he can. The ACA lets people younger than 26 sign up on their parents coverage plan. Hundreds of insurers made the change last summer, but the law allows companies to wait until whenever their next enrollment period takes effect and most insurers, including the Blue Cross Blue Shield company that covers the Brooks family held off until 2011.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I have a feeling this is going to be treated like college financial aid after 2014.
When people under age 26 apply at state agencies for subsidized insurance or Medicaid they will be required to report whether or not their parents have insurance and may be denied on that basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's an article that talks about ALL the changes

2011: incredible shrinking doughnut hole (and more)
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/31/2011-incr... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. What a crock of shit article.
"This controversial insurance modification is seen by many Americans as an extension of childhood for adults in their 20s, while for others, the measure is necessary to end the insurance gap that affects many young people."

I actually doubt that this assertion by Nina Groth can be substantiated in any reasonable fashion. She just stuck a wad of editorializing bullshit in the middle of the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. what's wrong - that is the TRUTH
I think both - it is absolutely RIDICULOUS for adult children to be on their parents' insurance - heck, by age 26 I had been on my own for nine years and completed four years in the military. But heck, in THIS ECONOMY I get it. I just wish they'd concentrate more on providing employment opportunities (WITH BENEFITS) for not just young folk but for ALL of us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. My 'adult' daughter, age 22, in college, needs this benefit,
my 26 year old daughter has her own insurance, for which she pays through the nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. yes but "many americans' think this magically 'extends childhood'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. including some in this thread
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djp2 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. my 19 year old
has already finished college, but is trying to get accepted to a PhD program..but for the year she is out has no full time job, this is a lifesaver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Funny, I remember when I was in school the university offered
health coverage - using the university system as primary physician - for a really minimal amount paid with the tuition. So now, instead of a couple hundred paid for her own policy through college, you get to continue paying a few thousand a year more for a 'family' insurance plan until she's 26 or gets her own job.

What a deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I remember the same,
but 'family plan' in effect whether or not she needs it, and probably the case for many families: spouses as well as children covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #23
39. I remember that too, but ...
... I suspect that was only available at larger universities. (I also remember the coverage as being considered sub-par where I went to school.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. The college plans are more like a couple of thousand now
at least at the three schools my daughters attended. Currently, you need to have insurance to "waive" getting the university's coverage. I know I am happy that my 25 year old graduate student daughter is covered on our plan - as her younger sister will be when she leaves work to go to graduate school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. actually, what would be BEST is for medical coverage be available to ALL and not tied to employment.
But of course, I'll never see that in my lifetime with the democrats the way they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. It is stated as fact but it is opinion.
By the way your four years in the military included health care.

My point was that no source for the alleged opinion of "many americans" that this feature of health insurance reform somehow extends childhood was cited.

The provision of course does not magically extend childhood, it recognizes that an entire cohort of young adults is essentially at risk for health care coverage because of the scarcity of full time with benefit jobs for this group and the shitty employer based health insurance system we are unfortunately stuck with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. yes it included healthcare but it was ME who was working
not my mommy or daddy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. i was working but my family's health insurance plan could've covered my health needs
the health insurance plan that i worked for could not.

and i suffered for the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. And if those children cannot GET health insurance on their own?
God -- what an absolutely selfish attitude -- the Grand ole *I got mine, fuck you* attitude that is so prevalent in this country.

Bully for you -- you had it easier. But kids with pre-existing conditions don't automatically become eligible for insurance when they get out of high school, or even graduate college. There are even jobs that will NOT hire people because of pre-existing conditions. It might be against the law to discriminate -- but you have to prove that is in fact what they are doing.

As a parent of a child with health problems - my answer to anyone claiming this is some sort of extension of their childhood -- f*ck you and your cliff notes *psychology*. This has NOTHING to do with psychology, this has everything to do with keeping these young people healthy and ALIVE.

And I don't need to tell you where you can put your *when *I* was 26* nonsense. Multiple times, please. :sarcasm:

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. health care coverage is not an extension of childhood
Edited on Sat Jan-01-11 10:56 PM by CreekDog
it's health care.

what about kids with preexisting conditions?

are they childlike because they can't procure health insurance coverage because of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
37. covering the stay at home spouse must be a HUGH extension of childhood then, right?
ridiculous, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #24
38. covering the stay at home spouse must be a HUGH extension of childhood then, right?
ridiculous, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. I was able to add my sons 21 and 24 back on to my insurance.
This is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. VERY good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. You're lucky you can afford to do that
Minnesota has had a law keeping kids up to 25 on their parents policy for several years now (provided the policy is fully insured, not ASO).

My brother had 3 of his 18+ kids on his policy until he got sick last year. I've been picking up the COBRA for him but had to throw the kids overboard because it would have cost $1,200 for them to keep coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. Every Tea-bagger screaming about Obama-care should not be found to have any
family member in this situation on their medical insurance. Walk the talk, tea-baggers. If it's not good for America, don't use it! The rest of us are grateful that our young adults are not struggling to come up with obscene health care premiums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbgb2112 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. I wish I could add my elderly mother....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DollyM Donating Member (837 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. me too . . .
My mother is 82 and has been going through chemo for the last 6 months for colon cancer. Medicare has picked up most of the bill and she has paid $5000.00 out of her pocket this year but now owes $12000.00 to the cancer treatement center. Guess what, they told her because of her age and her present bill, they will no longer treat her. God bless our capitalistic country where we tell old people "too bad" pay up or get out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. A slight benefit for the insured, and a HUGE benefit for the insurance company.
Young adults are the population that is least likely to make any claims against their insurance. Particularly in the early twenties, they are on the whole extremely healthy - without even doing anything to stay so. The health declines don't generally start until their 30s and, prior to this, when they aged out of the parents' family plans they went without insurance unless it was offered by their own jobs. As a result, the parents coverage dropped from the expensive 'family' to the less costly 'employee +1' or simply 'employee' coverage, and that hurt the insurance company bottom line. This allows the insurance companies to continue to collect on 'family' plans for an additional 7 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. is it just a slight benefit for the one young person who needs health care but can't afford it?
where the insurance actually allows them to have health care?

is that really a "slight" benefit for the individual that needs it?

and for those with chronic or preexisting conditions, is covering them through their parents group plans (frequently the only decent group insurance coverage they can get) really just a "slight" benefit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. A simple problem fixed with a 'cannot deny' policy, rather than a
blanket 'lets make everybody pay through the nose'.

This increases the insurance companies' incomes by billions, while increasing their payout by bare millions

The insurance companies wrote the legislation - you've been scammed. There were other, better, cheaper ways to get coverage to those who need it.

We won't see them, however. The billions brought in will allow those companies to spend millions, per Citizens United, to keep anyone from interfering with this new cash cow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. the law makes them spend 80% of those billions on health care
i don't know how they'll try to wriggle out of that, but the law doesn't permit what you are saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Actually the law requires they spend 80% on paying claims or
"activities that improve customers' health" - a fairly vague term that might even be stretched to covering advertising that carries some kind of healthcare message.

Wendell Potter has pointed out, they will find ways around this and a lot depends on whether or not this is actually enforced. Minnesota has had a similar requirement on non-profit insurers for years but it wasn't until an Attorney General decided to audit them that one insurer had their all their nasty little tricks exposed (a couple of the more outrageous things they did was the gold golf tees for sales people and paying for an executive's condo). And all the time they had pretended they were in compliance.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. There is no 'try' - you know damn well they will wriggle out of it.
They held all the cards, they wrote the legislation. There is no way they would have done it without maximizing their profits in mind.

It could be as simple an expedient as IGNORING THE LAW. It's not as if it would be the first time.

Think about it - HOW would that law be enforceable, mathmatically?

You have 10,000 family plans, at $6,000 dollars each. That's $60,000,000 in premiums paid.

Of those 10,000 families, 8,000 file annual claims of $900 each; 1,500 file claims of $1,500, and 500 file claims averaging $7,000. Claims for $7,200,000, $ 2,250,000, and $3,500,000. Total payout of $12,950,000.

Hate to say it, but 12.9 million is a little bit short of 80% of 60 million. Hell, lets throw in one catastrophic claim for 4.5 million. 17.4 million is still consideralbly short of 80% of 60,000,000. You think they are going to refund the policys they collect between the payout and the 12 million they are 'allowed' to keep? Seriously?

Anybody try to sell you a bridge lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
33. LOL!
One of the most hilarious parts of the healthcare legislation con job that was passed as a great victory for President Obama was this provision. The health insurance companies no doubt laughed their asses off at this provision being hailed as some sort of great victory for average Americans. The fact is that these health insurers had already formulated plans to jack up the rates on everybody. These adult children are simply more grist for the mill.

Don't believe me? Simply Google how much rates have been jacked since the HCR bill was passed. America has become the land of the willfully ignorant and easily led astray.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
34. Except for the ones whose parents are uninsured or can't afford to do it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. You beat me to it. Just saying it, doesn't make it so.
I've come to the conclusion everyone in Washington thinks the rest of the country is rolling in loot. Cover Junior until he's 26? No problem! Who hasn't got an extra few hundred dollars a month?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Yep. According to the HHS, the average cost will be $3,400 a year.
And that's the average. Woe to those on the upper end of that scale. It's nice if you have the money to spend, but most people don't nowadays.

My own employer "helpfully" pointed out to us that adding a 24 year old dependent to our employee policy would cost us about $2,600 a year each (working out to about $900 in extra costs to the employee), and that the additional cost burden on them would be a "subject of negotiation" at our next contract discussion. They then provided us with information showing that the EXACT SAME PLAN can be directly purchased by individuals for about $1,600 a year.

The implication was obvious. Putting those dependents on our insurance plan now would "save" the employees about $700 a year in the short term, but will result in each of us paying a higher percentage down the line, which would presumably exceed the $700 short term savings. We've also had people working for the administration pumping the meme that people who put their adult kids on the plan are being "greedy and self-centered", and will eventually cost us all a lot of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
36. sorta sorry they dropped the 'enrolled in college' part
it was a great motivator to get my kids to get into and stay in college. they changed the law here in illinois a couple years ago. i never told them that, but they found out anyway. drat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. this country is so backwards, even Democrats often subscribe to prehistoric thinking on these issues
acting like health care is some sort of benefit.

when most of the world considers it a a right.

when i was about to graduate undergrad (I was 22 --far from 26). in order to keep my health insurance, i was told to *not graduate*.

bad advice, but perhaps understandable.

the idea that anyone would want to continue this nonsense is crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC