• 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

Well you are incorrect about the school criteria. Just wondering if you are 22, why aren't you working somewhere where they give you insurance.
 


Well as the saying goes. People get the government they deserve. We continue to vote into office people whose interests are not aligned with their constituents. A say that using no party distinction.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So you can't remove an adult child from your insurance, but you may be liable for their bills.
Pretty wonky **** if you ask me, the unintended consequences of broad legislation strikes again.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything that changed about being liable for your kids' bills. They just said in some FAQ that they couldn't guarantee that a provider wouldn't try to go after the parents. That isn't anything to do with the insurance coverage, it's just reality- providers sometimes try to get the parents to pay when their kid won't.

As for not being able to remove your kid, what kind of scenario are you concerned about? You can always opt to just get coverage for yourself instead of family coverage. If you have family coverage, it doesn't cost more or less based on the number of people covered. So why would anybody ever want to keep family coverage, but remove their adult child? It's a free perk.
 
mike2810 said:
If it is your policy, I bet if taken to court, you would be held responsible for the cost.
Click to expand...
I think they would either have to show your signature somewhere on the health care papers (doctors and hospitals require you to sign payment "contracts") or they would have to show the "child" is actually a dependent of yours. The latter condition is the real catch since I haven't seen whether or not an adult "child" on a policy must be a dependent.
 

Because you want your child to take care of them self, after they've become an adult.
It should cost more based on the amount of people covered, that's insane, there is more risk with more bodies prone to medical illness.

No wonder insurance premiums continue to rise.
 
As the poll question is written, I cannot answer yes or no.

Let me put it this way: The less government regulation and mandates involving the free agreement between a consumer and the provider of a service...the better.

I have no problem with a consumer and an insurance company entering an agreement for the coverage of any children...at any age. I also have no problem with any person entering an agreement with an insurance company for coverage of ANY other person...whether that other person is a child, a parent...or even a friend. But I DO have a problem with the government dictating to the insurance company that they MUST provide a service. Keep the government out of it and let the market decide.
 

Your signature is on the paper that choices which plan you are signing up for. You also list "dependent" children that are to be covered under the plan.

There are a lot of legal questions that WO needs to address. I will stand by the statement of "your policy, your costs", till shown an exception exists.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because you want your child to take care of them self, after they've become an adult.
Click to expand...

I guess the government just doesn't recognize wanting to teach your children a less by turning down free health insurance as a serious need of parents lol.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It should cost more based on the amount of people covered, that's insane, there is more risk with more bodies prone to medical illness.
Click to expand...

/shrug. That's how most insurance companies do it, at least when working through an employer. They have an individual rate and a family rate.

Harry Guerrilla said:
No wonder insurance premiums continue to rise.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm seeing the connection there. They just figure out what the average sized family costs them and base it on that, so it evens out from the insurance company's side. Theoretically it is transferring some money from small families to big families. But, hey, when you start splitting too many hairs, everything in life involves some minor transfers of money from one group to another group.
 
someone who is 26, is not a child. not even close.

they should not be covered on their parent's plan, especially not without a rider to pay for it.
 
As long as people are allowed to be immature and irresponsible they will be. All this does is push back even further the time when people will feel the need to act and be responsible adults.
 
If true then they could show the "child" is your dependent and - as I stated - you'd be liable. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…