http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0611092347.htm
Global investment


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608100753.htm

health care

Those articles suggest that there is that a LOT of money being dumped into things that no taxpayer should be forced to fund.

Thanks for pointing that out.

These adults should be out earning their own living and buying their own health insurance, or none, as they can choose.

But why stop at 26? Why not allow them to stay on the parents' insurance until the parents hit Medicare, but wait, then allow them to piggyback onto the parents Medicare insurance! Whoohooo - free stuff for everyone! (Except the parents)

These things are all free, aren't they?

In 2011, 13.7 million young adults ages 19 to 25 stayed on or joined their parents' health plans, including 6.6 million who would likely not have been able to do so before passage of the Affordable Care Act, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report.

What makes you think staying on their parents health plan is free?

Originally Posted by Treetop

What makes you think staying on their parents health plan is free?

I thought that was why everyone was so excited about this. Is it only "near free"? Or, "heavily discounted" vs getting their own policy?

I do think that paying less in insurance premiums for the same number of people means that everyone's rates must go up. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Treetop

What makes you think staying on their parents health plan is free?

It's free for the younger adults.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

It's free for the younger adults.

You like to throw those statements out as if it were fact.

I imagine we are talking mainly of employer provided health insurance here. While some really good plans might cover children and the employer pays for it, I know when I was on my ex wife's plan, she paid half and her employer paid half for my coverage. I had my ex and my son on a plan I got at work for a while, it was a small company and not as good a plan, but it was the same thing, I got myself covered under the plan and the employer paid, but the dependents cost extra. This is typical of very small businesses, in fact, most of them don't even offer health coverage, they hire folks for 36 hours a week and call it part time, so you don't qualify for benefits.

Of course, why wouldn't employers be free to charge more, reduce benefits, up copays, as they are now? There is no government funding of this, it is a directive to the insurers and bundled with other agreements with them within the package, the most important of which is the requirement that everyone buy insurance.

Here it is from the government site:

Same Benefits/Same Price. Any qualified young adult must be offered all of the benefit packages available to similarly situated individuals who did not lose coverage because of cessation of dependent status. The qualified individual cannot be required to pay more for coverage than those similarly situated individuals. The new policy applies only to health insurance plans that offer dependent coverage in the first place: while most insurers and employer-sponsored plans offer dependent coverage, there is no requirement to do so.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsd...tcoverage.html

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

It's free for the younger adults.

And thus, someone else has to pay for it.

To recap: A plan that is free for young adults but must be paid for by other people.

Sounds like the making of a perfectly Lib plan to me.

Originally Posted by Highflight

And thus, someone else has to pay for it.

To recap: A plan that is free for young adults but must be paid for by other people.

Sounds like the making of a perfectly Lib plan to me.

Of course, but the issue here is the parents. There is a clause in the link about if a young adult is offered coverage by some other means. Bottom line for that is if they are employed and get coverage through their job, the likelihood, as I mentioned above, is that an employee has all of his coverage or most of it paid by the company. This will be helpful to parents with children who might be attending colleges or technical schools which don't offer coverage, or if they are working several part time jobs and have no coverage of their own. This segment is the one with the highest unemployment, last reported as 25% for those 25 and under, IIRC.

So this is about helping the parents keep their dependent or semi-dependent, or just those with no health coverage available outside of buying it independently on the market, which is the most expensive way to get it. As opposed to them doing without and either becoming a burden to the taxpayer, or having their parents drain their wealth due to a severe health issue.

Of course, I can see how those who singularly, without any help, scored big in life and have disdain for any who might meet different circumstances today than we did back in the sixties and seventies...... Actually, I cannot.

Originally Posted by Treetop

You like to throw those statements out as if it were fact.

I imagine we are talking mainly of employer provided health insurance here. While some really good plans might cover children and the employer pays for it, I know when I was on my ex wife's plan, she paid half and her employer paid half for my coverage. I had my ex and my son on a plan I got at work for a while, it was a small company and not as good a plan, but it was the same thing, I got myself covered under the plan and the employer paid, but the dependents cost extra. This is typical of very small businesses, in fact, most of them don't even offer health coverage, they hire folks for 36 hours a week and call it part time, so you don't qualify for benefits.

Of course, why wouldn't employers be free to charge more, reduce benefits, up copays, as they are now? There is no government funding of this, it is a directive to the insurers and bundled with other agreements with them within the package, the most important of which is the requirement that everyone buy insurance.

Here it is from the government site:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsd...tcoverage.html

Did you send you child a bill to pay their portion of the insurance? I highly doubt it. I would imagine very few parents do. So the fact that you pay for it or the employer pays for it doesn't matter. The younger adults who are still covered by their parents insurance aren't paying for it so it is free for them. That is what I stated and that is correct. So yes, I am throwing out a statement as a fact because in the vas majority of situations it is a factual statement.

Originally Posted by Highflight

And thus, someone else has to pay for it.

To recap: A plan that is free for young adults but must be paid for by other people.

Sounds like the making of a perfectly Lib plan to me.

Yep

Originally Posted by Treetop

What makes you think staying on their parents health plan is free?

Originally Posted by Big Foot 48

I thought that was why everyone was so excited about this. Is it only "near free"? Or, "heavily discounted" vs getting their own policy?

I do think that paying less in insurance premiums for the same number of people means that everyone's rates must go up. Is that right?

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

It's free for the younger adults.

My dad would have made me pay for it one way or another, even if it was washing his car and mowing his lawn.

But really, it is not free in the context of which I asked the question, which BigFoot certainly understood and pontificated on, yet you state it was free. Your statement isn't accurate. An accurate statement would have been their parents and their parents employer's would be paying. The question was about who pays and certainly BigFoot being the one I asked, and the one who made the statement about it being free, knew what I meant and answered accordingly.

This sort of slice and dice arguing is rather stupid and unproductive, and this happened the other day with the question of whether comparing something to WWII Concentration Camps was or was not invoking Hitler. Stupid because it is based on the personal and not on the subject. And it also was brought in by someone not directly involved in the question asked. If you want to disrupt things, or keep throwing daggers at invisible lib'rals, you show me no respect and you shouldn't expect any.

When I first joined the University, I bought health insurance for my dependents and me for $X (don't remember). With in a short time, I received free health insurance, but still bought insurance for my dependents at $X+. I thought that interesting. It was explained to me that, in fact, dependents used the insurance much more than the main person. OK, so free health insurance for me makes my insurance costs rise. Progress is wonderful!

Originally Posted by Treetop

My dad would have made me pay for it one way or another, even if it was washing his car and mowing his lawn.

But really, it is not free in the context of which I asked the question, which BigFoot certainly understood and pontificated on, yet you state it was free. Your statement isn't accurate. An accurate statement would have been their parents and their parents employer's would be paying. The question was about who pays and certainly BigFoot being the one I asked, and the one who made the statement about it being free, knew what I meant and answered accordingly.

This sort of slice and dice arguing is rather stupid and unproductive, and this happened the other day with the question of whether comparing something to WWII Concentration Camps was or was not invoking Hitler. Stupid because it is based on the personal and not on the subject. And it also was brought in by someone not directly involved in the question asked. If you want to disrupt things, or keep throwing daggers at invisible lib'rals, you show me no respect and you shouldn't expect any.

You seem to like to change the conversation to fit your questions. That isn't the way it works. The conversation at hand with Bigfoot was about young adults getting free healthcare. That is what I agreed with. You can't come in and try to change the question and therefore claiming everyone else is wrong. The reality is it is two questions being posed, not the one you seem to claim. First, are young adults getting their health insurance for free. In almost everycase that would be a yes. Second, is someone paying for that coverage for them. The answer is of course yes but it isn't the young adults.

BTW our President at the time called our Japanese camps "Concentration Camps".

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

You seem to like to change the conversation to fit your questions. That isn't the way it works. The conversation at hand with Bigfoot was about young adults getting free healthcare. That is what I agreed with. You can't come in and try to change the question and therefore claiming everyone else is wrong. The reality is it is two questions being posed, not the one you seem to claim. First, are young adults getting their health insurance for free. In almost everycase that would be a yes. Second, is someone paying for that coverage for them. The answer is of course yes but it isn't the young adults.

BTW our President at the time called our Japanese camps "Concentration Camps".

You are quite unspecific in your last sentence as well. The discussion involved a Japanese army unit performing horrible experiments on Chinese people used by madsci as an example of concentration camps, and the internment of Japanese Americans in the US. You posted that Truman called them concentration camps during the discussion, yet here, you say our president at the time.

Can you see the value in being more specific?

Perhaps it is a generational thing, but I and I believe most Americans get a picture of Hitler in their head to associate WWII concentration camps with. And that is carried out by the modern dictionaries, giving weight to that as the major use of the term, you can look it up, it is several dictionaries that do that, not just one.

And to hopefully end this stupid part of that discussion, no there is not a comparison at all between the Japanese in internment camps and the atrocities done in Europe in those camps, 2 million died at Auschwitz, and there were 15,000 camps set up by the Germans throughout the war. Internment of the Japanese was wrong, very wrong, but the comparison was to Americans who worked on government jobs that supposedly, no proof was ever given of any kind, did not accomplish anything but getting paid. One fellow says, that was OK, at least the folks who did that got paid and there was a benefit for them and their families and you and Gooroo and Madsci drive your trucks off the rim of the Grand Canyon supporting Gooroo's ridiculous strawman or trying to sidetrack the discussion. What a storm of collective intelligence that took.