Parents responsibility to provide health insurance to adult children (safety, learning, college)

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Penguin_ie

I think you missread my post. I didn't say that parents cannot insure their adult kids, I said they do not have to.

Not to be snippy, but you said this:

Not sure about your state, but here in AR, adult children do not have a right to be on their parents insurance unless they are in full-time education. Does he plan to go to college?

Not really sure what I misread. Maybe you implied something else, but it didn't come across that way with what you wrote.

[NJGOAT]

I just called one of the employer HR departments and had a generic discussion. I'm told that whenever someone is dropped from the insurance, they will send out a COBRA letter. I know that doesn't mean he'll qualify. But at least there's something that can be done. Oh, and the operator told me that her son recently turned 26 and her insurance only dropped by $6. He was her only child on her policy. That's how cheap it is to have children on the policy. It makes me sick.

Every policies different, but most are pretty inexpensive for dependent child coverage. It really makes no sense why she would drop him. FWIW, I'm 99% sure he won't qualify for COBRA, but even if he did, chances are it will be rather expensive.

Wow! I knew CHIP was an option. But it didn't occur to me that he might be denied because he's eligible to stay on her policy. Something tells me that he might have to take her to court.

He's not tied to her via legal address. She won't be claiming him on her taxes going forward.

The more independent he is on paper, the better his chances. Right now today, he might have a hard time getting other coverage, but next year would probably be easier. His best shot at coverage though will be PA Special Care as long as he doesn't earn more than 180% of the area poverty level. Chances are he would qualify.

I'm going to assume there is no reasoning with the mom on this one, but if you could persuade her to let him stay on until he could get regular benefits, it's the best thing to do. Of course, she may not be looking at the cost of the benefits, but more considering that she will be the guarantor on any medical bills he may accumulate.

[SKP440]

When my son turned 18 and decided NOT to continue school and take my "harsh" advice (find a job with some type of health coverage) I called him over to the computer and pulled up my employee benefits and DELETED him off of my coverage hoping that would inspire him to take my earlier advice. Well he will be 21 now and my wife's job covers dependent children until the age of 26. So he has another 5 years left to not listen to me.

[AnonChick]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

This is incorrect. By federal law (aka Obamacare), adult children are now insurable up to age 26 on their parents policies regardless of their situation. They can be married, working full time and have the option of getting their own employer based coverage and still be under their parents plan until age 26. The last part (employer coverage available) is not 100% true until 2014, currently there is a grandfather clause that allows adult children with access to coverage to be denied coverage under their parents plan, but like I said, that ends in 2014.

In this case, state laws do not trump the federal laws. States are required to set 26 as the minimum age, some states (NY and PA for instance) have extended this to age 30 with some additional exceptions/tests to get the coverage.

There's a difference between "parents CAN provide insurance for kids even if the kids are 25 years old, married, and working full time" and "parents MUST provide insurance for kids."

The insurance company MUST allow parents to continue coverage for their kids, IF the parents choose to do so. The parents are not obligated to do so.

[Penguin_ie]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

There's a difference between "parents CAN provide insurance for kids even if the kids are 25 years old, married, and working full time" and "parents MUST provide insurance for kids."
The insurance company MUST allow parents to continue coverage for their kids, IF the parents choose to do so. The parents are not obligated to do so.

Yes, that is what I meant... the parents of a 18+ adult child cannot be compelled to provide health insurance, but they are allowed to IF THEY WANT TO.

[cleasach]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Not to be snippy, but you said this:



Not really sure what I misread. Maybe you implied something else, but it didn't come across that way with what you wrote.

It was pretty clear to me that the poster was saying kids dont have legal rights to force parents to keep them on their plan if the parents do not wish to do so.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Every policies different, but most are pretty inexpensive for dependent child coverage. It really makes no sense why she would drop him.

It's just a crazy woman's response to losing control. That's what it comes down to.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

FWIW, I'm 99% sure he won't qualify for COBRA, but even if he did, chances are it will be rather expensive.

It's too expensive. I've decided not to even bother with that route.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

The more independent he is on paper, the better his chances. Right now today, he might have a hard time getting other coverage, but next year would probably be easier. His best shot at coverage though will be PA Special Care as long as he doesn't earn more than 180% of the area poverty level. Chances are he would qualify.

That would be great. The state insurance programs are better policies than what he can buy privately. Private policies are cheap for his age group but most of the policies aren't very good.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I'm going to assume there is no reasoning with the mom on this one, but if you could persuade her to let him stay on until he could get regular benefits, it's the best thing to do.

That's an accurate assumption. I'm going to have a hard time getting the existing policy information from her! He needs to have his wisdom teeth removed before this policy expires in a month. I don't even know which insurance company he's covered under so I can find a participating oral surgeon.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Of course, she may not be looking at the cost of the benefits, but more considering that she will be the guarantor on any medical bills he may accumulate.

Could be. But she's disgustingly wealthy.

Originally Posted by AnonChick

There's a difference between "parents CAN provide insurance for kids even if the kids are 25 years old, married, and working full time" and "parents MUST provide insurance for kids."

The insurance company MUST allow parents to continue coverage for their kids, IF the parents choose to do so. The parents are not obligated to do so.

Exactly.

But Penguin wrote her initial post to indicate that she believed the parents MUST provide insurance if the adult child is going to school full-time.

That's inaccurate. Because even going to school full time, adult children don't have a right.

[Kibbiekat]

I'm not positive, but I thought the adult child had to be in college to qualify to stay on for a few more years.

[hypocore]

Unless it's changed recently, he cannot be eligible for COBRA since the mother still works for the company through which the insurance is carried. COBRA is meant to offer a continuation of coverage for those who no longer have the job where they had insurance.

It's the choice of the company whether to even offer coverage for dependents or not and it's the choice of the employee as to whether they insure their dependents or not. No parent is required to carry insurance for their child.

He does have other choices. At this point it would benefit him much more to seek out those choices than to try to force his mother to carry insurance on him. Clearly they have a very bad relationship at this time and it no longer matters why or whose at fault the most. Moving forward on his own is the best option in my opinion.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

There's a difference between "parents CAN provide insurance for kids even if the kids are 25 years old, married, and working full time" and "parents MUST provide insurance for kids."

The insurance company MUST allow parents to continue coverage for their kids, IF the parents choose to do so. The parents are not obligated to do so.

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Penguin_ie

Yes, that is what I meant... the parents of a 18+ adult child cannot be compelled to provide health insurance, but they are allowed to IF THEY WANT TO.

Fair enough, it wasn't 100% clear to me, what you were implying. There is a lot of confusion over the healthcare laws now. I took your statement as parents CANNOT cover their adult children UNLESS they are in school, which would be incorrect.

Originally Posted by cleasach

It was pretty clear to me that the poster was saying kids dont have legal rights to force parents to keep them on their plan if the parents do not wish to do so.

The irony as Hopes is finding out is that those same children can be denied access to public plans do to the fact that they can legally be on their parents plan. Many states offer some form of coverage for people with low to moderate incomes, with the stipulation that they must have no other access to benefits.

So, a 19 year old whose parents drop them for whatever reason that is working say part time and hence inelligible for employer benefits and going to school part time (or not) that could normally take advantage of a state sponsored free/reduced plan may find themselves inelligible since they CAN be covered under their parents plan.

I know I'm rehashing what you already know, but it seems to need repeating, as it's an interesting situation. I would almost say that if we have gone this far, parents should be legally compelled to provide insurance unless the child has access to another plan as the current laws make them inelligible for safety net plans.