Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all parents can afford to reinstate their children. I know I couldn't, as I've only been able to find substitute teaching jobs since graduating in 09 with my teaching degree, and my husband is self employed.
p.s. I applaud you BMORE, that you are willing to "eat ramen noodles" to save money, instead of going on foodstamps (which you likely would qualify for under the current administration).
At 26, these are not "kids" anymore. What's going on? Aren't 26 YO supposed to be mostly independent by this age? Why is an act of congress (actually Obama) required to allow grown ups to stay on their parents insurance
Who's forcing you to keep your spawn on your coverage. kick them to the curb if you wish.
At 26, these are not "kids" anymore. What's going on? Aren't 26 YO supposed to be mostly independent by this age? Why is an act of congress (actually Obama) required to allow grown ups to stay on their parents insurance
Keep em dependent as long as possible.
In progressive utopia, the only adults are the political class.
I put my daughter back on. She was to lose coverage with our plan after 21 (even if in college). She is 22 years old, about to graduate and I was happy to have the ability to do this. I'm a fairly conservative person and I don't believe in going without healthcare so this was a weight off my mind. I do know that before this was instituted, some of my coworkers were in the same boat with recent college-grad kids and they were paying about $300 per month for a policy for them. Unless they had pre-existing conditions like asthma; then it was hard to get.
Parents dumb enough to pay for insurance for their kids until they're 26 are setting up the kids for failure. Unless the kid is disabled and unable to provide for itself (note, I said UNABLE, not lazy and UNWILLING), the kid should be well on its own by age 26.
Just because your sperm and egg created the little snot nose doesn't mean you have to coddle it 'til well into adulthood.
I'm not sure if it will be the same now that 'kids' can buy their own insurance but my granddaughter left her mother's house to be out on her own, no job, no money....smart enough to sign up for Medicaid....the mother on disability and Social Security (ex work insurance company is primary, Medicare secondary) so under government auspices.
As soon as the ruling went into effect....zap.....was involuntarily put back on her mother's policy
Our 22 year old is still on our insurance, because our plan is better than the one offered through his job, and less expensive. He might be going in for knee surgery (we will find out Monday) which even with his employer policy would have cost more than he could afford, but our policy covers 90%.
So, I think it's wonderful for us to be able to keep him on our plan. I'm happy that we can help him to get a good start in life, and not start out of the gate with medical debt.
Not a parent, but I'm still on my mothers plan; why weren't parents allowed to keep their children on longer before? It seems only logical that if a parent is willing to pay, there shouldn't be an age limit to stop it. Maybe I'm not getting something here.
That was just how the plans were set up. Prior to the ACA, our kids could be on DH's plan until age 25 if a FT student, otherwise had to go off at 18. Some states had laws requiring ins. cos to allow parents to keep their young adults on their plans, prior to the ACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
At 26, these are not "kids" anymore. What's going on? Aren't 26 YO supposed to be mostly independent by this age? Why is an act of congress (actually Obama) required to allow grown ups to stay on their parents insurance
There are all sorts of situations out there. Our youngest had her own ins. when she worked FT; when she went back to school that wasn't an option. The least expensive way for her to get ins. was to be on our plan.
Not a parent, but I'm still on my mothers plan; why weren't parents allowed to keep their children on longer before? It seems only logical that if a parent is willing to pay, there shouldn't be an age limit to stop it. Maybe I'm not getting something here.
Employers are paying part of the insurance bill. Adding children up to 26 cost employers some money
I think it's 30 in NJ. I suppose it is a good thing for kids who need it, but the real problem is with the broken system in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
