Posted on 01/16/2017 11:55:05 AM PST by fwdude
They just added 100 Muslim families in one town in Vermont.
I think you’re missing the fact that young people can opt out and pay a penalty - or be insured on a parent’s plan. With the latter, an insurance company is collecting premiums from SOMEONE for a younger, presumably healthier person in a plan that meets the ObamaCare criteria.
Insurance plans, particularly group plans, have the same premium for a family policy regardless of the amount of children that the plan covers. The fact that the law requires insurance companies to cover ‘children’ up to age 26 does not increase the amount of premiums that an insurance company receives. It dilutes the amount of potential paying customers.
In other words...they are not collecting increased premiums, they are only picking up increased risk.
The young are easily insured and for very little money as they are less likely to get ill. Lumping them in with older parents on group policies simply costs the company more money and drives up everyone’s premium.
26 year old people are not children. They are adults. 18 year old men stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved Western Civilization, I think the snowflakes of today can find and pay for their own health insurance sometime before the age of thirty.
Missouri ranks 30th out of 51 (Includes Washington D.C.)
Definitely near the middle, so not as bad as you think it is. That is if you believe this ranking. But then again, economic generation is less than it can be in all states, due to burdensome regulations that are anti-business.
BTW, some of the reasons for the flights of the top states, is that while they rank high economically, they also rank high in tax collection rates as well. Thus people are leaving as a result of that as well.
Any company I’ve worked for required an increased premium for “family plans”, so there is an increased payment to the insurance company (regardless of how many children/young adults are included). The idea is to gamble that the increased premium won’t be consumed by the medical needs of the young people - and is better than getting nothing from them at all.
You can’t ignore the difficulties workers (especially young ones) have getting insurance; companies would rather they worked 29 hours per week and did without it. If nothing is done to address that, expect Obama II in the White House in four years.
Insurance isn’t a gamble. It is a science that uses the Law of Large Numbers which is a statistical axiom that states that the larger the number of exposure units independently exposed to loss, the greater the probability that actual loss experience will equal the expected loss experience.
It is not an employers responsibility to provide health insurance. Health insurance is a benefit that corporations offer to entice high quality employees to work for them. The individual is responsible for their own health insurance if they can not get it from an employer.
Family coverage is for either one or fifty children. There is no increase per child. So if an employee has a 26, 22, 15 and 9 year old adding the 22 and 26 year old does not increase the premium on a group policy. Adding children, one or more adds to the policy premium. There is no additional payment if there is 1, 2 or 10 children added to the policy. It does however expose the insurance company to more risk.
Insurance for young adults is cheap. At least it used to be before they passed the ACA.
A major medical policy used to cost less than $100 a month. A 24, 25, or 26 year old so unproductive and irresponsible that they can not earn an extra couple hundred dollars a month to pay for a catastrophic medical policy has more problems than not having insurance. You don’t need doctor visits, Chiropractic services and drug abuse programs. You need coverage in case you get hit by a bus or get cancer, not the common cold.
It is about personal responsibilities.
Major Medical Insurance policies where always very affordable for young people and even preexisting conditions where covered after a several months, normally 6 - 12 month, waiting period.
There is no reason why an employer should be responsible to pay any portion of an insurance premium of an employees 26 year old ‘child’. There is no reason an insurance company should be expected to pay benefits on an insureds 26 year old adult child. It’s ridiculous to even consider a person of 26 a child.
If someone tried to treat me like a child when I was 26, I would have been offended. I had already graduated college and had a serious career by that time.
Hell by the time my father was 26 he had fought in a war, gotten married, graduated college, established a career and had three out of his six children.
One of the biggest problems in society today is the infantilization of people. 26 year old people are not children, nor are 22 year old people. They are adults and we should treat them as such including giving them the responsibility to secure a catastrophic insurance policy.
It isn’t like they are being asked to storm the beaches at Normandy for heavens sake.
You make good points, but your description of insurance in your first paragraph is the definition of gambling in my book (think of the person who buys 20 scratch-offs instead of one).
Health insurance became an employment benefit when wage controls were in place during WWII, and it has remained since. It is a great inducement to work rather than remain idle, no?
If these young people weren’t covered under SOME KIND OF PLAN, what happens in the rare occasions when they need costly treatment? Their economic future is compromised and the bills go unpaid - nobody wins. This part of the law doesn’t FORCE children under 26 onto their parents’ policies - it gives them an option, and I suspect it is an acknowledgment by our government that we have many more people than good jobs.
Young people should be covered under a plan. One that they buy themselves or is provided by an employer.
Al they had to do 7 years ago was google Health Insurance Policy or call a local Life Insurance agent and they would get dozens of different plans with benefits and premium costs. Most under thirty adults where covered for around $100 a month.
These are adults they should be responsible enough to navigate the crazy world of health insurance. It is no more difficult than buying car insurance or a pair of pants for that matter.
Treating adults like children is bad policy. It makes them dependent, which is what Democrats and all Leftists want. Once they are no longer able to be on their parents health policy, sometime in their early middle age, they can turn to the government and demand/expect someone else to take care of it for them.
I don’t disagree with much of what you are saying, but understand that provision was built into a law that had no cheap policies - the law eliminated them.
In a perfect world your ideas work; unfortunately in a McJob economy they weren’t cutting it (and you and I were footing the bill for catastrophic events for uninsured young people).
They where cutting it just fine.
It wasn’t the fact that young people couldn’t afford health insurance that drove Obamacare it was the idea that the Federal Government could force its’ will on the private economy. They sold the idea that they would control costs. It is called Fascism.
Most young adults could afford health insurance, a vast majority HAD it either through an employer or through a private policy. Colleges used to carry major medical policies they sold at dirt cheap cost directly to their students if they didn’t have it from an outside source.
If we went to a completely private healthcare system, YES get rid of or change medicare and medicaid, we would not only see a slow down in cost increases, we would see a giant reduction in health care costs.
The Federal government so distorted the market that costs increased astronomically, just like Pell Grants and Student Loans have exploded the cost of higher education.
ObamaCare didn’t arise in a vacuum; there were already problems in the health insurance industry, and that is why there is talk of replacing ObamaCare - not simply overturning it. IMHO the McJob economy ensured that very few young people were ever going to get employer-provided health insurance. It simply put American companies at too much of a disadvantage with foreign employers. How do our automakers compete with foreign companies that don’t have to offer such benefits?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.