f the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say...
-The above two reasons will bankrupt health insurance companies. Anyone who votes for them should be kicked out of office.
A child is not 26!
Can I get in an autoaccident and then get insurance?
Regarding covering "children" up to 26 years old, In exchange for this mandate, the personal exemption on income taxes should revert to the parents under whose policy the "child" is covered. The excess insurance cost has surely shifted onto the parents policy.
Amen and amen.
The one exception I can see with the "pre-existing condition" issue is when someone is forced to leave one plan and join another (i.e. is laid off from a job and then has to find their own insurance).
I completely agree that insurance companies should not be forced to take on someone who, for example, waits until they are diagnosed with cancer to purchase health insurance.
Both of my daughters had finished their MBAs and owned their own homes while raising children - oh ye they had their own health insurance, car insurance, house insurance, life insurance......they were not children at 26, they were fully functioning adults.
Exactly. This pre existing condition is ridiculous. The insurance companies exist to make money and maximize shareholder wealth. Being stupid and throwing money at the already diseased and dying isn’t doing any of that.
What needs to happen is everybody taking care of themselves, so having insurance beforehand and be responsible in their health so that they aren’t dependent on mercy of others.