The Riverfront Times Nails It on Health Care
The Riverfront Times gets it exactly right as to whom the recently passed health care bill will help in the short-term: the modern-day 20-something slacker. The recently passed bill contains many offensive and horrible parts, but the requirement that children be covered under their parents’ policies until they are 27 is especially so.
This one rule encompasses the worst of all worlds: an overbearing nanny state, the belief that the government has the right to dictate such rules to families and private businesses, and legislation that now makes it even easier for young people out of college to further delay adulthood.
While that is a requirement, couldn’t the employer say ‘once your child turns X, you, the employee, pay 100% of the premium for your child.’ Just like spouses/all aged children at some (most?) employers.
While the mandate is not so good, the costs can be passed back to the employee (or the child), getting rid one layer of wedge in health care costs.
I am amazed how many people don’t know what there work health care insurance premium is. I put that mostly at the employers for not telling the employees.
Comment by Papillon — June 3, 2010 @ 12:13 p.m.
Papillon,
It is not allowable for employers to vary the terms of coverage based on the children’s age. So no, the 25 year old son can’t pay 100% of the premium while the rest of the family pays a lower rate. According to a very well-informed source of mine, this question was addressed in regulations issued jointly by DOL, HHS, and IRS on May 7, 2010.
Of course, I think they should be able to charge the 25 year old son a higher premium, but alas, the Obama administration didn’t ask for my opinion on these plans.
Comment by David Stokes — June 3, 2010 @ 1:46 p.m.
Giving an slight nudge to pick up the costs for no children/dependents, real bright. Maybe wage earning/educational status/’dependent’ status could be a proxy. Maybe those are locked out, too. I understand the desire to have people stay covered until they get their first ‘benefits’ job, but not allowing to charge for it is terrible, terrible.
I do know of a large, local employer that has different rules for covering children based on the spouse’s coverage and the birthdays of the mother and father. It is messed up, but I understand the motivation.
Comment by Papillon — June 3, 2010 @ 2:03 p.m.
It is also interesting to compare the very tender ages at which this administration thinks children should be able to choose an abortion without parental consent with to fairly advanced age at which it thinks a young adult should be able to remain a dependent of his parents for purposes of heath care coverage.
Comment by Tom — June 4, 2010 @ 2:09 p.m.