Skip to comments.18 Year-Old Wins Free Healthcare in Lawsuit Against Parents
Posted on 03/09/2014 9:04:51 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Rachel Canning, the 18 year-old teenager from New Jersey who sued her parents for financial support, won a partial victory in court this week, courtesy of Obamacare. Morris County Court Judge Peter Bogaard, according to the story, ruled that Rachel's parents must keep her on their health insurance policy. To me, this sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the long legal road of Obamacare enforcement. Now, kids living away from their parents can stay on their parents' health plans, whether their parents like it or not. It's one thing for parents to choose to keep their college student on their health plan, but under the new health care law and with this new case, Rachel might be able to keep forcing her parents to foot the bill for almost eight more years!
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Another example of government control over personal choice or freedom.
This is a bit of a dangerous precedent when you think about it.
Is it until she graduates high school or past that point? And if they signed a contract with the school last spring, they are going to have to finish paying for the school. But once this twit graduates, she is on her own
She can stay on the parents’ healthcare plan until age 26 regardless of anything else.
Assume she goes to College and stays for a while. No Rachel's Parents Employer gets the pick-up the cost shift, not her parents, but at some point maybe they will feel it aka the UPS drop the spouse scenario, not to mention the changes they have already felt to their co-buy, co-pays, and deductibles.
Tangent to this, her college loans are federalized and she can't now buy a high deductible health care plan, (because of Oboingocare) that used to be offered to College Students as they were a "natural group".
How's dat Hopey-Changey wurkin' for dis Jersey Family....
I seem to think this is already the case - at least requiring insurance companies to offer the coverage to something like 26 as part of the package. If anything, making the parents list her is the new part. But you have been, by law, able to list your kids up to age 26, even if they are married or eligible for their own insurance.
I know she is eligible, but is the ruling that they have to pay for it past graduation, or is it on her to pay for it
I want a Playstation and I don’t have one. I’m suing my 83 year old mother to buy me one. /sarc
From my understanding the ACA required insurers to allow coverage until 26. Does that mean the parent is forced into paying any extra premium?
In this case, what if the parent lost their insurance plan?
“Is it until she graduates high school or past that point?”
I think the current law is that parents must pay medical care until the “child” turns 26.
I thought it was that they can
What cannot be said is some Corporations who's employees kids are brainiac's and have a high propensity of said kids in College pursuing Degrees are costing said Corporations a fortune and they do not dare speak it and attract the ire of Lear Deader...
This hasn't been made clear, they may have notified the school that they would not continue after December 2012.
I wouldn't be surprised, for after all the school had turned against them even to reporting them to Family Services instead of sending someone from the church to talk to the parents and finding out who was wrong here...
“I thought it was that they can”
The friend of a friend tried to throw out his ex-wife’s twenty-something’s who sat around smoking pot and playing video games. They took him to court and not only can he not throw them out, he has to keep them on his insurance until they turn 26. He was trying to retire and now can’t. Now, whether insurance is a requirement or an option, I don’t know.
If a daughter under 26 gets pregnant...lives away from parents (maybe with boyfriend)...do parents still have to list her on their insurance
” on what grounds??? the law says they CAN keep them on till 26, NOT that they HAVE too!!!”
That is a very valid point. Who in their right mind would WANT to keep an adult on a parents policy until they turn 26? Twenty-six? He’ll, in some countries the life expectancy is barely twice that!
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.