Posted on 11/07/2009 9:03:00 PM PST by Williams
The simplest of questions, why should "children" be covered to age 27 under their parent's health insurance policy as per the Pelosi bill? Isn't that incredible?
I mean even if your "child" is in college and then graduate school, that's age 24.
What possible reason can there be to treat a 27 year old as a "child" and to make insurance companies insure adults approaching middle age for free as if they were little kids living at home?
Why not just cover everyone until they die, as a "child"? I guess that is the plan. can you imagine the fortune this is going to cost everyone?
Well, I’m 27 and in grad school, and most of my colleagues are about my age. But then, I’ve been buying my own insurance for three years.
I don’t know one parent who has a 27 year old daughter/son sill living at home ... unemployed and on Mom & Dad’s car and health insurance.
Guess I’ve lead a rough life. I was told to start work and save in high school and through college cause the facet must be turned off at some point. The money tree in the back yard was getting low, I guess.
Well I let my Representative know, whether it’s the next election for him or the one after that, which ever one it is, I would be working for, and helping fund, his ouster from office.
You’re using logic. That’s very dangerous in today’s society of entitlement.
Mostly, this is just another ‘psychological’ move...
Once again, they’re just thinking of their own constituents. Only thing surprising is that they didn’t make it 40.
Considering the mean time from bachelor’s degree to a Ph.D. in all fields is 7 years, I think they picked 27 precisely so that people could stay on their parents policy until they finished grad school.
I’m not sure what the point is, though: my daughter is in grad school and her university provides health insurance as part of her fellowship. When I went to grad school, my university did, too.
I’m 27 as well. I would be very insulted if called a “child.”
It was part ofthe radical bill I am talking about.
Let’s see. At age 27, I had three children, a mortgage, a retirement account, a part-time job, a husband and oh yeah....MY OWN FREAKIN’ HEALTH INSURANCE. And I had my own for five years. Right after I graduated college.
why not make it 60? or 100?
It’s to insure that the young vote for them in 2010
I would assume it would make sure that the parents are paying for them, since most 20-somethings don’t voluntarily choose to buy insurance. So, this way, they get insured but don’t have to pay for it themselves—mom and dad (i.e. baby boomers) will pay. And if they don’t, it’s prison and fines for the lot of you! Look out, grandma-—you pay for your kids’ health insurance or die.
First, the political: they’re anticipating there’ll be resistance to mandates from the ‘young and invulnerable’, and that it’ll translate into votes. By not imposing the mandate ‘til 28, they keep the youth vote on the farm.
Then, the practical: fewer covered by mandates, and fewer requiring subsidies. Cuts down mandate enforcement costs, and, by 28, many of them will be making decent wages and require lower subsidies. Dumps the costs of insuring the kids on the employer or parent, and keeps it from being ‘scored’ in the bill cost. Seven years from now it’ll all come home to roost.
That’s my take, anyway. Time to get that “Repeal 2010” campaign underway.
Probably this is an admission that there will be a damn site fewer jobs going forward. Look around you, these people are going to prevent any kind of recovery in the economy, young people will have one hell of a time getting started, hell it already happening and shows no sign of getting any better.
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.