Skip to comments.Obamacare: MUST keep children under 26 on parent's plan
Posted on 11/29/2012 12:10:31 PM PST by Help!
I work in HR. We are being told by Blue-cross Blue-shield Insurance that dependents CANNOT be removed from the insured's policy until they turn 26, even if they get married (and have coverage under a spouse), take a job on their own (and have their own coverage), leave home (no longer living in a parent-child relationship), etc. etc. This includes a non-adopted step-child. They are saying it is ILLEGAL under Obamacare to remove that child from the insured's coverage. The parent's coverage would be primary and if they got another policy it would be secondary. Seems this make the parent also responsible for all the medical expenses above and beyond what the policy covers, besides costing the parent more for family coverage even if they only need self-only if the child is off the plan.
So... 11 year olds are mature enough for sex, according to leftists, but need parents to insure them until they are 26?
I do not think what you are being told is true. Looking for a source. In the meantime, ask your BC/BS person to cite you the text of the requirement in the law. Tell them you are not sure that is true, and need to see it before imposing this on your employees.
In keeping with the ‘make the other side pay our constituents’ bill’ overall theme of this communist administration.
My step daughter is on my wife’s policy. My wife is not responsible for any uncovered medical charges UNLESS she signs for them.
I just removed 2 of mine from BC/BS...saved 240.00 per mo. They can afford their own.
My guess is that the government is making this sh!t up as they go along. They don’t know what is in the law, probably won’t because they’ve likely just started bluffing.
If it was me, I’d make whoever said I can’t drop my out-of-home working child under 26 (but over the legal dependency age) quote to me EXACTLY, chapter and verse, where the LAW actually says this. If they spout something, I’d tell them to give that to me in writing on their letterhead as an established policy.
That doesn’t make sense. They are no longer Dependents if they are married and have their own insurance. But who knows with Obamacare. I would like to know a definitive answer to this question.
I was born Feb 29 1948 ... I’m only 16 ...
“Brave New World” comes to mind...
See page 20 of that brochure (Maryland)
That one is from Sen. Durbin of IL
There are probably more.... What state are you in?
This is the liberal plan. Make responsible parents all pay for the indiscretions of the immature children. No reason for anyone under 26 to be responsible for their choices. Force an entire productive generation into paying for a wild lifestyle. PERIOD. Comrade.
It’s all over 0bamacare - “at the secretary’s discretion” etc.
Further, if it is what you assume as the insurance company ‘trying to play it safe’, ask them will they assume 100% coverage for the child even though they may be covered by another policy. Will they forego subrogating any claims to the other company? Will they give this guarantee in writing? If not, will they reduce the policy because they aren’t giving ‘full-coverage’ insurance?
give them condoms and ritalin....
Brave New World
But the bottom line is that you may have some recourse with the insurance company. See my later post. They can’t play both sides.
Another place to look.
A business owner I know who recently renewed his health plan was told that he also has the OPTION to add employee child coverage to AGE 30.
And you can be tootin-danged-sure that what is an OPTION today will become THE LAW tomorrow.
The plan here is to forgive all the student loans, give all the kiddies benefits and then ship them all back into grad school. Will keep the Liberal Academics fat and happy and keep Obama’s unemployment numbers from zooming off the charts.
That’s they way it’s done in Europe anyhow.
You are unable to deny a parent keeping their adult child on their plan up until they reach 26. The parent is not compelled to put their child on their plan.
Senator Durbin’s page says they will have coverage under a parent’s plan unless they have their own insurance. But he’s a politician. I did not check your other link.
"You'll have to wait until the law goes into effect to find out what's in it." - Nanzi Pelozi 2012
"You'll have to wait until the IRS arrests you to find out what's in the law." - Nanzi Pelozi 2014
"You'll have to wait until you've served your sentence to find out what's in 0bamaCare." - Nanzi Pelozi 2016
"You'll have to wait until you've paid all of your fines to find out how much you owe." - Nanzi Pelozi 2018
My state just changed the age for emancipation from 21 to 19. But I guess the feral government knows what’s best for all of us ...
Typical Obama trying to take credit for stuff other people do.
In The Life of Julia - Obama is Julia’s sugardaddy.
But in reality - Obama is just forcing Julia’s parents and their employers to foot the bill while he gets credit.
And who's supposed to insure the grandkids? If the kid is a minor (or adult up to 26) with a baby - who insures the baby? How does this work?
I love how “fixing” healthcare was acccomplished by saying i can still pay for my kids health insurance until they are 26? Gosh, can we also pay their rent? Their car payments? How about they don’t get a job for 5 years after college and they can travel, snowboard and backpack too. And i pay for all of it. This solves a lot of problems if parents will keep providing everything they need!
Wonder why nobody ever thought of this solution before?
This is Federal. It goes for all states. It’s the big BCBS in the sky.
Liberal Thought Process:
“Adults” aged 12-17...old enough to make sex/abortion decisions.
“Adults” aged 16...old enough to emancipate from parents.
Adults aged 18...old enough to decide to smoke and vote and be DRAFTED.
“Children” aged 18-20...NOT old enough to decide to drink alcohol.
“Adults” aged 21...old enough to drink alcohol.
“Children” aged 18-25...NOT old enough to provide their own health insurance.
Adults aged 26...FINALLY old enough to care for themselves!
What kind of twisted logic does it take to have ANY of this make sense?!?!?
As the old saying goes, “Liberalism IS a mental disease!”
I’ve been told by HR reps that I can’t drop my secondary insurance (even during open enrollment) because state law says I have to have a life altering event to do so - that once I have the insurance, I have to keep the coverage. I don’t believe that was correct either, but I was forced to keep my secondary insurance against my will even during an open enrollment period.
Why is this news to you? It’s been in effect since - “Effective for Plan or Policy Years Beginning On or After September 23, 2010.”
I wonder if this means that CPS can waltz into your house and investigate you for possible child abuse, until the child is 26.
Or are they only minors when it comes to obamacare?
Do they want it to be confusing? Perhaps.
Wouldn’t surprise me if one day the government ruled that everyone is hereafter 3/5 of a person...the rest is government property.
They can't do that unless you let 'em anyway, no matter what they tell you.
What is the exact name of the carrier for the group insurance? Blue Cross/Blue Shield of ... ? state? Anthem BC/BS? There is no federal BC/BS. Did they give you something in writing?
Maybe the plan is to somehow get the parents on the hook for those student loans.
Is it a plan for Federal Government employees?
“You are unable to deny a parent keeping their adult child on their plan up until they reach 26. The parent is not compelled to put their child on their plan.”
But what if the “child” of 26 doesn’t have another plan - are you saying the gov’t would allow them to not be covered? I thought that was the whole point of Obamacare was to have insurance for everyone?
This will get really confusing and expensive. I think government should just take control of the entire health industry to make it one, easy, central thing. /s (That is the plan you know - it never was about health insurance - it is about health CARE. Well really it is about POWER.)
I also fear being responsible for medical bills of young adult offspring.
My stepson did something stupid and had to go to the hospital, when he was 23 y/o....and I got the medical bills!
I refused to pay, and that was it.
Even if the hospital can’t legally collect from a parent, they will still try...and they will be emboldened by this new coverage.
That link doesn’t say what happens when an adult child has their own employer provided coverage. Do they stay on the parent’s plan as well? If the parent’s plan coverage is better, do they have to take their employer provided coverage as well? This is as complicated as the tax code.
We have a daughter who married in the past year, and we have to provide a marriage certificate to have her removed from hubby’s coverage. I’m not sure that will do the trick after reading this. Will we have to prove she has other insurance coverage?
We’ll keep our son on our policy until he’s 26, BUT:
1. He’ll pay the premium increases (for TriCare, they go up by $200 a month for 2013 and $176 a month after that.)
2. He’ll pay all of his own co-pays
I think that the big difference is that we’re military. Our kids can’t just stay on our policies after 21 (23 if a full-time college student) like they were before. We have to buy TriCare Young Adult. Also, there’s no more free-ride for them. There are co-pays and fees, even with TriCare Young Adult Prime.
This is how it should be everywhere. Let them stay on their parent’s policy, but CHARGE THEM FOR IT.
The OP stated they HAVE to KEEP their children on their plan until they are 26. That requirement is nowhere to be found, at least that I can find, and your link does not force the insured to keep their children on their plan. All of the references I've found force the insurance companies to OFFER coverage of children up to age 26. Big difference.
I skimmed through that and did not see anything affirming the OP’s claims. Could you be so kind as to quote the section I missed?
We just switched insurance companies at work and I was given the option of leaving my 18yo son on or taking him off. Since it is the same price to cover one child as it is to cover 5 we left him on just in case. I was told that I could choose to take him off though.
This makes sense. The 20-26 age group is one of the cheapest to insure by benefits paid out. They need to collect premiums from this group to fund more expensive parts of the program, such as seniors or those receiving subsidized insurance. This was the purpose of the mandate after all.
What happens if you don’t pay your premium for the secondary?
They aren’t going to subsidize seniors, they are already slashing Medicare.
How exactly did they FORCE you not to drop secondary insurance?
What did they say they’d do if you DID drop it?
I believe that it does work that way in the private sector. Also, the employer does not even have to subsidize the dependents’ coverage, even if they subsidize the employee’s (and spouse in some situations) coverage. The employer can charge the employee a FULL ADULT premium for the 26 year old.
Wonderful! And this is how it should be.
The libs are going to have a fit when it dawns on them that they’ll have to pay for their ‘free’ healthcare.
I actually like the way Obamacare works for young people. Do the right thing, have health insurance, or pay a penalty. Give them more opportunities for affordable healthcare.
I think that it’s straight-up evil for the elderly. I am scared for my mom.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!