Posted on 03/08/2011 9:42:33 AM PST by finnsheep
In answer to a question on p. 98 in the current issue of the PA Township News: "The health care reform law requires all insurance plans that include dependent coverage to extend those benefits to all children up to age 26. Therefore, if the township offers dependent coverage to its employees and the child is 26 or younger, he is entitled to the benefits regardless of his marital status or student status.
In addition, an adult child qualifies for coverage even if he doesn't live with the covered parent, is not considered a dependent by the IRS, and is not enrolled in school full-time.
I guess we had to pass the law to find out what’s in it, eh?
‘‘SEC. 2714 ø42 U.S.C. 300gg–14¿. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance
issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child until the child turns 26 years of age. Nothing in this section shall require a health plan or a health insurance issuer described in the preceding sentence to make coverage available for a child of a child receiving dependent coverage. øAs revised by section 2301(b) of HCERA¿
‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available under subsection (a).
‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to modify the definition of ‘dependent’ as used in the In-ternal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the tax treatment of the cost of coverage.
I guess this is a post-cultural-revolution thingie. Since nobody ever grows up any more, we just keep on raising the age of dependence.
OTOH, we lower to voting age from 21 to 18, because we want to catch these voters while they’re still under the influence of the teachers union. Who cares if they are responsible for maintaining themselves?
Excellent!!! Now all of us who have (REAL) children at home and need dependent health coverage for them can expect to be told soon that NO DEPENDENTS WILL BE COVERED.
I wish I could say unintended consequences....
And here’s what the Secretary has said:
http://obamacarewatcher.org/portal/articles/155
(b) Restrictions on plan definition of dependent. With respect to a child who has not attained age 26, a plan or issuer may not define dependent for purposes of eligibility for dependent coverage of children other than in terms of a relationship between a child and the participant. Thus, for example, a plan or RIN 1210-AB41 Comment Page 3 July 9, 2010 issuer may not deny or restrict coverage for a child who has not attained age 26 based on the presence or absence of the child’s financial dependency (upon the participant or any other person), residency with the participant or with any other person, student status, employment, or any combination of those factors.1
How do shack-ups fare with kids?
Are they covered?
I have never heard of a medical policy that covers kids up to age 26, is it ... that don’t even have to live with their parents!
Totallt INSANE.
Yeah, drain mom and dad.
Gotta “spread the wealth around” one way or another.
Obama is an idiot!
I say if anything, they should force the “kids” to insure their elderly parents. If we have to support them until they’re 26, then it’s fair to force them to support us in our golden years, when they are making the big bucks.
This way when you take away their X Box and kick them out of your basement, you’re STILL responsible for them and Uncle Sugar can play parent.
It is absolutely imperative that we win the Presidency and the Senate in 2012.
Losing is just not an option.
This monster of a bill has to be thrown out.
How long before it's Mommy and Daddy / Grandma and Grandpa?
I didn't know it was possible to be an adult and a child at the same time.
Jeez it took years to get my adult son out of the house and off my wallet.
Now ObummerCare in effect keeps him and kids like him on all of the wallets of we taxpayers. Government as a big nanny has to end.
You are referring to social security and Medicare.
We’re already being tapped to pay for those in
their “golden years”.
I despise Obamacare with my entire being, but is it really saying that you are FORCED to pay for your child’s insurance, or is it actually saying that you can CHOOSE to pay for your child’s insurance if you like?
I would like the ability to pay for decent health care insurance for a child in college, if I didn’t like the options he had there (although if the university has a traching hospital, it’s probably a cheaper choice to use student health).
This is not one of the more odious parts of Obamacare, if it only gives you the CHANCE to insure your college or newly working kid. As long as you are not forced to cover him.
The married thing seems pretty stupid, though, but hey - no one read the bill, so who checked for these mistakes??
Not one cent of your money goes to pay my social security.
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.