it's your choice to put an adult child on your policy. usually parents would do this to prevent their child from being uninsured during, say, a gap in time from when they graduate high school or college and when they find a job that offers them their own insurance.

if you are that concerned about the cost either 1. don't add them on or 2. make them pay you the difference. this isn't that hard.

Then you obviously did not read the Health Care Law. That's the problem with America, so many people "think" (assume) they know what should happen, but very few people bother enough to know the details. A single-payer system would have reduced costs, but corporations would have none of that.

The Free Market types are the ones fighting cost reform the most. It's corporate healthcare providers and doctors that are the main culprits ripping off the system. Rick Scott's company (Governor of Flordia) stole $1 Billion dollars from Medicare. If you're for an unregulated free market, then stop complaining about the costs. If you're against it, stop voting Republican.

It is pretty ridiculous. The parent's employer and the parent end up paying the 26 year olds insurance premium and the health insurer just gains a new customer. In other words Obamacare raised the cost for employers, discourages new hiring and parents are asked to continue to financially support their kids until they are 26 even though they are self supporting, living away from home and married. No wonder all the companies are applying for exemptions. Personally I am self employed and buy my own insurance. Adding my 23 year old daughter to my policy would cost the same as buying her a policy separately. What is the point?

JP,

I don't know if single payer is the answer. How would it reduce costs? Ive heard some people's explanations, but I'm interested in what you think.

As for doctors ripping off the system, how is that being done?

That being said, I have mixed feelings about young people remaining on their parent's plan. While more insured people is a good thing, I worry about the cost

What?-3106699

It is pretty ridiculous. The parent's employer and the parent end up paying the 26 year olds insurance premium and the health insurer just gains a new customer. In other words Obamacare raised the cost for employers, discourages new hiring and parents are asked to continue to financially support their kids until they are 26 even though they are self supporting, living away from home and married. No wonder all the companies are applying for exemptions. Personally I am self employed and buy my own insurance. Adding my 23 year old daughter to my policy would cost the same as buying her a policy separately. What is the point?

*********************************

The point is people can add their kids even if they have pre-existing conditions. But hey, why should an insurance company lose money? So some kid can live? Not everyone owns their own business, or are you do myopic to see that? Another ignorant ,"Well I do it this way..." poster. People that work for a Fortune 500 may not have a choice but to carry their child on their insurance.

@eric-2573068

Doctors can rip off the system by performing surgries that aren't necessary, having patients stay overnight at a hospital when it isn't necessary, or perform unnecessary tests or procedures.

The point is people can add their kids even if they have pre-existing conditions.

Uh no......Remember Obamacare already removes pre-existing conditions so that wasn't the point was it?

What?-3106699......

Let's just suppose you have an adult child (say 22 years old) who just graduated from 4 years of college. That child wants to attend and has been accepted by a medical school. The expectation is that medical school graduation will occur when that child is 26 years old.

Until the child finished the undergraduate degree, they were on your health care policy. Why should they not be able to continue on that policy (if you and that child wish it) until they finish medical school and become employed?

Forty years ago college was for a privileged few. Now, it is virtually a necessity to avoid a life of financial instability. Today, a post-graduate education is no longer a rarity. It is becoming the new norm for those who wish to be upwardly mobile. Often, that education approaches or exceeds 26 years. The health care bill (aka ObamaCare) merely takes this new reality into account.

Things have changed. You should too.

BTW- It is apt that your Newsvine name contains "What?". However, you could avoid such confusion by thinking before you post.

No I did not read the health care law my information comes from the receptionist at my doctors office, she does the insurance billing. I also said in my above post I maybe wrong on this.

I have chosen not to add my son at this time I can't afford it. I make $11.30 and hour and I have to pay my household bills first otherwise there is no house for me to live in.

My son is a full time college student and what little income he has pays his way through school.

It is hard, this law was suppose to help all. Please tell me who has benefited from this? The rich can still afford to insure their children adult and under age because they are rich. The welfare poor still get their medicaid, but the working poor are where they were a year ago, uninsured or insured with higher premiums, deductibles and prescriptions.

According to Ian this is all about the special case of cost shifting from a post-graduate student to the parents and their employer. If that is the case Ian then why is it not limited to college students? Why include married self supporting 26 year olds? Maybe you should think a little before you post.

jp,

let me addresss those ways doctors rip the system point by point

1) Doctors perform unnecessary surgeries

This rarely happens. Its actually one of the ways in which our system works well. You see, surgeons rarely, if ever, see a patient de novo. They need referrals--ie, a primary care doc, or ER doc who sees the patient and thinks the patient may benefit from surgery. One of these doctors then calls the surgeon and asks them to look and decide. And the ER or IM/FP doc who sees the patient initially gets NO money from any subsequent surgery.

Not only that, but media perception nothwistanding, most doctors are fairly decent human beings who wouldn't subject grandma to a dangerous procedure to make an extra buck. Just ask yourself a question--would you? If the answer is no, then why do you assume a doctor would? Are they some collection of horrible human beings, or are they like you and me?

2)Having patients stay overnight unnecessarily

Another myth. First, doctors don't make money based on how long a patient stays in the hospital. Maybe fifty bucks for an extra inpatient visit, but thats hardly worth it. For that matter, hospitals don't make more money either. Actually the opposite. Hospitals are paid based on something called DRGs, which basically means they are paid the same regardless of what they do or how long the patients stays. that gives them incentive to discharge EARLIER. In fact, most hospitalists are paid bonuses if they discharge their patients in a shorter period of time then the national average

3) Unnecessary tests/procedures

Another common myth. doctors are NOT paid based on the tests they order, for the most part. If they order a CT, the radiologist gets paid, but the ordering doc gets nothing. In fact, he gets a headache from following up all these results and calling the patient

stull I agree- There needs to be some criteria here - is the kid pulling grades or just partying. Not too many of us have kids in med school- but a typical college kid should be working. The working class once again absorbs the cost of lazy kids. At 22 most of these kids can work- even if they just graduated. The old health policies covered that.

This is one of those “entitlements” promoted by Obama designed to enhance people’s dependency on the Government. This seemingly great feature of Obama care isn’t free but many wouldn’t realize it because Obama’s healthcare abomination provides these popular provisions up front while back loading the cost. Wait until the bill comes due.

The say that Medicare fraud or the practices that lead up to it is rare is a fallacy.

It's not hard to find examples:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/Insight/2011/05_-_May/North_Carolina_hospital_settles_Medicare_fraud_suit_for_$2_million/

http://7thspace.com/headlines/380870/nine_individuals_and_three_corporations_face_31_count_health_care_fraud_indictment_.html

Actually, just Googling "Medical Fraud" will show you it's anything but uncommon. Most of that is only over the past month. There are ways to gain the system and you are naive if you believe that all doctors are Boy Scouts. Every profession has good and bad apples, just there are more than just a few doctors scamming the system.

if your pissed about your premiums being taken right out of your check then it's time to blame your employer and the insurance companies not obama and your own child/children!

how dumb it is to say obamacare raised the cost of insurance when it's the insurance companies who are doing this themselves. if this is fraud then call them on it but don't whine obamacare this and obamacare that. i think it about time some of you grew a pair and learned to fight back against corporate america/big business. oops, my bad because you people are used to getting punked by the system by now aren't you!

As has been pointed out to you several times .....What?-3106699.....

You are UNDER NO OBLIGATION to cover your uninsured adult child on your insurance policy. On the contrary, you can let them get their health care at the ER (and not pay the bill) just as the other Tea Party dead-beats who elect to be uninsured are accustomed.

But, you should enjoy shifting the costs of your healthcare to those of us who responsibly insure while you can. Those days are numbered.

jp,

the first link you give is very bare bones. It says a certain hospital "misbilled" patients by encouraging procedures to be done as an inpatient rather than outpatient setting.

First, this is a medicare fraud suit against the hospital corperation, not the physicians

Secondly, who knows why the hospital suggested inpatient rather than outpatient? Maybe they had better results as an inpatient? the article doesn't say

Either way, the majority of fraud is carried out by non-physicians, non-health care workers. It is usually some con artist that sets up a fake company that bills for products/services that are never provided

Medicare fraud by physicans is usually due to calling a visit level 5 when documentation only supports a level 4 for example. Do you have any experience with medical billing? It is one of the most confusing systems invented

Are there physicians who game the system? Absolutely--just like there are unscrupulous accountants, car mechanics, lawyers--basically any profession that deals with humans. I just don't think its nearly as common as you imply

I challenge you to show me anywhere that states PHYSICIAN led fraud is a major cost to the healthcare system. And this needs to be clearly seperated from unintentional billing errors

and ps--google searches don't count

The 22 to 26 year old demographic is one of (if not) the most uninsured/under-insured in our nation. Yet, they still have considerable heath care costs. Who pays those (particularly catastrophic) costs? Those of us who responsibly purchase health care insurance pay those costs through higher premiums.

One of the primary purposes behind Obamacare is to get everyone (paying) into the system. Obviously, everyone gets health care unless they are very, very lucky. Yet, before Obamacare, only some of us were paying for that care.

You might be unhappy with being placed in the position of denying your adult child coverage under your policy until age 26. But, compare that with being faced with paying (or NOT paying) the health care expense of an uninsured and asset-less adult child who is severely injured or ill.

How anyone can find fault with having the option to cover their adult child until age 26 is mysterious.

My son has had a 4. gpa for the last two years he is a pre dental student and he works hard for his grades and he works hard at his job.....no slackers here.

As far as my employer taking the money out of my check that is not the problem. Either they take it or I write a check for it it's a wash. You see John Smith my point is....since the law passed I don't see where this has helped the working poor I now pay more for my prescriptions, my co pay and I now have a higher deductible. How did I and others like me benefit from this law other than now I am working and even poorer!

Once again you missed the mark Ian. I pay for my daughters health insurance now just as I did before the bill. I've always had the option of buying her insurance, schooling, car, clothes or anything else I want to. Nice try though with the tea party deadbeat crap. The only surprise here is you didn't throw in the race card because someone would dare question your Messiah. The only thing the bill accomplished was to shift the cost to employers whom in turn are forced to buy plans with higher co-pays, deductibles and less coverage in order to contain the increased costs of insuring more people without even hiring any. In the end all employees suffer higher insurance costs to pay for those who have kids that fit under the bill's criteria. This is just one of many examples of it's job killing effects.
In an era where we can't afford and will be forced to cut our existing entitlements Obama has added this boondoggle to the mix of unaffordable entitlements. Sounds like a socialist utopia until of course it has to be paid for. Maybe that is why Americans still support repeal of this Obamanation.

What?-3106699:

First of all, the "pre-existing condition" clause doesn't go into effect until 2014.

Secondly, as a former employee of an insurance company, I can tell you that most of the blame for what's wrong with this country's health care system rests solely with them. We have some of the best doctors in the world, some of the best hospitals, but we're ranked near the bottom among developed countries for quality of health care. The only thing getting in the way is the affordability and attainability (or lack thereof) of health insurance. It's a ridiculous system... why do we need a middleman to sort out the cost of care? Insurance companies do anything the can to screw you out of deserved care and screw money out of hospitals. If they think you've been in the hospital too long for a procedure, they have a whole team of people whose sole job is to make sure you get kicked out of the hospital in a "timely" fashion. If they think you're racking up too many claims, they'll go back through your medical records to see if there's anything (ANYTHING) you may have forgotten to mention on your application so that they can kick you off their plan and make you responsible for the bills. I've seen people rescinded for sinus infections and acne.

Unfortunately, thanks to short-sighted Republicans, who refuse to even consider a single-payer or universal health care system, the only choice was to keep insurance companies in the picture. The insurance companies, of course, saw this as a reason to jack up their rates, because they claimed "more risk" would be coming on. To alleviate the insurance companies, the Obama administration had to find a way to "spread the risk", aka make sure everyone, sick and poor, bought into the insurance pool. Hence, mandated coverage.

So, the Republicans have only themselves to blame for the mandated coverage clause, until they come up with a better idea to appease the all-powerful insurance industry.

A simpler, more effective answer would have been removing health insurance companies from the picture. Most of their profits do not come from premiums anyway, most of the profits come from investments, life insurance policies, and annuities. But apparently that's too "socialist" for some people.

Perhaps universal health care isn't a perfect answer, I know it has flaws, but what we have now is a mess. I think it will get better and more affordable after the 2014 pre-existing clause and mandated coverage goes into effect, but a lot of people don't like that. Unfortunately, the worst critics of Obamacare have no bright ideas of their own.

how would a single payer/universal system be better? We can't afford medicare as it is now--let alone expanding it

stull-

My son has had a 4. gpa for the last two years he is a pre dental student and he works hard for his grades and he works hard at his job.....no slackers here.

As far as my employer taking the money out of my check that is not the problem. Either they take it or I write a check for it it's a wash. You see John Smith my point is....since the law passed I don't see where this has helped the working poor I now pay more for my prescriptions, my co pay and I now have a higher deductible. How did I and others like me benefit from this law other than now I am working and even poorer!

higher co-pays, deductibles, Rx's, and monthly costs, have been going uplong before Obama. I started working in 2003 and my insurance premiums jumped 20% every year. Long before Obama was in office...

We had a good insurance till obama care clicked in... now it pays hardly nothing on prescriptions and copay has doubled..plus deductable has trippled. Im gona thank him in 2012 for the favor he did for us by voting him out.

Gee, how horrible it must be to have all those healthy young people in the system now to offset the old and sick. How horrible indeed...

I mean, do you people even know how insurance works?

FYI, for those who don't believe that doctors don't game the system. The most often used reason for requesting multitudes of tests is that the doctor is attempting to cover all of his bases, is so he doesn't get sued. This is a very common occurance and proof of it is everywhere, you just have to look. I have read several articles on the subject. One in a magazine, and several on-line. The whole system needs to be overhauled, as Obama's healthcare bill didn't go far enough. Single payer will let the government set the pricing standards, as healthcare for profit is an immoral issue. Take the profit out of it and costs come down significantly. Just so you know.

This new system seems a bit upside down, and the writer missed the real reason many in their 20's go without medical insurance.

First the reason many in their 20's go without insurance - THEY ARE HEALTHY! I didn't use or need health insurance until I was in my 40's.

What we have is a modern day scenario where no one wants to pay their own health care costs - if you have asthma, buy your stuff directly and be done with it - routing these routine expenses through insurance only increases the cost of this product for everyone.

Now this nonsense about parents insurance policy - why not simply offer low cost insurance for these young people directly? They are GROWN UPS. If their parents want to pay the premium, great, but keeping these grownups tied to their parents again is a modern day phenomenon, and a very "big government" program.

This need for everyone to suckle off mommy, daddy, or Uncle Sam is beyond sick.

There are simple ways to take care of those in most need, like the kids becoming adults coming from poor families. Give them a low cost, subsidized solution, without the "stamp" f government.

Why didn't democrats and the great one eliminate "for-profit" healthcare and health insurance, and simply push the entire model into a non-profit one? Yeah, follow the money.

stull, your employer probably changed plans and reduced coverages, which led to the higher deductibles, co-pays, etc.

As a college student, your son is required to carry some kind of insurance. Look it up. So, if he's paying premiums out of his financial aid or earnings, why doesn't he just pay it to you, still use the student health care center, and at least his costs will be reduced while he's insured under your plan. If his SHC is like mine, he pays no co-pay or deductible as long as he goes through the SHC. If he needs special labs or other treatments, he will be referred to local, in-network providers. His presence on your plan has no effect on the extra costs - that's your employer's and insurance company's doing.

If the 20-somethings are allowed to be on the plans, there's no reason why they can't help with their own expenses (providing they have jobs). The idea is to get them insured so they don't refuse necessary health care. The pre-existing thing was a separate issue, but it also allows those on the parents' plans to remain on or re-join.

******

Helen Darling, CEO of the National Business Group on Health, which represents more than 300 large employers, said employers generally don’t like the idea of anything that will add to their health costs. "I don’t think anyone is eager to spend more money," Darling said. "This is not something employers would have done on their own."

No sympathy here. Those employers don't think twice about maintenance agreements for their companies' machinery, nor do they hesitate to call maintenance men to take care of machines that break down.

But they begrudge the costs of keeping employees healthy. Misplaced priorities all the way.

I wonder how many of those employers have their own kids on their insurance plans....

"That pace appears more than the government expected!" What did the D.C. clowns think what was going to happen? As long as the health care lobbyist are in bed with our criminals (poltiticians), the sky is limit for health care premiums no matter how many family members you have on a policy!

stull

Such a rip off! ... My insurance premium is taken right out of my paycheck, it is no longer 100% paid for by my employer.

Welcome to the rest of the world. I've never had an employer pay 100% for my insurance premium, which includes working for a couple of the largest US corporations. I've been in the workforce full time since 1977. Don't blame this law, it has nothing to do with your situation.

Paul F

First the reason many in their 20's go without insurance - THEY ARE HEALTHY! I didn't use or need health insurance until I was in my 40's.

Good thing you didn't have an accident. Lots of otherwise healthy people get busted up badly and there's no "discount" for being "healthy" when you get hauled to the hospital with a bunch of internal injuries and a few broken bones.

eric-2573068 "I don't know if single payer is the answer. How would it reduce costs? Ive heard some people's explanations, but I'm interested in what you think."

It would make everyone part of one huge 'group' and would set the rates and limits of coverage, and eliminate much of the current insurance company structure that is designed to deny coverage to save money, as well as eliminate insurance company costs associated with 'sales commissions' and legal expenses (ever try to sue the government?).

What's silly is the idea that there would be another 600,000 people covered on existing policies and government bureaucrats tried to convince us that there would not be an increase in premiums as a result.

I'd be curious to compare the actual results with the CBO estimate of the number of children that would be added to their parents policies, and the estimated insurance premium cost increase.

Somewhere in their 'estimate' of the costs of HCR we should be able to find that estimate so see if they were even close.

Even if young adults are healthy, they could still have a sudden health emergency; my healthy, nonsmoking young adult son woke up one morning with a collapsed lung. That was before the days where we could have put him on our policy at work, so we had a catastrophic policy on him. ( He worked and supported himself, but his job did not offer health care). His bills would have come to about 36K without insurance, a heavy burden for anyone to bear, but especially someone making 12 dollars an hour.

We currently have my daughter on my husband's work policy, and it is great. She too is self-supporting, but she is in graduate school and the student health insurance they offer is lousy and expensive. Her premiums are lower than her student insurance premiums would have been, and it's a much better policy to boot. My husband's company posted a tidy profit last year, so they can afford it.

So I say, hurray for the Affordable Healthcare Act. I really hope the Republicans don't manage to roll it back.

brent:

I 100% agree with you that doctors order tests to cover their bases to try and prevent lawsuits. I don't think this qualifies as "gaming the system" and the solution would clearly be tort reform, which is conspicuously absent from the current reform proposal

Roy,

lets look at your comments one by one on how single payer would reduce costs:

1)set rates and limits of coverage--True, this would control costs. But is it palatable to the american people? People complain now that insurance companies deny care left and right to pad their profits. Would it really make a difference to switch to a government denying care for their bottom line?

As far as setting rates--there's only so low you can go before you piss off doctors. Already many refuse to see medicaid patients because the reimbursement is not worth their time. and before you blame the "greedy doctors", realize they went to school for a long time and trained hard to get where they are. Everyone wants the best doctor money can buy when their under the knife

2)Eliminate insurance incentive to deny coverage--surely a good thing but hardly "cost saving" and clearly at odds with your first statement

3)Eliminate insurance company costs--Probably true as well, but to be replaced with government costs. Already medicare spending is 12% of GDP, it is projected to be 50% of GDP by 2050. Do you think including MORE patients in the system will reverse this trend?

4)legal expense--im not sure what you meant by this but I agree its a lot harder to sue the govt than private companies...meaning universal health care would increase costs....

Thank you Paul F for precisely conceding to be part of a fundamental problem ObamaCare seeks to rectify.

Quote.....First the reason many in their 20's go without insurance - THEY ARE HEALTHY! I didn't use or need health insurance until I was in my 40's......Endquote

You, those who care about you, and heath insurance premium payers are lucky indeed you did not suffer a serious accident or illness during your young adult years. If this had happened, you would likely have incurred tens or even hundreds of thousands in health care charges.

If you are like the vast majority of folks in that demographic, you would have been unable to pay your (medical) debts and would have likely been forced into bankruptcy unless you were able to impose your debts upon family or friends. In any case, much (if not all) of your debt would have been written off by your health care providers. This has the effect of raising the fees they charge overall and that, in turn, has the effect of raising the premiums those of us with health insurance must pay.

Folks: this is not rocket science. It has become clear to many of us that considerably more (adults of all ages) than we suspected are opting not to purchase health care insurance. They prefer to spend that money on an updated SUV or a posh vacation. They do these things at OUR expense. This practice must come to an end. There is only one solution: legislative. That, among other things, is what ObamaCare addresses.

If you don't want to add your adult child to your insurance policy, then don't do so. Some of us do want this option. Now, we have it. We do not wish you good luck for your initiatives to return power to the health insurance companies.

Paul F:

What a ridiculous thing to say. Completely unvalidated. The real reason people in their 20s go without insurance is because they cannot afford it, and most of their employers don't offer it (yet). As a woman in her mid-twenties, I think I know what I'm talking about here. Also, ironically, I have asthma. You think I can pay for my meds myself? Think again. My monthly Rx would cost more than $400 with no insurance. That's a third of my monthly income.

People going without insurance is one of the reasons the cost of health care has skyrocketed. People have unforeseen accidents and illnesses, and no way to pay for it. Lucky for you, you didn't have this happen in your twenties, but my friend had a brain aneurysm when he was 25. Over half a million dollars in medical bills.

Get a clue. You say that you're disgusted by the apparent "need" for everyone to "suckle" off Uncle Sam, but then you mention "subsidized" options. Subsidized by who? There already are subsidized options, both government and in some states, high-risk pools that insurance companies have to pay into.

Insurance companies also already offer low-cost plans for younger people. Most insurance companies vary their rates according to the age of the primary applicant anyway.

Before you go bashing Obamacare (or even the insurance industry) make sure you know what you're talking about.

Boy is it difficult to try a reasonable conversation here. You like the fact all irresponsible supposed adults can stay on parents plan, do you have any idea who pays, you all are, mandatory coverage comes with price, you all remember your premiums going up, you can't recognize cause? You're paying for irresponsible adults and preexisting, which if they had bought insurance would be no preexisting uncovered. An insurance company can't cover more people can't cover bad risks without raising costs, but don't let common sense get in your way. You remember the 1100 plus companies and unions that had to get waivers from ODUMBO, that's why your premiums are going up and they're not done, but be happy cover more, make profit for insurance companies because it's becoming mandatory for everyone to BUY insurance. Aren't we happy? Insurance coverage, including federal medicare and medicaid has ruined the health industry costs because of mandated coverages, like maternity coverage for all, sex change operations for idiots, depression and every bipolar untreatable phony diagnosis you can come up with. The government has made coverage unfordable costs totally beyond absurd. Then the fact that no government agency was ever able to administer a program properly without paying all the side shows and lobbyists, until people become RESPONSIBLE for their actions, treatments and lives there is NO hope. It helps to put prisoners and druggies on medicaid, medicare, and provide thru prisons also. You tell me why do we treat prisoners on death row, think before you blabber.

Blabber? Really? Your post was just a couple of giant, incoherent, run-on sentences. It didn't even make sense. I want to see your birth certificate.

More than likely .....wayne-1470354.....is one of those who has opted not to purchase health insurance and is now angry that he cannot continue shifting his health costs to others.

These folks point to rising insurance premiums as though this is a new phenomenon. Anyone, even slightly familiar with the history of health care and health care insurance prices, knows that these prices have been going up by double-digit amounts since the mid 1970's. Are they ignorant or deceptive? Some of both, probably.

Ian Emdee

Be it "ignorant or deceptive" it is still unaffordable for most. Health insurance is a scam, always has been and always will be. It needs to be outlawed.

WEEEEEE FREEEEEE health insurance no one has to pay we really fooled the insurance companies they won"t raise our rates? Thanks obama/pelosi/reid we really fooled them!!

WHERE did you get average premium increase 1%, are you smoking or drinking?

wayne-1470354....

Look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

...and, this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_care_cost_rise.svg

Now tell us Obama's health care reform is responsible for price increases.

You folks are like an hysteric in a life raft full of holes. Some of the other cooler headed passengers begin to patch the holes and you shout, "STOP, STOP, the water is still coming in !"

Don't you folks realize what part you are playing in this drama? Clue: It's not the hero.

and all they do is blame obama instead of blaming the insurance companies and employers who are the real culprits.

Absolutely. Blame Obama, call it socialist, etc., etc. But if they would actually use their brain, just for a moment, you would realize the benefit we all gain by adding so many from this age group. For the most part, we are adding young people who have minimal health care expenses. So the additional premium paid in should help to reduce expenses for the rest of us, provided big insurance isn't trying to truly screw us. So, these kids have coverage, increased money in the "pot" helps to pay for those requiring greater amounts of care, and cost per insured goes down. Keep complaining about the health care law, it shows how you don't know how to think for yourself.

People here with no young adult children should quit calling that age group lazy. I know many young people. So many have had to work at retail and restaurant jobs, no benefits, minimum wage, constantly "on call". They have been working two jobs in this bad ecomomy, and all have been on their parents insurance, because they have no other choice. Now, just this spring, finally the ones I know have been gradually getting better jobs, some with benefits, because the ecomony is coming back. Thank goodness for Obama care. Quit calling young people lazy, you know nothing about their lives.

bobinnh. I was a single father at the age of 23. I joined the Army to get my medical insurance and schooling. My parents were not responsible for ME or my CHILD. There comes a time in life that you have to take the responsibilities as an ADULT.

Not everyone is physically qualified to join the military, CombatMedic. And they might not be able to get jobs that offer affordable health care. What should those young adults do, just die?

I wanted to join the navy when I was in high school. I graduated and signed up. They wont take me because I am half deaf in one ear and 30% in the other. I am glad you were able to join the Army because you didnt have medical issues that made them deny you. Not everyone can. Not everyone at that age can even get a job that has insurance coverage. This is for people like that. Especially important in this economy where it is harder and harder to find a decent job, at a decent wage, that offers semi-affordable healthcare, when you are just getting out of college.

good for you betty and write to a democrat in congress to find out about tricare and whether it will fall under the healthcare overhaul in the future. might not work but it's worth a shot. at the very least you'll gain more valuable first-hand information.

Betty I am happy for you. I would love to be able to afford to add my son on to my plan at work, at this time I can't afford to. He is on my dental and eye insurance which cost me $70.00 a month. To add him on my medical insurance I would need to cough up another $275.00 a month in which I can not afford nor can he.

The term "single mom" is so over used, but that is what I am a single income household. When it comes to choosing a roof over my head or paying for my sons medical insurance at this time I have to choose the roof over my head. This is the first time in my sons life that I have not had medical insurance for him.

I thought this new program was suppose to make it more affordable for all and it is now costing me more. I have not blamed any one particular person or political party for this rise in cost. I would like to know how it has helped the "working poor."

Stull,

You have the option of adding your kids until they are 26. For you this option does not work out financially. For many, many, many others it does. Are you so selfish to think that just because this does not work for you that it should be dismantled altogether? Everything else aside, allowing people to keep their kids on their insurance expands the availability of insurance coverage and people's freedom to choose. How can more freedom for consumers be a bad thing?

The Obama healthcare plan has provisions for assisting small business with providing health care plans for their employees, I'm not sure exactly when and how that provision goes into effect, but it should help with the higher co-pays and employee contributions in smaller companies.

Just counting down the minutes until a teabagger attacks Betty...

UrbnPrsn, Just where do you think the money for assisting business and vouchers for the working poor are going to come from? The tooth fairy? No middle income, which I finally made it to is going to bear the brunt. You need to see all the taxes that are in this plan.

Where do you think the money for treating the working poor who have only the ERs for their healthcare comes from right now, CombatMedic, the Easter bunny? Much cheaper to treat chronic disease in a doctor's office than in the ER -- but if people don't have health insurance, the ER is where they end up right now. Very, very expensive way to do it. Assisting business and provding vouchers for the working poor would be way cheaper.

Jace-559382

Stull,

You have the option of adding your kids until they are 26. For you this option does not work out financially. For many, many, many others it does. Are you so selfish to think that just because this does not work for you that it should be dismantled altogether?

No Jace I don't think it should be dismantled. If I remember right it was going to be affordable for all. I don't see how my cost rising (I'm not the only one this happened to) made it more affordable.

I am done with this discussion because most of you can only see one side of the coin and there are two sides to every coin.

I know I am a responsible person that takes care of my own. You don't know me at all and are quick to judge. I hope you all have a wonderful day and a wonderful life.

Oh and Toasty "teabagger" isn't necessary in any comment. Name calling is very childish.

Don't expect anything worthwhile from toasty there's nothing there. Why would anybody attack Betty, she is actually the only one who has a clue. This ODUMBO obamacare did nothing to help those who need help. Saying you have to cover someone at a price most cannot afford makes NO sense. The plain fact they did nopthing to make health insurance affordable, didn't save a dime only helped insurance companies sell more insurance at profitable prices, mad employers unable to provide at reasonable rates so now workers pay MORE, did nothing to improve or require good reasonable care, but don't let relevant facts cloud your minds.

Stull,

I am sorry you are getting so angry, but I do not understand why. I do remember the one of the goals of HCR was to reduce costs, but that was not the only goal and to think that every part of the bill should be focused at strictly reducing costs is unrealistic. Also, I was not quick to judge you at all, I asked you a question regarding your selfishness, but I most certainly did not did not point fingers or call names. You on the other hand, have done just that. You choose to leave the conversation because you say that people are closed-minded and do not see both sides of the coin. I challenge you to do just that.

Given the atrocious, shameful amount of debt this generation is going to inherit I think the least the babyboomers can do is cover their children's healthcare for a few more years.

at the very least since their children are out there fighting for their social security and medicare as we type!

Ah, to be back to the days of yore. Back when you could pay your doctor with a chicken. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Given the atrocious, shameful amount of debt this generation is going to inherit I think the least the babyboomers can do is cover their children's healthcare for a few more years.

Glad that I'm not the only one that thinks that the Baby-Boomers have ruined the country.

good for you!

You can't do that unless your employer allows it The Obama healthcare act requires the parent's plan to cover the kids till 26, UNLESS the kid has coverage through their job.

I don't think you are quite right there, urbnprsn, or rather you are right at the moment, but in 2014 the caveat about having coverage through the young peerson's own job goes away.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

kevin,

I think you bring up a good point thats ignored. Health coverage is undoubtedly a good thing, but people often forget the cost. It has to come from somewhere

We need a public option

Really. The insurance companies have only two things in mind. One big maze for everyone to go through and profit.

Eric: Whether you have health insurance or whther you don't, it's not likely you can forget the cost. The only way to deal with the cost is by insuring many, many more people. That's the whole point behind the new health care law...even though it hasn't even taken effect yet beyond these opening provisions. I just hope those lawmakers shouting the loudest for repeal are paying attention--Americans cannot go back to 'you're on your own' health care.

question is do we continue to allow employers and insurance companies to screw us or do we side with obama and try to stick it to them for once. make them lower their premiums and quit hoarding some of that money their sitting on. man, what some would give for fair, decent, and affordable coverage.

ap,

that's exactly my point. Insuring many more people will undoubtedly cost the system huge amounts of money. We can barely afford the population that is currently insured by medicare/medicaid today. And as our population ages, this will become only more difficult

The people who cry "single payer" or "public option" are prone to rally to this mantra, but rarely think about the tab

Young adults are very cheap to cover for insurance because they only rarely get the costly diseases like cancer, heart disease and Type II diabetes. The most likely reason your health coverage is going up is because of chronic illness care, like the new prostate cancer treatment that costs $93,000 per treatment course. People under the age of 26 don't get prostate cancer.

The cost that is greatest to all of us (but hidden) is the cost of uninsured people receiving care. Their care is not under any plan or negotiation with the health care providers. The hospitals pass that on to insured patients' bills. So it goes on your insurance.

But covering you on your family's plan has now increased the insurance costs for every other person covered in that group. Obamacare equals socialism. Spread the cost out to everyone, that is the fair way (if you are a socialist).

for one it is called the "AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE ACT" not "OBAMACARE"! and if you want to blame someone for the high rates then don't be a coward when it comes to blaming the insurance companies and your employers!

I have no real comment about children on their parents' insurance; but I couldn't let John Smith's comment go without a response. Mr. Smith your leftist friends take great pride in calling all members of the Tea Party "tea baggers." Clearly this sexual slur is meant to degrade those with whom they do not agree. Once that derogatory term is removed from the lexicon, then we can talk about obliterating Obamacare.

renegrade, So you are for letting this 21 year old person be unable to get modern medicine to save you a few pennies? I don't get it. This young person is not at fault for their conditions, why do you want to go all hard-ass "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "tough it out" on them? We are not talking about people's personal choices here, we are talking about what conditions they were born with or which are part of their DNA. I am a middle-age person who has been blessed with excellent health my whole life. I do not mind paying more for my health insurance to help people, especially young people, who are not so lucky, and I also don't mind paying tax money for that.

Mikan, If you are that sick that you cannot attend school. How are you even productive enough to pay for Internet? Also would that not make you eligible for SSDI??

UrbnPrsn, it seems to be a mantra of caring more about money than humanity. most people who hate "Obamacare", care more about money than humanity, and they prove it by what they advocate for. Notice, they all seem to say, "why should I pay for this or that?". They are more worried about money than what bit of humanity they might be able to help. A sad truth in this country.

DrMan

You sure come off sounding like some pompous a$$.. I don't see how you can claim that using the term "tea bagger" is in some way a sexual slur.. I remember seeing many people at tea party events with hats decorated with tea bags. If one uses tea bags as part of their attire just what is wrong with calling such a person a "tea bagger". Get a life DrMan....

Well, now, I will say that the term tea bagger is now considered pejorative. But come on, Dr. Man, admit, tea partiers brought that one on themselves. They invented the term, used it to describe their movement, and then found out it also described a certain sexual act and decided they didn't want to be called that any more. Fair enough, but they did kind of bring it on themselves.

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

Since you yourself are always very civil in your discourse, however, I will accept your admonishment. To tell the truth, that's not a term I use anyway, because I know tea partiers don't like it -- but it does kind of make me snicker when other do, I must admit. Schadenfreude is always a terrible temptation....

should the blame not go to the insurance company and/or your employer?

They always ignore how much costs went up prior to HCR, and they did not want the price control included in the bill. Now they bitch about the costs.

My costs went up like 20% every year since 2003... Long before this healthcare act... Pretty sure it isnt Obamas fault.

yes, becca mine too. My premiums have increased more than 30% each year we are now topping $1700 for individual insurance since we are self employed. Nice how the article mentioned that PROFITS for HEALTH INSURANCE Companies have increased. It is not "obama Care" that caused this, it is the insurance companies sticking it to us once again.

And on another note, since my 23 year old son had cancer when he was 5 he was denied coverage on my plan. They can still do that if you have individual insurance. Nevermind he is healthy and has not had a claim on this cancer since he was 6 years old. Anthem said he was "un insurable"... nice of them.

my company was a least fair about it . They used to have 3 plans employee,employee+spouse,family. They got rid of the family plan and made a charge for every dependent added. They even stated that it was because people would in general only add dependent children over 21 who had health problems. For most people with only 2 kids it made little difference.

Still nowhere close to many years ago where the company paid the complete premium even for the family option

The last company I worked for required you to have insurance through them. If you had a spouse you had to get employee/spouse. You had kids you had to get family plan. We also paid the premiums. That was not fair at all. My husband is military so we had tricare. Why should I have to pay for insurance with less coverage when I was covered by tricare? I wonder especially why my husband was forced to be covered. Not everyones companies do things the way they should be done. It is not necessarily the fault of the Health Care Act. Blame your employer and the insurance companies.

yeah, thanks to repubs and their big business buddies!

I don't understand why you weren't covered by your parents' health insurance while in college. When I was in college, I was still covered under my father's plan.

show your thanks in 2012 when you vote for obama and his willingness to stand up to repubs and their big business buddies BILLIE!

CYNTHIA i just fell in love with you. you are one of the smart ones and have delivered a post for the ages. it is about time someone other than president obama figured this out and managed to word it just as good. now, when can we get married?

i remember my premiums jumping 20% for the past 8 yrs... Pretty sure that doesnt have anything to do with this new health coverage...

I know that during the recession hospitals did report a slowing down of patients. So beds were open. Meanwhile today Pfizer reported lower sales which also would support a somewhat muted consumer. This would bode well for the insurance group that would be able to collect premiums without depressing profits with a higher payout for medical bills. Still as I recall, that ratio must be kept of how much of the premiums can be collected and then paid out. So I am saying if they collect 1,000 in premiums, they must then pay out 90 percent in medical expenses? I believe that is the agreed upon ratio.

As it turns out, the reason that the insurance companies, big pharma, medical device companies and of course AARP are happy about Obamacare is because they all stand to make more money since more policies will be bought.

I would say the US is moving in the direction of Spain. Apparently their children often stay living with the parents until they are in their 30s. I believe that NJ allows the child to be covered until they are 31. So if you like Spain with an unemployment rate of over 25 you will be happy to be taking care of adult children. Expect that 26 limit to be raised in the near future.

In reply to "theboys" . Just because young adults can get health care on their parents plans does not mean they are not working. I know many young people who are working, many at two jobs, and all are on their parent's health care plan. Most rarely go to the doctor because they are young and healthy.

theboys, Yea they stay with their parents until they are in their 30s because they cannot afford to live on their own. They pay a high percentage of taxes. I lived in Ireland in the early 80s. Most people had no phones or cars and still heated there homes with coal or peat cast iron stoves. Is that what you want AMERICA to become. Socialized Medicine for all. You people need to wake up.

Well, just one example, UnitedHealth’s CEO Stephen Hemsley: $102 million in total compensation for 2009.

And ….more recently (last month)

After months of damping down expectations over fears that federal rules would chomp into earnings, UnitedHealth Group Inc. on Thursday posted a hefty 13 percent jump in profits.

Profit in the quarter ended March 31 rose to $1.35 billion, or $1.22 a share. Revenue grew 10 percent from the same period last year, to $25.4 billion.

Profits rose and yet they still charge more money for less coverage. Blame the insurance companies. They are taking advantage of this, in order to raise their premiums. They say its because of this act. They are using it as an excuse to make higher profits.

Seriously, did you think they are paying for their own healthcare? The reason so many "kids" are uninsured is because they refuse insurance because they don't want to pay for it believing they won't ever need it. We have a business. We offer. No takers. So I am guessing that parents are paying for this benefit knowing if they don't they will get stuck with the bill anyway.

I am very concerned about the message we are sending to our youth. When I was just out of high school, every kid I knew either went to college, or they got a job WITH INSURANCE. Nobody in their right mind took a job without insurance. We were all educated to understand that accidents happen and we must have insurance. The job they took might be low pay, but they had health insurance. Today those kids want nothing to so with the establishment. They have their tech toys and that is all they need.

the boys: Sounds like you don't know any young people. The young people I know have spent the past 2 years trying very hard to get work, and finding only part-time, minimum wage crappy service jobs with no benefits. Recently the ones I know have been able to get better jobs with health care benefits. Also, have you not been listening? Being in college does not provide health care, the college students are also on their parent's insurance. Stop talking about the past and start talking to the young people around you, find out what is going on NOW, not when you were young.

the boys: i don't know what rock you've been living under, but a lot of jobs that young people take these days are what they can get. many of these jobs either don't offer healthcare, or offer subpar supplemental insurance that wouldn't even touch their medical bills if something traumatic happened to them. not everyone is lucky enough to land a high paying, group insurance supplying, corporate job these days. many work for struggling small businesses, or service jobs, trying to make it in an economy that doesn't favor them.

i know i didn't have insurance from age 21-28, and trust me if i could have afforded a private plan before i was 25, i would have taken it in a second. as it were, the cheapest plan i could find was 275 dollars a month, with exorbitant deductibles and basically non-existant prescription coverage. i applied for it anyway, and they REJECTED me, at 26, and mostly healthy because of a PRE-EXISTING condition. i was then told i probably wouldn't be accepted by anyone. i was willing to pay 300 a month, and couldn't get coverage. 300 dollars isn't chump change, and there are a lot of people who can't afford it.

my sister got laid off working a retail job for saks 5th avenue. she had to drop her insurance because COBRA was 600 a month. i don't know many people who can afford 600 a month. so now she is without the healthcare she needs.

600 a month for healthcare?

regular people are getting screwed, and all the rich can do is bitch about the poor.

11madness, If they get into a car accident their AUTO INS. covers their medical.

missedout. I call the BS flag on your story. If you are not making that much money there is clinics set up all over that work on a sliding scale. I am a Trauma nurse and have volunteered in the clinics. Also your sister could not have been working and be on cobra, that's for when she is no longer employed. And again there is sliding scale clinics all around.

combat, auto insurance will only cover part of the medical costs. all policies have a limit, so if your limit is low and you have a traumatic brain injury that may require hundreds of thousands of dollars spent for your care guess who gets the bill? If that kid does not have insurance coverage for the costs over what the auto ins. covers, guess who pays that, you and I, when the kid gets on medicaid or just does not pay.

combat, my point is that unless one is poor (sliding scale clinics), or not working class (someone who can afford 300 for a crappy plan), they are getting screwed out of affordable healthcare, especially with any pre-existing condition, which can be something as common as asthma.

if you re-read my post, it says my sister was laid off and couldn't afford cobra, so she dropped her insurance.

missedout Sorry I did miss read about your sister. But you are eligible(hence SLIDING SCALE) I had to use those clinics when I did not have a high paying job. Plus I work(volunteer) in the clinics and see patients all the time. Which they do bring in their children with asthma. This Country does have safety nets. If you improve your situation you improve your life, but there is treatment out there for medical situations that do not require the ER.

Can't he stay on your health insurance until he's 26?

I had cancer as well and you are right it sure isn't his fault nor mine. Nobody should be denied health insurance, but as an HR person you should know that unfortunately many people do not take care of themselves and it runs up the premiums for everybody. The problem is that anybody that is paying a premium feel justified to use it like it is free.

The other night I researched the Taiwan health care system that VT has voted on. They apparently have had a single pay system with no gate keepers since 1995. So they can see anybody they wish. Here is the catch. They can use their health care as much as they want UNTIL the government makes a visit to their home to have a chat. So that chat is about abuse. LOL. Meanwhile this great system which has made everybody happy I guess, is costing more than is collected in premiums each year and thus they have to borrow money to pay into the system. So although that system boast only spending 6 percent of GDP, compared to our 17 percent of our GDP, they are running over every year by more and more. So they are increasing their gross public debt each year just like we are only a bit slower. Both system including Obamacare do not address costs. Obamacare just addressed the insurance issue.

BTW, I worked in HR for big pharma.

Out of pocket expenses for US citizens averages around 11 percent. In contrast, the Swiss pay over 30 percent out of pocket. There is your difference.

Plans differ. My plan covered adult children until age 23 prior to the Obama health care law. Some plans covered children until 18 years, some until 26, some did not cover children at all.

Lion, Why is that? At 26 I was an Army Nurse and a single father. I took responsibility for MYSELF and MY FAMILY. Tell me why I should be responsible for YOURS???

Combat Medic, you might want to reread Lion's post. Your respose to him/her makes little sense. Just saying.

Take this to a lawyer. Obama care says the health care plan has to cover children until age 26, unless they have health care coverage from their own employer. Gov't health care plans are not exempt.

easier said than done in this economy... then when you get a job, you have to hope they even offer healthcare

You may be proamerica but you are anti-youth. The young today are not lazy, they are working hard at entry level jobs that don't provide health care coverage, or they are in school. Please go talk to some young people rather than making assumptions.

UrbnPrsn, There is programs/ clinics that are sliding scale for young people. I know because I am a Nurse that has volunteered my time to help out. You people will not be happy until you get single payer. I lived in Ireland in the early 80s I think it sucked big time. I went with my friend to the hospital so he could have a procedure done out patient and people were lined up in the halls on gurneys. They had no rooms so that's where they stayed.

Yeah, you can go to a free clinic, if you can afford to take off the entire day from work for a walk-in or be on the phone for several hours on Monday because the whole week's appointments are gone by Monday afternoon. Those programs are better than nothing, but they are overwhelmed,understaffed and underfunded. They are light years away from having a decent comprehensive health insurance policy. And they still are not really optimal for treating any kind of chronic disease that needs frequent followups.

The clinics are usually (at least in all the areas I have lived) during normal business hours. That is when the people who need them are working. The wait time is longer than the ER (which is long enough) It should be easier for people to get insurance, so they can go to a regular doctor, with a regular appt.

Not defending corporate salaries, but just like the oil industry the insurance companies make a lot of money based on VOLUME. Both industries have thin margins compared to many industries. I am talking single digits. As a comparison, the chip industry would be out of business on those margins. Their gross margins are often in the 50+ range. It varies a lot but specialty chips rake in big bucks. I don't see anybody complaining about those industries and how much their CEOs make. If we are going to bash we should do so across the board.

They are attempting to screw you over. Sorry to say. You might want to get a lawyer.

Republicans are questioning mandates which I personally think are unconstitutional. I understand why they need to mandate buying health insurance, but I think insurance per se for health care doesn't even make sense.

When a person buys insurance, like flood insurance, they hope never to use it. Car insurance, home insurance, etc. are all policies NOBODY wants to ever use hopefully. However when you buy health insurance everybody wants to use it ASAP especially if dental is included, or eye glass coverage. There is no intention of paying and never using it. Therefore the costs just keep running over. Obamacare never addressed cost. They just address the unfairness of insurance. So basically they expanded coverage of a broken system. Now everybody has access to that broken system.

So we need single payer like most of the rest of the world has. Duh. But the moneyed interests have made it so the Obama health care act was the only thing that would fly.

Actually, literate people prefer to write documents that actually cover all contingencies. This makes them longer than "Dick and Jane." Tough.

It was the lobbyist that wrote the bill. Once upon a time lawmakers did write bills. Kennedy was one such person that penned a lot of legislation. Today the legal jargon is meant to confuse and allow vast interpretation in order to satisfy special interest groups. So I am saying the more pages the easier to slip stuff in. Like longshoremen with their Cadillac plans are exempt from that excise tax. See how it goes?

Some religious organizations that operate health care payment systems that are like church membership based socialism are also exempt.