Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Exiting The Middle Class
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ricochet1a" data-source="post: 723407" data-attributes="member: 22880"><p>As I read it, the only exclusion to having a "child" covered till age 26 is if they are eligible to be covered by their own employer's health plan. Being a dependent as defined by the IRS - for tax purposes - ISN'T (from my reading) a necessary qualifier. So they could theoritically be employed and self suppporting with the exception of health insurance and still be eligible to be covered by their parent's coverage. I haven't found any language that disqualifies a child for being married either. I'm not claiming expert status on this, but few can at this point. </p><p> </p><p>The whole goal of this legislation was to mandate coverage for as many people as possible without resorting to a "public option". By moving up the definition of child to age 26, the legislation does that. By instituting penalties for employers that have full time employees WITHOUT insurance, more will be covered. What the legislation does nothing to do is to control any aspect of the cost of health care or availability of providers. The next political move will be when the costs begin to escalate due to all the additional coverage being granted without additional "earners" paying for that coverage, to mandate cost controls. Then having a public option becomes a moot point, with cost controls in place and employer mandates present, not having health insurance will be near impossible - the government will presumably expand Medicaid to fill in the gaps.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ricochet1a, post: 723407, member: 22880"] As I read it, the only exclusion to having a "child" covered till age 26 is if they are eligible to be covered by their own employer's health plan. Being a dependent as defined by the IRS - for tax purposes - ISN'T (from my reading) a necessary qualifier. So they could theoritically be employed and self suppporting with the exception of health insurance and still be eligible to be covered by their parent's coverage. I haven't found any language that disqualifies a child for being married either. I'm not claiming expert status on this, but few can at this point. The whole goal of this legislation was to mandate coverage for as many people as possible without resorting to a "public option". By moving up the definition of child to age 26, the legislation does that. By instituting penalties for employers that have full time employees WITHOUT insurance, more will be covered. What the legislation does nothing to do is to control any aspect of the cost of health care or availability of providers. The next political move will be when the costs begin to escalate due to all the additional coverage being granted without additional "earners" paying for that coverage, to mandate cost controls. Then having a public option becomes a moot point, with cost controls in place and employer mandates present, not having health insurance will be near impossible - the government will presumably expand Medicaid to fill in the gaps. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Exiting The Middle Class
Top