New law. Kids on insurance until 26. What are the details?

Discussion in 'UPS Discussions' started by brownmonster, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    My local 344 Teamster run insurance plan sent me a letter today indicating that my child who will be 23 in October will no longer be covered under the plan unless she is still a full time student. (She is, she will graduate in May.) I had to send in a form indicating she was still a full time student. Everything I get in the mail from Hoffa brags about the new laws insuring children until age 26. The law says your kids can be covered until age 26. The law doesn't say whether it will be at an extra cost. It's all in the details.
  2. UPSGUY72

    UPSGUY72 Well-Known Member

    Here so info that might help you.
  3. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    72. Thanks but I'm looking for info from someone who deals with this in the real world. I'm not qualified to decipher Govt. code.
  4. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    I'd like to hear real world info also.

    It is my impression that it doesn't take effect till 2011.
  5. some1else

    some1else Active Member

    A 26 yearold is not a child! Why should my benefits cost be increased so your 26 yearold doesnt have to get a real job?

    18yearold? Heck highschool graduation plus 1 year fine. But 26! Give me a break!!
  6. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    No kidding. By the time I was 25, I was married, had a full time job, and a house. And I have two sons in college, ages 21 and 23. Social engineering at its worse.
  7. bigbrownhen

    bigbrownhen New Member

    Many students today do work to pay for college, but many part time jobs do not have insurance. If my kid is in this situation, I would be glad to be able to provide affordable insurance. Check and see what it costs per month to continue a kid on our insurance. It isn't cheap. Can you imagine what a serious illness or injury would do to a young college kid's financial future? There are many kids not completing their degrees until thier mid 20s due to the cost of school and trying to work at the same time.

    Is it really that much different than helping out with college expenses? Many parents help where they can. In my book this falls under the same catagory.
  8. some1else

    some1else Active Member

    I was working at 14 paying my "pa" rent at 16 and had my own insurance via ups at 18.5. Guys providing for a child (child is <18). Spoiling a 26 yearold and perpetuating the entitled college kid crap isnt doing them or you, or me any favors!!
  9. leastbest

    leastbest LeastBest

    We should have universal coverage so that everyone is covered.
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    you should talk to klein he's been living on some kind of insurance well into his fifties.:happy2:
  11. SignificantOwner

    SignificantOwner A Package Center Manager

    This is an example of the poor governing that will result in many democrats losing their jobs in November. If you're over 20 you should have a job - college or not.
  12. brown bomber

    brown bomber brown bomber

    both of my daughters are full-time students and also work......they do not have insurance provided by through college would leave them w/ next to nothing on the 15 hr. work weeks they presently have........Central States provides insurance to them provided they show proof of full-time attendance........I've worked close to 35 yrs. @ UPS and have had minimal claims......not looking for an entitlement, but only that which I feel is deserved
  13. bluehdmc

    bluehdmc Well-Known Member

    + 1

    How many part-time jobs provide insurance for employees?
    Even UPS doesn't provide benefits for the first year. The benefits used to be a selling point for HR's recruitng.
    It has to be tough to try to recruit people, when all you can offer them is slightly more than minimum wage, no benefits, cold buildings in the winter and HOT bldg in the summer.
  14. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    We already pay for millions of illegals using ERs for their free medical care. Why should our children get less than an illegal?
  15. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    Lots of good arguments. I pay the Govt. to provide endless benefits for millions of other people. I would like to take advantage of one myself. It's not like years ago. When I graduated even the most rinky dink full time job provided free health insurance. The law says insurance until 26, it doesn't say how much you can be charged for it. Time will tell.
  16. beentheredonethat

    beentheredonethat Well-Known Member

    With the new obamacare law, yes it really is that much different. Currently, if you want to help out and pay expenses for your "ADULT" child that is 24, 25, 26 that is fine and you can do whatever you want. Weather that help is in paying for insurance for them, giving them gas money, rent free place to stay. All that is your perogative. However, with the new law, now companies have to pay to support these "ADULT" children. The big issue is that it's a safe bet that UPS will say hey, this new law cost UPS 100 Million, so out of the goodness of our heart, we'll increase the payments we make to the insurance company by this amount. NO WAY, what will happen, is that they will increase co pays, increase deductibles, reduce what is covered so they aren't out that 100 Million. In other words everyone elses insurance is going to cost more, because some people don't have "ADULT" children who can make it on their own. As another poster said, by the time I was 26, I had been out of college for over 4 years, been working at UPS for 5 years and already had health insurance on my own thru my company. Another thing to consider, when making a choice to work at a company, there are multiple factors, pay is obviously a huge one, but also benefits. So even if you have a successful child that graduated college and is 22. He\she can take a job making more salary, but have no benefits but get benefits thru "OUR" insurance. Or he\she could have gotten a job with a lesser salary, but having benefits. Sure, if I were the child, I'd take the first option, but is that fair to us?
  17. brownmonster

    brownmonster Man of Great Wisdom

    Is it fair that people with cell phoes and nice cars and jewelry buy steak with food stamps? Half the children in our school district get free or reduced lunch. How much does a peanut butter sandwhich cost. I would like nothing better than my child to graduate next spring and get a job with full bennies. If she can't I will have no problem taking advantage of this law. I whine everyday of how unfair it is having to support a nation full of misfits and losers(people in REAL need excluded), but lets not get off track. It will be interesting to see how this law plays out.
  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    " unfair it is having to support a nation full of misfits and losers(people in REAL need excluded),...."

    Add to that supporting a nation full of illegals and the unfairness is multiplied!!
  19. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Some of you always think, why should I pay for others .
    But, who pays for the UPS, GM, and other companies health insurance in reality ?

    The end consumer does, (meaning everybody). That UPS parcel costs a dollar or 2 more to send because they pay bennies, so does a new car cost more.
    The end result is simple. The enitire population already "subsidizes" those that get employer's bennies. No matter which way you look at it.
    Not the other way around !

    Employer's paid heathcare is basically another form of "manufacturing tax", and adds these costs to it's end product.
    Making US manufactured goods and services more expensive ans less competitive.
    A big reason the US has more problems creating new or more jobs then the rest of the world.

    Universal healthcare is much more of a fairer system. Everyone pays a bit more on income taxes, and harmful goods, like alcohol and tabacco products, have additional health taxed dollars on them.

    But, this is not a heathcare thread, and if it was, I already know the outcome of it (no money for freeloaders, etc, even though that argument in itself is falsh, like I explained earlier).
  20. bluehdmc

    bluehdmc Well-Known Member

    In the grand scheme of things to insure a child to age 26 vs 18 isn't really that much costlier for the insurance company/employer. For the most part people in that age bracket have few health problems, and their health costs are negligible compared to people in their 40's or 50's.
    At least the coverage is there if something catastrophic happens.

    Klein makes an interesting point about the "manufacturing tax" vs higher taxes.