25-year-olds are NOT "kids"

[Bostonian]

Twenty-five-year-olds should be several years into their careers, perhaps married. They are not "kids". Even people who agree with the NYT about requiring employers to cover employees "children" up to age 26 should recognize that they are adults and refer to them appropriately.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27sun3.html

A Little More Help for Your Kid

New York Times

June 25, 2010

 

Jobs are depressingly scarce for recent high school and college graduates. Jobs with health benefits even more so. One of the few bits of good news out there is that under the new health care reform law, young adults will be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance policies until they turn 26.

 

 

Companies now generally drop people from their parents’ policies once they reach age 19 or graduate from college or another educational institution.

The Obama administration estimates that 650,000 uninsured young people will benefit, only a small dent in the 6.6 million uninsured young adults between the ages of 19 and 25. For families whose policies cover dependents, the new rules should be enormously helpful.

 

<rest of article at link>

[chiguirre]

To be nitpicky, I'm not a kid, but I'm still my mom and dad's kid. I think it's correct and common to refer to a person's adult child as their kid. Gee, I feel like William Safire :D.

[fivetails]

Maybe I'm missing something...I don't see them being called kids/children in the article? It seems to refer to them as "young adults"....

[Nicole M]

Maybe I'm missing something...I don't see them being called kids/children in the article? It seems to refer to them as "young adults"....

 

I only saw it in the headline. Maybe that was enough to push B's buttons?

[fivetails]

I only saw it in the headline. Maybe that was enough to push B's buttons?

 

Ha. I didn't even LOOK at the headline. Oops. :laugh:

 

Well, it seems like a lighthearted headline aimed at parents... I'm not a "child" anymore (obviously) but if my parents refer to my siblings and I as their "kids" all the time... because we are. We're grown, but we're still their kids. ;)

[usetoschool]

Twenty-six, no job, living at home...you are a child (and need to grow up FAST)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*disclaimer - yes, I know there are extenuating/special circumstances and not everyone living with parents at this age is a slacker

[sheryl]

Well, I'm not inferring one way or the other. So......

 

There are very mature 26 year olds today, but it is not the norm.

 

"Today's" 26 year olds are rather immature in many ways. The 26 year olds of years ago had more responsibilities not only to elf, but to the larger unit called the family, larger still to the community, etc.

 

My soon to be 32 year old niece is rather immature in "some" ways. She is a "good" kid.......young adult, but she's still somewhat immature.

[Aubrey]

Why should employers have to pay health insurance for a person in their 20's, not working for said employer? That is insane. These are not even "young adults" in my mind. For goodness sake 26 is closer to 30 than 20. At that age I was pg with my third kid and I had a mortgage and found my own insurance thankyouverymuch.

 

I can understand covering students until age 21 because in this society we don't bestow all privileges of adulthood until that age. After that though the "kids" need to grow up. I can't for the life of me figure out why a 26 yo person would need to be on mommy's insurance. (chronically ill, disabled persons being exempt from my rant and generally being covered under special clauses in the insurance policy anyway)

 

You know, at that age, I had ins, a mtg, a grad degree, 2.5 kids, too. BUT...

 

if most people finish hs at 17-19, then 4 yrs in college means they're 21-23 when they finish that. Maybe they're single & want to go to grad school & could do better/faster, etc. if they didn't have to find a FT job WITH benefits. Grad school can easily be anywhere from 2 to what...8yrs?

 

And then there are people who get pregnant sooner than they plan to. Maybe they're irresponsible, but then what if they want to get their lives together? If they're only 22, it seems like mom & dad should still be able to help *if they want to.*

 

I have a cousin who was in the above situation. She moved in w/ her parents, was able to get herself & her baby on her mom's ins, & *because of that,* she was able to finish school & didn't have to worry that her barely-subsistence job wouldn't pay the bills. She didn't get trapped by poor planning early in life. She had it tough for a few yrs--her parents weren't easy on her. But she & baby had a roof, food, & ins. After a couple of yrs, she was on her feet & all was good.

[Caroline]

In my observation (small though it may be) maturity is a result of life experience, not age. Even if it is reasonable for someone in their 20's or 30's to live with their parents, why can't that person deal with their own medical expenses? Why should the parent's employer need to pay to cover the insurance of another random adult who happens to be a blood relation of said employee? What's next? Will we need to cover the guy down the street too or uncle Fred? How is the "kid" going to gain maturity if s/he never has to do something so basic as to call and sign up for health insurance.

 

The parent's employer does not need to pay for the insurance. It just needs to offer the have the young adult on the policy. The employer can charge the employee for the insurance, just like the employer can do that for any employee or employee's family member. Who pays what is part of the benefits package.

[emubird]

My experience with getting health insurance on my own at that age was not good. Buying into an insurance plan that isn't subsidized by an employer isn't cheap. If all you can find is a crummy paying job that doesn't offer employees health insurance, you likely are going to find it hard to afford to buy your own.

 

I did "find" insurance that I could have bought, but the company was intent on excluding just about everything. There was little point to buying it, really. They did not exclude conditions; they excluded major body organs. If one had asthma, they refused to insure the lungs. If you got a gunshot wound that entered the lungs, it wasn't insured.

 

People who are lucky enough to make enough money to buy their own insurance, and who can find insurance that doesn't exclude too many things may not see this. But I think this legislation recognized that it's often difficult for young people just out on the job market to find the sort of job that offers good benefits. It's a way of helping them out a little so they don't end up going into bankruptcy over health bills. It happens to be a good thing for society in general, not just the individuals.

[Mejane]

My kids are my kids; they'll always be my kids. You can call your kids whatever you want. ;)

 

I'll say it. I'm happy with the new law. It will feel good to use some of the huge amount we pay in taxes to our own advantage for a change. My daughter is almost 18 and would be dropping off our insurance next year if she goes to a ballet company where health insurance may be iffy if it's offered at all.

[QueenCat]

I'm lucky in that my dh company already had the benefit of all of their insurances (life, dental, medical, vision) up to age 26 (or one year after finishing school of any kind, whichever comes first). Mine can go straight in to their masters, and focus on their education, without worry for meeting their insurance needs. Now, if dh changes companies, we at least won't have to worry about health insurance while their finishing their education.

[LibraryLover]

And? Big deal? Sounds like all smoke, no fire. It makes sense to have these offspring/kids/young adult students on existing insurance. People filing banruptcy for medical expenses strongly and negativly impacts society. Sounds like a sound economic move in these days of under/unemployment. My 'child' can be on our insurance as he works on his MA & PhD, or goes to law school, which will take a number of years, even full time. If he ends up with a stipend somewhere and the insurance deal from the university is good, he can use that. We pay premiums, and we've certainly paid more in than we (thankfully!) have ever taken out.

Edited June 27, 2010 by LibraryLover

[DawnM]

I haven't even looked at DH's insurance policy for older children.

 

At 26 I was in grad school and working full time. I was not yet married nor did I have any children. I did, however, have full health benefits with my job.

 

Dawn

[Daisy]

Headlines are rarely written by the reporters. They are written to garner the greatest number of reads or hits. Thus the headline referring to KIDS will probably get more hits than one that limits the reference to just young adults.

 

Anyway, headlines are often a joke anyway. I've read many that had nothing to do with the actual article content.

 

 

On the topic of insurance for young adults, I remain undecided. I can see the positives for some young adults, but it has already caused an increase in my parent's premiums (and the premiums of most who purchase their own insurance). So young adults who often don't need or use their health insurance are now covered at the expense of older people who can ill-afford an increase in their premiums.

[LibraryLover]

In what way, Daisy? Do you have a link about this? Our insurance premiums would go down if we dropped our college age son (21) who will be a Sr this fall. We pay for each person on our insurance plan. What kind of insurance plan does your parents have?

 

I am also thinking that the number of 26 yr olds still on their parents insurance is quite a small percentage at this point. It's not free to keep these offspring on parent plans. The parents are paying into the plans, and it's true that 26 yr olds are probably healthier than the elderly and not needing care for catastophic events in the way many older folks do. I can't see how young people increase premiums for older people. Elderly people, in general, need more costly care. I thought that statistically it's older people living longer because of costly health care who are more contributing to the increase in premiums. Insurance-wise, a 26 yr old could be a money-maker, in general. It's usually a time of prime health, and is past the risk-taking stage of the teen and very youg adult years. I am not surprised insurance companies don't mind/are encouraging having them or their families pay into an expanded family plan.

Edited June 27, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Kari C in SC]

My kids are my kids; they'll always be my kids. You can call your kids whatever you want. ;)

 

I'll say it. I'm happy with the new law. It will feel good to use some of the huge amount we pay in taxes to our own advantage for a change. My daughter is almost 18 and would be dropping off our insurance next year if she goes to a ballet company where health insurance may be iffy if it's offered at all.

 

:iagree:

[HappyGrace]

I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if it were JUST for people up to that age that are still in school (Master's, PhD, etc.)

[Heatherwith4]

I just want to say...I'm 27. I have been married and had my own health insurance since I was 19. I have three children, a college degree, a mortgage, etc. I have not been a kid for a long time. I realize not everyone follows the same path, but sheesh! Barring special needs, 26 is plenty old enough to be fending for oneself, IMHO.

[Daisy]

In what way, Daisy? Do you have a link about this? Our insurance premiums would go down if we dropped our college age son (21) who will be a Sr this fall. We pay for each person on our insurance plan. What kind of insurance plan does your parents have?

 

 

My parents were specifically told that their premiums (they have to buy their own insurance since they are self-employed) were going up nearly 15% because of this new policy. I suppose the company could have been lying to them but does it really matter? The company is obviously using it as a reason to increase premiums. They mentioned their friends were experiencing the same dilemma. The whole reason it came up is because my parents are not sure they can continue to pay the premiums.

 

I had no problem believing it though. We are regularly told that our car insurance premiums are higher in our city so that the car insurance premiums in the large cities in our state can be kept lower. As a matter of fact our electrical company tells us the same thing. It is a common enough practice.

[KidsHappen]

I am against the government mandating private insurance cover anyone but I applaud companies that offer insurance to any dependent. My hubby has been blessed to work at several companies that offered insurance to any dependent including life partners/SOs, children until the age of 25 and elderly parents. More and more companies were already headed in that direction before the government started trying to manage insurance.

[LibraryLover]

There is a reason insurance companies have the biggest, tallest, most well-maintained buildings n big cities. :D It's not because they are all about helping everyone.

 

Insurance is like gambling. They pay out a little here and there, but the house always wins.

 

My parents were specifically told that their premiums (they have to buy their own insurance since they are self-employed) were going up nearly 15% because of this new policy. I suppose the company could have been lying to them but does it really matter? The company is obviously using it as a reason to increase premiums. They mentioned their friends were experiencing the same dilemma. The whole reason it came up is because my parents are not sure they can continue to pay the premiums.

 

I had no problem believing it though. We are regularly told that our car insurance premiums are higher in our city so that the car insurance premiums in the large cities in our state can be kept lower. As a matter of fact our electrical company tells us the same thing. It is a common enough practice.

[cathmom]

Why aren't students getting insurance through their schools? That's what I did in grad school, and it's what my son does now. When I graduated, I converted my student plan to a private plan, and that's what we still have. It's the only reason we have affordable insurance today.

[LibraryLover]

Why aren't students getting insurance through their schools? That's what I did in grad school, and it's what my son does now. When I graduated, I converted my student plan to a private plan, and that's what we still have. It's the only reason we have affordable insurance today.

 

 

I think some grad programs do, especially if you are employed by the school, which tends to be more common in the sciences. It might be more costly than staying on a parent plan, and with graduate school so $$ hese days, it might be financially impossible some students/programs. It's hard enough to get affordable insurance when one is employed full time.

 

I honestly hope my oldest will get an affordable health plan through his grad program. I wonder if this is more geared towards students who might work part time and attend school part time. P/t workers don't always have the option of buying health insurance through their employer.

Edited June 27, 2010 by LibraryLover

[IdahoHomeschooler]

My child has some pretty complicated medical issues. She gets to have medicaid coverage until she is of age, per my adoption agreement with the state. However, it is likely that she will need medical care beyond that. I was employed full-time between 18-25, and went long periods without insurance. I am very glad that I will be able to keep her on my insurance for much longer, and ensure that she gets the care she requires beyond the major medical and pap smears that school insurance provides. Also, she will always be my kid, no matter how old she is!

[LibraryLover]

My child has some pretty complicated medical issues. She gets to have medicaid coverage until she is of age, per my adoption agreement with the state. However, it is likely that she will need medical care beyond that. I was employed full-time between 18-25, and went long periods without insurance. I am very glad that I will be able to keep her on my insurance for much longer, and ensure that she gets the care she requires beyond the major medical and pap smears that school insurance provides. Also, she will always be my kid, no matter how old she is!

 

 

That's true about major medical and pap smears. It's different when you have a child with issues. I remember our grad school health insurance truly bare bones. We were young and healthy, thankfully, which we hope most young adults are. The companies are wagering that they won't have to pay out hugely to population noted in the artcile. It's not called Actuarial "Science* for nothing. ;)

[Guest]

Perhaps readers should keep in mind that one of the groups with the highest unemployment level these days is newly graduated college students. And whether or not they have a degree, competition is excruciating. An ad for a single waiter opening at a nearby restaurant attracted 750 people looking for work. Things are not the same was they were ten or twenty years ago for young people (or any people) looking for work. And health issues do not wait until you find work. Has anyone paid the full price for dental work or a pair of glasses lately?

[Mynyel]

I dunno..I am kinda on the fence.

 

Never do I believe the government should be mandating anything like this. They need to keep their nose out of it (well to a degree but that is another thread :D).

 

I don't see a problem with having "kids" on a parents insurance...well forever. however I don't believe that an employer should be made to pay for the difference in premiums or even partially if the employer only pays a portion.

 

Not all parents are going to keep kids on their insurance, even in college.

 

If Dad/Mom are willing to keep said child on insurance and pay the difference or the child pays the difference or whatever then who cares? The premium is getting paid and the participants are getting covered.

 

What should matter is who is opting for it and who is paying for it. Not whether or not it is available.

[LibraryLover]

Things have changed, I agree. From the cost of even state college to the cost of insurance to the greater difficulty in finding work. It's different now. I think a safeguard such as this will be cheaper than having thousands and thousands younger/youngish adults out there without any insurance. There are too many famiies with fulltime workers who are havng to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. Lets try a little preventative medicine. :iagree:

Perhaps readers should keep in mind that one of the groups with the highest unemployment level these days is newly graduated college students. And whether or not they have a degree, competition is excruciating. An ad for a single waiter opening at a nearby restaurant attracted 750 people looking for work. Things are not the same was they were ten or twenty years ago for young people (or any people) looking for work. And health issues do not wait until you find work. Has anyone paid the full price for dental work or a pair of glasses lately?

[naturalmom]

For someone with an undergrad degree, it still gives them a couple years to get on their feet, and maybe pay off some of those school loans (that weren't so high a generation ago!)

 

Our insurance options include single, couple without children, or family. As for post-college: of course we want our ds to be independent. But being riddled with school loans and having very high insurance premiums will seriously hinder that. We will be very happy to keep the insurance until he's 26, allow him to live at home after college to pay off some of that debt (and save for house/car/whatever) if that's what he chooses to do. Gaining a more solid independence a couple years later is preferable to us than struggling for far more than a couple of years.

 

(As a side note: I was married and independent at 19, dh and I paid for all our own college, and never sought help from parents at all. We did fine, but we'd like to be available to our kids for a few extra years if that's what they want/need.)

[Embassy]

I was 25 when I finished grad school. I ended up going a couple years without any insurance coverage because I couldn't afford the school's insurance. I'm all for extended coverage being offered. It makes the most sense for those still in school though.

[AHASRADA]

My opinion will be quite unpopular, I'm sure, but I honestly cannot understand people being so upset/insulted/appalled etc. at others receiving benefits or help, whatever kind, from whatever source, simply because they themselves were not in a position to receive them or didn't need them when in a similar situation.

 

What happened to wanting for our fellow man what we would want for ourselves, working together and supporting each other as a family and community? I can think of a lot worse things (and more drawing on the "system") that a young adult could be doing than going school and/or trying to get his/her feet on the ground and learning to be a responsible member of society, and if that takes a few more years for some than for others, so be it.

 

In these types of situations, I always like to stand back and take a historical view of where we are and how we got here. For instance, where did this "out on their own/on their own two feet" sentiment come from? I'm thinking returning WWII GIs, when young people were encouraged to move off the family farm into their own home, purchase their own appliances, their own vehicle, etc. Up until that point, most "kids" lived at home, contributing to the family farm or business, and often stayed even after they married, with the younger generation eventually taking over from and taking care of their parents. There was no "magic" or arbitrary age at which they were to leave home and become instant self-sufficient adults. In the current economic climate, I think this assumption has become even less reasonable.

 

Now for healthcare. How on earth did healthcare get tied up with a person's job? Why should the deciding factor in whether or not a person has health coverage be whether their employer offers it? There was a great story on NPR about the history of this arrangement http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132

It was basically a perk that employers added to attract workers back when there was no such thing as health insurance (and when an illness did not threaten to wipe out a person's total net worth). I hope we can agree that health care, and therefore health insurance, has become a necessity, not a "perk", and it no longer makes sense for citizens to be dependent upon their employer to offer it (especially if they don't have one, or are under-employed). I am not satisfied with the new legislation, because it looks like a giant bandaid on a fundamentally ill-conceived system. The system needs to be completely overhauled, not necessarily government-sponsored or public, but creating insurance pools based on geography or some criteria other than employer-based, and including everyone.

 

OK, kind of OT, I know, sorry. I just don't see why anyone would begrudge a young person, or any person, affordable access to healthcare, or begrudge that person's family from helping them in this, or any way for that matter, if they so choose.

[LibraryLover]

I think if you read the thread, you'll see most people agreeing that it's not a horrible idea.

 

My opinion will be quite unpopular, I'm sure, but I honestly cannot understand people being so upset/insulted/appalled etc. at others receiving benefits or help, whatever kind, from whatever source, simply because they themselves were not in a position to receive them or didn't need them when in a similar situation.

.

[Joanne]

If most people finish hs at 17-19, then 4 yrs in college means they're 21-23 when they finish that. Maybe they're single & want to go to grad school & could do better/faster, etc. if they didn't have to find a FT job WITH benefits. Grad school can easily be anywhere from 2 to what...8yrs?

 

In complete contrast to the poster above who feels all the love, care and responsibility for theirs and others..........

 

I don't. :001_huh:

 

At early/mid 20's, it's time to get a job. In addition to school if that's what it takes.

 

I'm not going to, but I could list the jobs I've had as an overweight, middled aged, out of the workforce for 13 years mom during the last 3 years. They weren't pretty, they weren't fun, they didn't pay well. I have held at least 2 and as many as 4 - while a *full time* graduate school student with a 4.0.

 

It's not easy. But it's what adults *do* when things aren't easy.

 

BTW, even as an undergrad in the ages listed in this thead, I worked on campus as a work study, *off* campus as a waitress (unheard of in the small, private school I attended) and managed 2 full BA degress in 4 years. My recent years are not born of more maturity and the unique needs of my adult choices - work and independence is part of my family of origin's culture.

[Mommyof4ks]

Why should employers have to pay health insurance for a person in their 20's, not working for said employer? That is insane. These are not even "young adults" in my mind. For goodness sake 26 is closer to 30 than 20. At that age I was pg with my third kid and I had a mortgage and found my own insurance thankyouverymuch.

 

I can understand covering students until age 21 because in this society we don't bestow all privileges of adulthood until that age. After that though the "kids" need to grow up. I can't for the life of me figure out why a 26 yo person would need to be on mommy's insurance. (chronically ill, disabled persons being exempt from my rant and generally being covered under special clauses in the insurance policy anyway)

 

This sounds like my life lol. I was pg with my 3rd kid at 26 too with a mortgage and a college degree. I could not imagine my parents still carrying me on any kind of insurance at that age.

[MrsMe]

Just another reason for a lack of responsibility growing up. Get 'em to live "off" somebody early on. Socialism at it's best.

[Barb_]

My 20yo is still my kid. Sometimes I refer to her as my grown kid. Other times I don't bother and she's just one of my seven kids. I read the headline as "A Little More Help for Your Struggling Dependent About Whom You Still Feel Protective Toward and Who Is Having Trouble Scoring A Job With Health Insurance Due to Economic Pressures or Grad School" The word "Kid" seems like the better choice. I think I would feel the same as you if they continued to refer to them as children throughout the article, but in the title it just seemed they were using it as an affectionate term of endearment and a nod toward parents of a certain age.

 

Barb

[SproutMamaK]

I have no problem with the policy, nor with them referring to an adult child as someone's 'kid'. I do, however, have a problem with society in general. I hate to see people talking about Jersey Shore and any other host of "reality" (and I use the term loosely) shows as the 'youth of today'. It seems that 30 is the new 20. Only a decade or two ago, a 30 year old half-dressed in a night club was an embarrassment, and now it's totally acceptable - even normal. I find that, outside of church and homeschooling circles, people seem to think that you're not mature enough to even THINK of marriage until you're 30.

 

FTR, at age 20 I was a college-graduate, licensed insurance broker, home-owner, and wife. At 26 I had three kids (two of them special needs), a home business (and a standing offer for a part-time job in my prior field), etc. I suppose I am bragging a little bit ;) , but it annoys me when people use youth as an excuse for laziness, idiocy, and especially selfishness. It REALLY annoys me when people extend them timeline for said "youth" to make themselves feel better about their own actions, or the actions of someone else that they'd rather not have to deal with. These 'kids' COULD grow up at any age, if they felt so inclined. But they DON'T feel so inclined - why would they when society is so enamored with their self-indulgent lifestyle?

[EmilyK]

Why should employers have to pay health insurance for a person in their 20's, not working for said employer? That is insane. These are not even "young adults" in my mind. For goodness sake 26 is closer to 30 than 20. At that age I was pg with my third kid and I had a mortgage and found my own insurance thankyouverymuch.

 

I can understand covering students until age 21 because in this society we don't bestow all privileges of adulthood until that age. After that though the "kids" need to grow up. I can't for the life of me figure out why a 26 yo person would need to be on mommy's insurance. (chronically ill, disabled persons being exempt from my rant and generally being covered under special clauses in the insurance policy anyway)

 

I think the idea isn't that the employers would pay for it as much as the young adult / child of the employee would be eligible to be in the group. I've seen this situation with someone I supervised. The employer didn't pay for the children's insurance but you were allowed to have your child up to 25 be part of the group. A 22 year old daughter was pregnant and it was a relief that she could be covered as a part of the parents' insurance even though the premium was paid by the employee.

 

I've known many people who were out of work and found it hard to get insurance because they weren't part of a group plan any more.

[Mejane]

Just another reason for a lack of responsibility growing up. Get 'em to live "off" somebody early on. Socialism at it's best.

 

I'd laugh but for that irritating apostrophe.

[Joker]

My kids will always be my "kids". I don't know how this new policy change will work and if it will all work out for the best. I do know that I had a major medical problem at 20 and was not on my parents policy and had a horrible plan through my job. I paid for that for many, many years. My older brother had an emergency appendectomy while in college and on an insurance plan through that college and it still cost my parents a lot of money. My older dd has said for the last two years that she wants to be a lawyer (like her uncle) and if she does pursue that goal I would like to be able to help her by including her in my health insurance coverage.

[LaissezFaire]

I had 3 children by the time I was 25! I had been married 6 years. I would have been so insulted to have been called a kid.

[Hannah C.]

I am currently 21, married, almost done with college, and expecting a baby. I am independent. I even have health insurance, which my DH and I pay for independently. (My college does offer health insurance for students to buy, but it is *awful* and covers very little.)

 

HOWEVER: this health insurance *DOES NOT* cover maternity. The *ONLY* insurance plans which cover maternity are *GROUP* plans, which as far as I know cannot be acquired by individuals unless they get them as part of a job. NO job my DH or I can get at this point in our lives offers their employees insurance. I'm hoping to get on Medicaid so that my prenatal care and delivery can be covered. I'm also going to a midwife, which is much cheaper than a hospital birth. If I can't get government aid we might be able to scrape up the money out of pocket or work out a payment plan without bankrupting ourselves, but it would still be hard.

 

The new regulations will apparently let anyone under the age of 26 back onto their parents' work insurance plans under certain conditions...including those who are married. This could be very, very good for me, because I would be covered in case of pregnancy, which cannot be achieved otherwise except through government aid. Also, my parents are willing to let me back on their insurance.

 

No parent should be obligated to cover their adult children for insurance, especially if the children are basically independent otherwise. But if parents want to have adult children on their insurance still, this gives them the option. And it gives the children/young adults without good jobs a chance at *really good* insurance which they will not be able to get any other way.

[joannqn]

HOWEVER: this health insurance *DOES NOT* cover maternity. The *ONLY* insurance plans which cover maternity are *GROUP* plans, which as far as I know cannot be acquired by individuals unless they get them as part of a job.

 

I'd keeping looking. Every state differs, but here in Washington you can get individual plans that cover maternity. I've had four children on individual plans.

Edited June 28, 2010 by joannqn

[vonfirmath]

Has anyone paid the full price for dental work or a pair of glasses lately?

 

Yes. We have neither dental nor vision insurance. We have this work in our budget. But I will say, even when we had the insurance, esp for dental? It was a joke that we often debated whether to pay for. So I did not think not having this insurance was a big deal.

 

(And I know folk who went online and paid a LOT less than me for glasses. So it is possible)

 

(And my husband is 32 and back at college earning his masters, on the way to a doctorate, after his previous degree ended up with no job. So perhaps they should extend that age to the mid-30s instead...)

Edited June 28, 2010 by vonfirmath

[susankenny]

Well, some "kids" are still in college in their mid 20's... therefore, they aren't working and do live at home. So what.

 

Susan

[Aubrey]

At early/mid 20's, it's time to get a job. In addition to school if that's what it takes.

 

I'm not going to, but I could list the jobs I've had as an overweight, middled aged, out of the workforce for 13 years mom during the last 3 years. They weren't pretty, they weren't fun, they didn't pay well. I have held at least 2 and as many as 4 - while a *full time* graduate school student with a 4.0.

 

It's not easy. But it's what adults *do* when things aren't easy.

 

BTW, even as an undergrad in the ages listed in this thead, I worked on campus as a work study, *off* campus as a waitress (unheard of in the small, private school I attended) and managed 2 full BA degress in 4 years. My recent years are not born of more maturity and the unique needs of my adult choices - work and independence is part of my family of origin's culture.

 

My great-grandmother paid her own bills & worked her own farm until she was 94. She walked to the store & church. By your logic, that means we should remove retirement benefits from everyone under 94 because a few people can take care of themselves that late into life.

 

It's great when people have ins on their own in their early 20s. It would be nice if it weren't the end of the world if they didn't. It's great when people can work their way through college. Sometimes it's nice when they can focus on their studies. I worked 1-3 jobs at a time when I was in school. Not one of them offered ins of any kind.

[Barb_]

I'm sure it all varies by state but here, if you go to the BC/BS website or the Kaiser website they have a section for individual plans and yes, they cover maternity. I had dd1 on a BC individual plan. They are based on age and basically make a "group" out of all the signed up individuals in that age bracket. Healthy and in your 20's means pretty reasonable rates btw.

 

In Oregon at least if you are pg and uninsured you are automatically qualified for the state health plan btw. A number of states have these plans.

 

I guess I just don't see why it is important that 25 yos be covered by their parents group plans when they can just go out and buy their own insurance. Do people not realize that individual insurance exists? If they are going to have to pay the premium anyway, why not just get their own?

 

Because 42 states aren't eligible for Kaiser. BC/BS has a mandatory 12 month waiting period for maternity. Also low deductible and co-insurance = sky high premiums. Lower premiums mean much more out of pocket for treatment. Group insurance is cheaper with better benefits in most cases. I would much rather see my oldest on our plan than on her own plan.

 

Barb

[Garga]

I worked for a couple of health insurance companies. Some of our customers would buy the "student rider." This would allow full time college students to remain on their parent's plans. Different riders had different ages we'd pay up to: 21, 25 and one was 27. Those were for the doctor/lawyer students. We were required to have a copy of their college schedule to confirm that they were taking a full 12 credits each semester.

[Barb_]

That wasn't my experience.

 

Which part?

 

Barb

 

ETA: I just headed over to BCBS and did the worksheet just for fun. My family pays about $350/mo for coverage for all 9 of us. We have no deductible as long as we stay in network and co-pays are only $15. Out of network our deductible is $250 for an individual and $500 for a family and co-pays stay the same. In contrast, BCBS would cost us $350 for a plan with a $3000 deductible and a 40% copay. If my daughter were to pay for an individual plan comparable to what our group insurance offers, she would be coughing up $525 a month. And there is a waiting period of a year for any preexisting conditions or for a pregnancy. There is no waiting period for pre-existing on a group plan as long as there hasn't been any drop in coverage.

 

Anyway, as it is, BC/BS will cover unmarried dependents up to age 30 on a family plan. Which is great! But sort of renders the original argument moot, LOL.

 

Barb

Edited June 29, 2010 by Barb F. PA in AZ