"dependent children," meaning young adults, under the FAR-outspread wings of
their parents' health insurance policies, at least until age 26, is now a mandated option
under Obamacare. Living with mommy and daddy, or NOT. . . being married, or NOT, they are
eligible now under federal law to be added to "family" coverage.
When do children stop being children? When they inherit the house?
Stretching the federal definition of "children" reflects an ever-growing
paternalism, a push back of coming-of-age, delaying adulthood? Time was a young person was
"aged out" of family coverage at 19, or when they finished being a full-time
student, or at age 21. Not any more.
Costly it will be, but who cares? Parents paying additionally for family coverage will
be hit, yet again, for certainly increased premiums, based on cold actuarial numbers.
Common sense tells us this, but that's rare commodity today in Foggy Bottom.
Add that to the rising costs of all health insurance (estimated hikes of 10-13% at
first, more to come as more goodies kick in), along with untold hundreds of thousands of
jobs lost, and you have the ingredients here, if you look real closely, of a financial
meltdown and a national disaster. It is some measure of the dim future, with yet untold
damage looming by passage of this mammoth health insurance bill. ("Reform health
care?" Nope, it's all about who pays for the insurance Health care at present in
America is in relatively good shape, thank you.)
All this revamping of health care insurance, mandated and expanded, and still no tort
reform? Boggles the mind, what power-mad Democrats are up to, ramming their agenda upon
the unwilling while protecting their union friends and trial lawyers. In fall elections,
yes, there will be penalties for such excessive laws and protecting friends.
Already "aged out" of parents' plan? The new law says that at policy holders
(parents') option, you must be let back, in under the new law. It does not matter if the
"child" is a student, or not. Married, or not.. Sort of carte blanche re-entry,
and don't even talk about pre-existing conditions.
In six months, "children" up to the magic age 26 --not 19, 21 or 24 -- can,
with their parents' okay, stay on the "family" policy. So the dependent kid,
forever a child of lesser gods, is encouraged to remain tethered to apron strings. The
bill just signed -- to the gushing, ga-ga euphoria of cheerleading liberal news media - is
effective in six months. For most plan, that means such available coverage begins in the
2011 plan year.
"Children" then get to go on parents' policies: 1. Rregardless of health
condition. (Remember? No pre-existing conditions.) 2. Regardless of marriage status.
(Bride or groom come home, again, to live with mommy and daddy? What a deal!.) 3.
Regardless of whether or not they are in school, or not, a benchmark of previous plans.
The law refers to "dependent child," but does not define him or her. Does
that mean they must be listed on the parents' tax returns? Presumably an army of
bureaucrats will dish up reams of Government-speak regulations, clearing up untidy ends,
meaning a newly-enlarged Dept. of Education bureaucrats will "make new laws" in
the form of all-encompassing rule-making.
The White House website, along with compliant media, calls it "an instant
benefit." Forget the consequences. The White House website adds: ""Children
[sic] would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26."
Thirty states have enacted laws permitting young adults under their parents' policies.
Most states say 24, some less, and require student status. In Illinois, such coverage is
available to age 30 when a dependent is a veteran. In New Jersey, it's age age 31.
According to CNN, "... children can't have jobs that offer insurance, and they
must be claimed as dependents on their parents' taxes." In most states, CNN says,
"dependents get booted off mom and dad's health insurance policy as early as age
Under Obamacare, state laws are trumped. Federal law triumphs, Big Brother-like, and
state laws squelched, states' rights a thing of the past. "Millions of adult
children," says CNN with tacit approval, " will be eligible to be enrolled in
their parents' group health plan." Whoopie!
No mention is made, or even estimated, of costs. Anyway, all that lies in the future.
Good Things apparently are free? Manna from heaven? At this point even self-insured
(non-group) plans are tagged with this provision of the long-arm grip of Big Government.
Indeed, and in words, the new "reform" law provides incentives for a young
adult, still "the kid," to remain tied to mommy and daddy's loving care.
Certainly there is a psychic cost to all this for the young adult, being treated, even
called, a "child," under the law. More work for psychologists in the young adult
Disincentives are at work, folks. All the result of the sleazy sausage-making in
closed-door meetings, back room deals, blatant bribery for votes, no promised hearings on
C-SPAN, no five days posted on the internet, for the public to examine this Frankenstein
Monster. Promises? What promises? You know, campaign baloney.
Costs of this largesse, now and in the future, is lost to most Democrats and their
putting-down experts, liberal pundits, such as chronic liar Paul Krugman. They have
blinders on, or blindfolds, not to see clearly the dark reality. In the fantasy world they
inhabit, trees grow money and when shaken, drop benefits. Free lunches, everywhere. Now if
we could just find that money tree!
About 30% of the nation's young adults, 19 to 29, are currently uninsured, according to
Health Watch.com. Many scarcely need health insurance, being healthy beings - and
seemingly, invincible - and choose not to take it. Now they can be fined, and their
employers punished, for not bowing down to diktats of the new "reform" law.