OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[AK]

Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.

[UCGal]

This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.

[UCGal]

This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.

[UCGal]

This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.

[UCGal]

This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.

[UCGal]

This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.

[Coronita]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.[/quote]

I don’t think this is a blue/red state issue either. But I’m really trying to understand why someone that is otherwise independent can still tack on to a parent’s insurance. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe if
1) the person a still a full time student
2) the person wasn’t working at a job
3) the person had a preexisting condition that made insurance really unobtainable under an individual plan.

But I don’t see #1-3 in the example above.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

That’s not true. When I was young and in ok health, my insurance was $150/month. I say ok health because I wasn’t necessarily in great shape…I guess I don’t know what would be considered “expensive” insurance.

[Coronita]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.[/quote]

I don’t think this is a blue/red state issue either. But I’m really trying to understand why someone that is otherwise independent can still tack on to a parent’s insurance. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe if
1) the person a still a full time student
2) the person wasn’t working at a job
3) the person had a preexisting condition that made insurance really unobtainable under an individual plan.

But I don’t see #1-3 in the example above.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

That’s not true. When I was young and in ok health, my insurance was $150/month. I say ok health because I wasn’t necessarily in great shape…I guess I don’t know what would be considered “expensive” insurance.

[Coronita]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.[/quote]

I don’t think this is a blue/red state issue either. But I’m really trying to understand why someone that is otherwise independent can still tack on to a parent’s insurance. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe if
1) the person a still a full time student
2) the person wasn’t working at a job
3) the person had a preexisting condition that made insurance really unobtainable under an individual plan.

But I don’t see #1-3 in the example above.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

That’s not true. When I was young and in ok health, my insurance was $150/month. I say ok health because I wasn’t necessarily in great shape…I guess I don’t know what would be considered “expensive” insurance.

[Coronita]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.[/quote]

I don’t think this is a blue/red state issue either. But I’m really trying to understand why someone that is otherwise independent can still tack on to a parent’s insurance. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe if
1) the person a still a full time student
2) the person wasn’t working at a job
3) the person had a preexisting condition that made insurance really unobtainable under an individual plan.

But I don’t see #1-3 in the example above.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

That’s not true. When I was young and in ok health, my insurance was $150/month. I say ok health because I wasn’t necessarily in great shape…I guess I don’t know what would be considered “expensive” insurance.

[Coronita]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

No, I don’t think that young adults are net beneficiaries because when they do get their own insurance, they’ll be required to pay higher premiums to subsidize old farts like myself.

I don’t think this is necessarily a blue state / red state issue, since the trend of covering adult children started in some of the reddest states of all.[/quote]

I don’t think this is a blue/red state issue either. But I’m really trying to understand why someone that is otherwise independent can still tack on to a parent’s insurance. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe if
1) the person a still a full time student
2) the person wasn’t working at a job
3) the person had a preexisting condition that made insurance really unobtainable under an individual plan.

But I don’t see #1-3 in the example above.

No, I don’t think it’s practical for many young adults to purchase private health insurance … it’s hard to qualify for an individual policy unless you’re in absolutely perfect health, and that age group gets raked over the coals for car insurance. And let’s face it, a car is a necessity, especially since relying on public transit shrinks the pool of potential jobs drastically.

That’s not true. When I was young and in ok health, my insurance was $150/month. I say ok health because I wasn’t necessarily in great shape…I guess I don’t know what would be considered “expensive” insurance.

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.[/quote]

Edit…I just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, my bad.
I think in your particular case, your brother had a preexisting condition, I can see where this would make sense in that case.

I’m wondering about the person in the article though, because apparently she says she’s healthy.

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.[/quote]

Edit…I just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, my bad.
I think in your particular case, your brother had a preexisting condition, I can see where this would make sense in that case.

I’m wondering about the person in the article though, because apparently she says she’s healthy.

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.[/quote]

Edit…I just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, my bad.
I think in your particular case, your brother had a preexisting condition, I can see where this would make sense in that case.

I’m wondering about the person in the article though, because apparently she says she’s healthy.

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.[/quote]

Edit…I just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, my bad.
I think in your particular case, your brother had a preexisting condition, I can see where this would make sense in that case.

I’m wondering about the person in the article though, because apparently she says she’s healthy.

[Author]

Posts