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

[blahblahblah]

In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.[/quote]

Um, Brian, most health plans from companies do provide a surcharge for families versus singles..

Usually:
1. Single
2. Single + Spouse(no other insurance plan available)
3. Single + Spouse(other insurance plan available)
4. Single + Family (spouse and kid(s), no other insurance plan available)
5. Single + Family (source and kid(s), other insurance plan available)

1-5 are not the same cost for people. Especially #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. The rationale is if the other spouse has her own insurance from her own company, than there should be extra costs to choose to have this insurance plan be her primary versus hers.

The exception to this are Qualcomm employees, who have no insurance premiums to pay. The company is self-insured.(United Healthcare is hired only to administer the self insurance). It’s also nice, since QC folks won’t have to pay for the health insurance surcharges, I think…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.[/quote]

Um, Brian, most health plans from companies do provide a surcharge for families versus singles..

Usually:
1. Single
2. Single + Spouse(no other insurance plan available)
3. Single + Spouse(other insurance plan available)
4. Single + Family (spouse and kid(s), no other insurance plan available)
5. Single + Family (source and kid(s), other insurance plan available)

1-5 are not the same cost for people. Especially #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. The rationale is if the other spouse has her own insurance from her own company, than there should be extra costs to choose to have this insurance plan be her primary versus hers.

The exception to this are Qualcomm employees, who have no insurance premiums to pay. The company is self-insured.(United Healthcare is hired only to administer the self insurance). It’s also nice, since QC folks won’t have to pay for the health insurance surcharges, I think…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.[/quote]

Um, Brian, most health plans from companies do provide a surcharge for families versus singles..

Usually:
1. Single
2. Single + Spouse(no other insurance plan available)
3. Single + Spouse(other insurance plan available)
4. Single + Family (spouse and kid(s), no other insurance plan available)
5. Single + Family (source and kid(s), other insurance plan available)

1-5 are not the same cost for people. Especially #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. The rationale is if the other spouse has her own insurance from her own company, than there should be extra costs to choose to have this insurance plan be her primary versus hers.

The exception to this are Qualcomm employees, who have no insurance premiums to pay. The company is self-insured.(United Healthcare is hired only to administer the self insurance). It’s also nice, since QC folks won’t have to pay for the health insurance surcharges, I think…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.[/quote]

Um, Brian, most health plans from companies do provide a surcharge for families versus singles..

Usually:
1. Single
2. Single + Spouse(no other insurance plan available)
3. Single + Spouse(other insurance plan available)
4. Single + Family (spouse and kid(s), no other insurance plan available)
5. Single + Family (source and kid(s), other insurance plan available)

1-5 are not the same cost for people. Especially #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. The rationale is if the other spouse has her own insurance from her own company, than there should be extra costs to choose to have this insurance plan be her primary versus hers.

The exception to this are Qualcomm employees, who have no insurance premiums to pay. The company is self-insured.(United Healthcare is hired only to administer the self insurance). It’s also nice, since QC folks won’t have to pay for the health insurance surcharges, I think…

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.[/quote]

Um, Brian, most health plans from companies do provide a surcharge for families versus singles..

Usually:
1. Single
2. Single + Spouse(no other insurance plan available)
3. Single + Spouse(other insurance plan available)
4. Single + Family (spouse and kid(s), no other insurance plan available)
5. Single + Family (source and kid(s), other insurance plan available)

1-5 are not the same cost for people. Especially #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. The rationale is if the other spouse has her own insurance from her own company, than there should be extra costs to choose to have this insurance plan be her primary versus hers.

The exception to this are Qualcomm employees, who have no insurance premiums to pay. The company is self-insured.(United Healthcare is hired only to administer the self insurance). It’s also nice, since QC folks won’t have to pay for the health insurance surcharges, I think…

[Coronita]

[quote=CONCHO]In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.[/quote]

I look at it another way… Health care needs to be (or is going to need to be rationed)…Folks like this I think are taking away resources from other folks who really need it.

[Coronita]

[quote=CONCHO]In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.[/quote]

I look at it another way… Health care needs to be (or is going to need to be rationed)…Folks like this I think are taking away resources from other folks who really need it.

[Coronita]

[quote=CONCHO]In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.[/quote]

I look at it another way… Health care needs to be (or is going to need to be rationed)…Folks like this I think are taking away resources from other folks who really need it.

[Coronita]

[quote=CONCHO]In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.[/quote]

I look at it another way… Health care needs to be (or is going to need to be rationed)…Folks like this I think are taking away resources from other folks who really need it.

[Author]

Posts