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

[desmond]

I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?

[briansd1]

[quote=desmond]I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

Very good point.

With the kids insured, the premiums are being paid by the employers, the parents, or a combination of the two.

So as afx said, premiums are being contributed to the system which should in theory decrease costs (since young folks are healthy and don’t us much insurance).

[briansd1]

[quote=desmond]I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

Very good point.

With the kids insured, the premiums are being paid by the employers, the parents, or a combination of the two.

So as afx said, premiums are being contributed to the system which should in theory decrease costs (since young folks are healthy and don’t us much insurance).

[briansd1]

[quote=desmond]I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

Very good point.

With the kids insured, the premiums are being paid by the employers, the parents, or a combination of the two.

So as afx said, premiums are being contributed to the system which should in theory decrease costs (since young folks are healthy and don’t us much insurance).

[briansd1]

[quote=desmond]I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

Very good point.

With the kids insured, the premiums are being paid by the employers, the parents, or a combination of the two.

So as afx said, premiums are being contributed to the system which should in theory decrease costs (since young folks are healthy and don’t us much insurance).

[briansd1]

[quote=desmond]I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

Very good point.

With the kids insured, the premiums are being paid by the employers, the parents, or a combination of the two.

So as afx said, premiums are being contributed to the system which should in theory decrease costs (since young folks are healthy and don’t us much insurance).

[enron_by_the_sea]

Not directly related to the question asked:

The more I think about our health “insurance” scam, the more I see us moving towards something that George W. Bush has already created – HSA accounts with high deductible insurance.

I see these plans becoming more and more common in the workplace already and I fear that with the new healthcare “reform” passed, the trend towards them is only going to accelerate.

America will not accept any other option – true free market, completely govt. operated plan, Swiss model, French model, British model, Anarchy, Jungle Law ….

Like it or not – the future of our healthcare is HSA+HDHP and some bargaining with your favorite doctor.

I am in the 5th stage of Anger-Denial-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance cycle of this issue. Most of the country seems to be in stages 2 and 3.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Not directly related to the question asked:

The more I think about our health “insurance” scam, the more I see us moving towards something that George W. Bush has already created – HSA accounts with high deductible insurance.

I see these plans becoming more and more common in the workplace already and I fear that with the new healthcare “reform” passed, the trend towards them is only going to accelerate.

America will not accept any other option – true free market, completely govt. operated plan, Swiss model, French model, British model, Anarchy, Jungle Law ….

Like it or not – the future of our healthcare is HSA+HDHP and some bargaining with your favorite doctor.

I am in the 5th stage of Anger-Denial-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance cycle of this issue. Most of the country seems to be in stages 2 and 3.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Not directly related to the question asked:

The more I think about our health “insurance” scam, the more I see us moving towards something that George W. Bush has already created – HSA accounts with high deductible insurance.

I see these plans becoming more and more common in the workplace already and I fear that with the new healthcare “reform” passed, the trend towards them is only going to accelerate.

America will not accept any other option – true free market, completely govt. operated plan, Swiss model, French model, British model, Anarchy, Jungle Law ….

Like it or not – the future of our healthcare is HSA+HDHP and some bargaining with your favorite doctor.

I am in the 5th stage of Anger-Denial-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance cycle of this issue. Most of the country seems to be in stages 2 and 3.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Not directly related to the question asked:

The more I think about our health “insurance” scam, the more I see us moving towards something that George W. Bush has already created – HSA accounts with high deductible insurance.

I see these plans becoming more and more common in the workplace already and I fear that with the new healthcare “reform” passed, the trend towards them is only going to accelerate.

America will not accept any other option – true free market, completely govt. operated plan, Swiss model, French model, British model, Anarchy, Jungle Law ….

Like it or not – the future of our healthcare is HSA+HDHP and some bargaining with your favorite doctor.

I am in the 5th stage of Anger-Denial-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance cycle of this issue. Most of the country seems to be in stages 2 and 3.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Not directly related to the question asked:

The more I think about our health “insurance” scam, the more I see us moving towards something that George W. Bush has already created – HSA accounts with high deductible insurance.

I see these plans becoming more and more common in the workplace already and I fear that with the new healthcare “reform” passed, the trend towards them is only going to accelerate.

America will not accept any other option – true free market, completely govt. operated plan, Swiss model, French model, British model, Anarchy, Jungle Law ….

Like it or not – the future of our healthcare is HSA+HDHP and some bargaining with your favorite doctor.

I am in the 5th stage of Anger-Denial-Bargaining-Depression-Acceptance cycle of this issue. Most of the country seems to be in stages 2 and 3.

[Coronita]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m just wondering though..If that’s the case, why did comapany insurances then explicitly limit dependent care coverage. IF bringing more people into a system actually reduces cost overall, it seems like companies should encourage people to sign up more dependent care folks, which clearly isn’t the case…

My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…

[Coronita]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m just wondering though..If that’s the case, why did comapany insurances then explicitly limit dependent care coverage. IF bringing more people into a system actually reduces cost overall, it seems like companies should encourage people to sign up more dependent care folks, which clearly isn’t the case…

My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…

[Coronita]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m just wondering though..If that’s the case, why did comapany insurances then explicitly limit dependent care coverage. IF bringing more people into a system actually reduces cost overall, it seems like companies should encourage people to sign up more dependent care folks, which clearly isn’t the case…

My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…

[Coronita]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m just wondering though..If that’s the case, why did comapany insurances then explicitly limit dependent care coverage. IF bringing more people into a system actually reduces cost overall, it seems like companies should encourage people to sign up more dependent care folks, which clearly isn’t the case…

My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…

[Author]

Posts