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

[afx114]

[quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

The problem with this system is that private insurers see that extra $19bln as profit and pay themselves bonuses accordingly for doing such a great job making the company money.[/quote]

Did your parents pay for the entire insurance premium, was that $200/month just part of the premium and somone else paid for the rest? I don’t know if your parents had their own insurance policy 100% or not.

I think I am starting to get it. The fundamental difference I think I’m seeing is that this rule applies to the insurance policy irrespective of who has the policy (whether it’s a policy where the parents pay 100% of the premium, or in the a corporate case in which the cost is shared by the individual paying a partial premium and the employer paying the rest)….

If one pays for ones own insurance, I see where one might want to keep their kid(s) on their the same policy.. Versus in a corporation type setting, the cost is shared by both employer and employee..I don’t suppose a corporation and prevent that from happening though….

Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

The problem with this system is that private insurers see that extra $19bln as profit and pay themselves bonuses accordingly for doing such a great job making the company money.[/quote]

Did your parents pay for the entire insurance premium, was that $200/month just part of the premium and somone else paid for the rest? I don’t know if your parents had their own insurance policy 100% or not.

I think I am starting to get it. The fundamental difference I think I’m seeing is that this rule applies to the insurance policy irrespective of who has the policy (whether it’s a policy where the parents pay 100% of the premium, or in the a corporate case in which the cost is shared by the individual paying a partial premium and the employer paying the rest)….

If one pays for ones own insurance, I see where one might want to keep their kid(s) on their the same policy.. Versus in a corporation type setting, the cost is shared by both employer and employee..I don’t suppose a corporation and prevent that from happening though….

Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

The problem with this system is that private insurers see that extra $19bln as profit and pay themselves bonuses accordingly for doing such a great job making the company money.[/quote]

Did your parents pay for the entire insurance premium, was that $200/month just part of the premium and somone else paid for the rest? I don’t know if your parents had their own insurance policy 100% or not.

I think I am starting to get it. The fundamental difference I think I’m seeing is that this rule applies to the insurance policy irrespective of who has the policy (whether it’s a policy where the parents pay 100% of the premium, or in the a corporate case in which the cost is shared by the individual paying a partial premium and the employer paying the rest)….

If one pays for ones own insurance, I see where one might want to keep their kid(s) on their the same policy.. Versus in a corporation type setting, the cost is shared by both employer and employee..I don’t suppose a corporation and prevent that from happening though….

Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

The problem with this system is that private insurers see that extra $19bln as profit and pay themselves bonuses accordingly for doing such a great job making the company money.[/quote]

Did your parents pay for the entire insurance premium, was that $200/month just part of the premium and somone else paid for the rest? I don’t know if your parents had their own insurance policy 100% or not.

I think I am starting to get it. The fundamental difference I think I’m seeing is that this rule applies to the insurance policy irrespective of who has the policy (whether it’s a policy where the parents pay 100% of the premium, or in the a corporate case in which the cost is shared by the individual paying a partial premium and the employer paying the rest)….

If one pays for ones own insurance, I see where one might want to keep their kid(s) on their the same policy.. Versus in a corporation type setting, the cost is shared by both employer and employee..I don’t suppose a corporation and prevent that from happening though….

Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

The problem with this system is that private insurers see that extra $19bln as profit and pay themselves bonuses accordingly for doing such a great job making the company money.[/quote]

Did your parents pay for the entire insurance premium, was that $200/month just part of the premium and somone else paid for the rest? I don’t know if your parents had their own insurance policy 100% or not.

I think I am starting to get it. The fundamental difference I think I’m seeing is that this rule applies to the insurance policy irrespective of who has the policy (whether it’s a policy where the parents pay 100% of the premium, or in the a corporate case in which the cost is shared by the individual paying a partial premium and the employer paying the rest)….

If one pays for ones own insurance, I see where one might want to keep their kid(s) on their the same policy.. Versus in a corporation type setting, the cost is shared by both employer and employee..I don’t suppose a corporation and prevent that from happening though….

Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.[/quote]

This is the math that the health care bill was balanced upon. Basically saying that we will force the young to buy insurance, pooling thier money with older workers, and lowering the PER PERSON cost. Total Costs will go up, but per person, it will be cheaper. To account for the fact that alot of 18-26 year olds dont have alot of money, they let them jump on the parental plan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.[/quote]

This is the math that the health care bill was balanced upon. Basically saying that we will force the young to buy insurance, pooling thier money with older workers, and lowering the PER PERSON cost. Total Costs will go up, but per person, it will be cheaper. To account for the fact that alot of 18-26 year olds dont have alot of money, they let them jump on the parental plan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.[/quote]

This is the math that the health care bill was balanced upon. Basically saying that we will force the young to buy insurance, pooling thier money with older workers, and lowering the PER PERSON cost. Total Costs will go up, but per person, it will be cheaper. To account for the fact that alot of 18-26 year olds dont have alot of money, they let them jump on the parental plan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.[/quote]

This is the math that the health care bill was balanced upon. Basically saying that we will force the young to buy insurance, pooling thier money with older workers, and lowering the PER PERSON cost. Total Costs will go up, but per person, it will be cheaper. To account for the fact that alot of 18-26 year olds dont have alot of money, they let them jump on the parental plan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]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)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.[/quote]

This is the math that the health care bill was balanced upon. Basically saying that we will force the young to buy insurance, pooling thier money with older workers, and lowering the PER PERSON cost. Total Costs will go up, but per person, it will be cheaper. To account for the fact that alot of 18-26 year olds dont have alot of money, they let them jump on the parental plan.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.[/quote]

flu, employers are free to require the employee to pay any part or ALL of the premium for their dependents. Typically, an employer offers to pay the full premium for the employee only.

Employers are only REQUIRED to OFFER 22-26 yo dependent coverage (at the employer’s group rates) to an employee under the new health care reform act. They are NOT required to PAY any portion of dependents’ premiums unless they choose to.

I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.[/quote]

flu, employers are free to require the employee to pay any part or ALL of the premium for their dependents. Typically, an employer offers to pay the full premium for the employee only.

Employers are only REQUIRED to OFFER 22-26 yo dependent coverage (at the employer’s group rates) to an employee under the new health care reform act. They are NOT required to PAY any portion of dependents’ premiums unless they choose to.

I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.[/quote]

flu, employers are free to require the employee to pay any part or ALL of the premium for their dependents. Typically, an employer offers to pay the full premium for the employee only.

Employers are only REQUIRED to OFFER 22-26 yo dependent coverage (at the employer’s group rates) to an employee under the new health care reform act. They are NOT required to PAY any portion of dependents’ premiums unless they choose to.

I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Maybe that’s why the insurance co’s don’t really mind this new law. Because it just means more money for them…no that large corporations must allow employees to take on these new dependents.[/quote]

flu, employers are free to require the employee to pay any part or ALL of the premium for their dependents. Typically, an employer offers to pay the full premium for the employee only.

Employers are only REQUIRED to OFFER 22-26 yo dependent coverage (at the employer’s group rates) to an employee under the new health care reform act. They are NOT required to PAY any portion of dependents’ premiums unless they choose to.

I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.

[Author]

Posts