Just when does a child become an adult?
on 07/08/2010 at 07:58 AM
28? Does that extend to their children’s children then as well? Or their spouses? Heck, in some areas people of 28 are new grandparents themselves, so you could, um, “conceivably” have the working parents have 4 generations on that same policy at that point. That seems to be stretching things a bit at the employer end of things.
No, dumbocrats never grow up. When mommy and daddy parents stop catering to their needs, mommy and daddy government takes over. That way they never actually have to be responsible for their own actions, make decisions they have to stick to, etc.
OTOH, such a lengthy coverage law makes each employee and their extended family a little group policy all their own, and that perhaps ought to be one of the aspects of “health care” reform. Or maybe not - the concept of economies of scale is deeply ingrained in our society, though the “savings” of having large numbers of people in the same group doesn’t seem clear to me, since each member has the same ream of forms and data behind them that an individual policy holder would have. So perhaps doing away with, or whittling away at, the group discount rate that insurance companies offer is one of the underlying reasons for this new law. Or opening that group to random applicants. Naturally my expectation is that the whittling will be enacted backwards; instead of individual policy holders getting charged the same or nearly the same rate as group members, the group members will instead be charged nearly the same rate as individual policy holders. And the insurance company profits will skyrocket.
If you clicked the link you’d find that currently:
— To be eligible, a child must be 1) single, 2) a resident of the state or a full-time college student, 3) not employed by an employer that offers a health benefit plan under which he or she is eligible for coverage, and 4) not eligible for coverage under Medicaid or Medicare.
The problem is that even if your child is single at age 28, doesn’t mean he/she/it doesn’t have children themselves. And if they started young enough… You could find yourself paying for bastard grandchildren.
A lot of my paternal family were Doctors - and before 1965 - they bartered, gave free care and all sorts of things - my Dad set up the first local ‘clinic’ with Friday nite & Saturday hours - as he knew that the local people worked hourly and just could not get off to go see the Doc. His bookkeeper wasn’t all that happy with him (how many pies equal a home visit?) but they dealt with it. And as a result - my Dad had people flying in from all over the World to see Doctor Bill.
And then in 1965 - Uncle Sam changed it all with new regulations - no longer could they do it the way that they used to - and my Dad even had to get a ‘company’ car. No more Nash Ramblers. And in the end - he ended up getting sued for his hiring policies (he wanted qualified healthcare people) at the hospital he was CoS at.
When my first hubby & I were married the Insurance did not cover a pregnancy in the first 90 days - so we paid a whopping $13.00 each month to go to a clinic for my care. And we ended up paying monthly for a few months - the delivery bill to Mizzou hospital - it was what got us a credit rating - as we had been paying cash for everything up until that - so we were finally able to qualify for a credit card.
Now people are kids until forever - generations are back to living together - not due to family loyalty - but rather because their welfare or union pension only goes so far - and credit cards are handed out like candy at confiscatory rates and soon our taxes are also going to be confiscatory to pay for all the ‘free’ crappola Dems have enacted to attempt to get re-elected in NOvember.
Aren’t the Dems, Obama and most especially the entitlement crowd going to be surprised when in NOvember the response is - ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES - GET A JOB, NO MORE ‘FREE’ OBAMA STASH MONEY!!!!!
Yup, guilty: I didn’t follow the link. First cuppa coffee and all that, ya know.
I do remember an incident where a disabled woman on Medicare had a baby.
The delivery of the baby was covered by Medicare but they paid nothing relaing to the baby itself--dependents of Medicare recipients CAN NOT be covered by Medicare.
Not certain I get your point OCM. Since you don’t mention her husband, I assume she was playing the harlot at taxpayer expense.
Met such a woman just yesterday. I was assisting on another mail route. An unidentified woman, who I judged to be at least half my age, chased me uphill and demanded not once, twice, thrice, but four times if I was sure I didn’t have her Social Security check.
How disabled is she if she can run after me uphill for a block?
Anyway, she was waiting for her check at such-and-such address. She refused my request for ID (I’m not giving mail or info to unidentified strange women who stalk me). And when I pointed out that the address she gave me was a vacant lot she proceeded to call me a racist.
Been there, done that. Do you have any idea of how many welfare/Social Security recipients apparently live in our city parks? Or vacant lots? I go through this almost every month.
Personally, OCM, I do NOT consider anyone ENTITLED to my taxes. Period.
You have a problem, disability, etc, that’s for you, your family, your church, your friends, your community to handle. Please to quote under which clause of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution that gives Congress the right to rob me at gunpoint and give the money to alleged ‘certified disabled’? Who ‘certified’ them as ‘disabled’?
That’s probably the greatest sin the Democrats have perpetrated on the citizens of the USA. They’ve successfully broken the ties of family, friends, church, and local community. All in the name of ENTITLEMENT.
OCM - What you are discounting - is that if (and it’s a big if now) people took care of their own - be them aged, disabled etc - the COSTS wouldn’t be so damn high - Nothing is free and We The Taxpayers are paying for everyone who is freeloading the system. My son was disabled at 15 - his SSI (he can not ever live alone due to his disability - so he does not qualify for Medicaid because we make $200.00 a year too much) - would not cover much of anything if he ever tried to live on his own - and he could never work a normal job. So he is being screwed in many ways because of receiving SSI (he really isn’t encouraged to work as the rules are against him, should he lose his job or become unable to work again) and we are screwed (basically carrying him & his medical) because of SSI - So of what benefit is it to him or us?
It (fill in the blank - SS, SSI, Welfare, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid) are the intentional destruction of the Individual & Family Foundation (and rights) as set out by the Constitution (and are not mentioned in the Constitution as a right and/or power of Congress) to destroy America.
Next entry: This saves a whole lot of writing
Previous entry: This Is Too Much