Spanky, I was just picking up the term from the article - relax a bit.

My daughter graduated from college last year and I kept her on my insurance until she got a job with benefits. So in that example, she was participating in the scheme - only it was coming out of my pocket instead of hers. If you don't have 'offspring' that you need to help out now and then - lucky you - but I certainly wouldn't let mine suffer if I could help it and I believe health insurance is critically important to carry.

MY 21 year old daughter was going to college full time and working 32 hiours a week for an employer that didn't provide insurance. She got ill and dropped out f school because she couldn't do both. Thanks to the healthcare reform i added her to my insurance. In the past 6 months i've gotten billing reports of over $35,000 all covered by insurance. I'm not ne f theose rich folks who just got hundreds of thousands in tax breaks. I couldn't have afforded her care. She'd havehad to quit work and applied for Medicaid i.e. gone from a tax payer to a tax user. I called my local Republican Congressman's office and was treated rudely. Like they don't want to be confused with any real peron's story. The person said the Rs want repeal and replace. Well 've seen the repeal but have yet to see one word of replace and i've been following this on an almost daily basis. I beleve i was lied to by my congressman's office. I'm also sure they all have insurance.

The new republican mantra - get sick..die quick.

That is quite the open ended commitment, that "children" up to 26 are covered by their parents policies. How do insurance companies plan for that? What if the 22-26 year old marries, is their spouse covered by the 21-26 year olds parents policy, even if the spouse is older than 26? What about if the "children" have children? Are they covered by the grandparents policies? The insurance companies are made to deal with this, and they will deal with it, by raising their rates.

This is why you don't want idiot politicians making these goofy decisions for the country. They don't know what they are talking about, and they don't know and don't care what it costs. They just come up with these things, put it into law, and leave it to someone else to figure it all out.

JoAnnaSmith1

That is quite the open ended commitment, that "children" up to 26 are covered by their parents policies. How do insurance companies plan for that? What if the 22-26 year old marries, is their spouse covered by the 21-26 year olds parents policy, even if the spouse is older than 26? What about if the "children" have children? Are they covered by the grandparents policies? The insurance companies are made to deal with this, and they will deal with it, by raising their rates.

Joanna why do you care, your not human any way!!!! read the post instead of bi*ching,

the provision was put there for College kids, Graduate students, but since you have none why are you posting.

My 18 year old son is a 3x cancer survivor. He suffered partial brain damage as a result of his treatments and will require lifetime medications. He needs the protection provided by the health care act. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but if a few of these right wing nut cases had children walking the same path perhaps they would sit down and shut up.

If a kid gets married, is he or she still on parents' insurance? Are you suffering from a huge pile of stupid? If the kid can get married, they get their own insurance.

This part of health care is for those graduating who have yet to find jobs with benefits. I wish that rule was around when my son graduated from college. Because I couldn't afford even the Cobra, he was forced to go without health care until he got a job.

I prayed each day that he didn't get sick. It must be wonderful if you have good insurance and your children have jobs with good benefits. But for many parents, this gives them breathing room until the graduate gets a job.

Aren't we supposed to care about each other in this country? When things get tough, don't we want to help those who can't do for themselves? Why is it that a portion of people are intent on believing that those who need government help are just free loaders?

I hope all of you who wish to deny those who need help, never find they might need it, too.

Kids may well have to rely on their parents' health care plans if they have a disability. For example, many adults with autism cannot find work and cannot obtain health insurance. The president's health care reform provides much needed help for such persons.

This is made worse by the fact that republicans also consistently oppose unemployment benefits, laws to protect the employment rights of the disabled, and just about anything else that would help people in need.

JoAnnaSmith1--The way the law is written, the "child" has to be single. As for the "child" having children, that is not covered under the then grandparents policy. I don't agree with Obama on much but this is one provision that is extremely helpful to those who graduate college with a job that does not offer benefits right away, if at all. As someone in the insurance industry, I can tell you that the child who graduates college was covered until their 22nd or 23rd birthday, depending on policy language. Now, let's say your child graduates college, gets a great job, but the insurance coverage does not go into effect for 90 days (most common.) Then, that child has to pay cobra benefits of $2K per month to have health insurance or go uninsured. If they go uninsured, they are then subject to the pre-existing clause in the insurance company contract. Now if they get a chronic illness in this uninsured time period, they have to pay for all medical needs relating to that illness for the first year. Better yet, let's say they don't get a chronic illness but have thier appendix burst, requiring a $30K+ surgery. Who is to pay for this?

In my opinion, the biggest problem I see with this law is that the most helpful benefits to the general population won't take effect for several years. In addition, I don't think people should be fined for not having health insurance; most people who don't have it can't afford it. What should have been done is the extension of programs like HealthyNY or Family Health Plus to have more people qualify to purchase coverage. If you are not poor, you make too much money. The income levels are unrealistic. The working poor make too much money to purchase this coverage but cannot afford to buy a policy otherwise. Expansion of these types of programs now would have worked much better for people. Then, these "kids" could have gotten their own coverage without the insurance company having to pay out more money without getting any premium. If you have famliy coverage, your premium is the same whether your famliy is 3 people or 10 people. So, these "kids" staying on their parents plan isn't costing them any more money than if they came off.

Echoes of all Republicans' thoughts. Just silly enough to say it outright! I'm with Justin Bieber. We are "evil people not providing universal healthcare to all our citizens" . And if this healthcare fails in court then on to universal healthcare and any politician running on it has my vote. Democrat or Republican. But he/she must put it on the table and be successful as soon as he/she is sworn in or he/she are out next election for the next universal healthcare touting politician.

Chandler -I can't believe that there wasn't an insurance company that would write a policy for a young man. It actually sounds like you and your son just couldn't afford one, right? What is different under the new law?

I am serious about my question. What is different now under the new law that you couldn't do under the old way? Your kids are not put on your policy for free are they? Couldn't you or your kid buy a policy any time you wanted under our old ways? It just seems as though it is now mandatory for your kids to have one and our government is being gracious enough to allow parents to use their money. Doesn't make sense to me. Please explain it to me. Are there really any savings?

JoAnna-

Unfortunately as much as I tried to avoid it I am currently stuck in this situation. I am a 25 year old college grad that works full time for a small business. My company does not provide insurance, so I would be paying 100%. I have student loans to pay off and can't afford that, rent, utilities, and insurance. At 23 when I graduated, I was taken off my parents insurance and since then have paid out of pocket for all my preventative care (yearly female checkups, etc).

I am 100% independent; my fiance and I have lived on our own together since 2009 and haven't taken money from family for anything for years before that. However, in December I got pregnant and really had no choice other than to go back on my parent's insurance to make sure I had the proper care I required. I had looked into private plans for myself but very few offer maternity coverage and the ones that do were unaffordable to me, even working a full time job.

To your points; if I get married before I turn 26 in September, which was our plan, I will be taken off the insurance immediately. Also, my child will not be covered by my parent's plan, so I will be responsible for purchasing insurance for the baby. Since neither my nor my finace's job offers insurance, we will likely be stuck with state insurance that you pay into. I think in IL it is called KidVantage, and your premiums are dependent on your income.

It was an awful decision for me to have to go back on the family plan but I knew it was what was best for the baby. I am also paying into the deductible account and any balances that remain after the insurance pays their portion.

I guess maybe it sounds like I am justifying but I don't mean to. Just that this portion of the health care bill seems to be the only one that helps anyone without costing the taxpayers any extra money...if my parents want to insure me until I am 50, I don't see what the difference is as the insurance company is still making money off of them. Certainly it is better than me applying for medicare/medicaid and adding to that crippling system, at least in my opinion.

Chandler W.

Aren't we supposed to care about each other in this country? When things get tough, don't we want to help those who can't do for themselves? Why is it that a portion of people are intent on believing that those who need government help are just free loaders?

The free loaders are the Koch Brothers, the banksters, the oil companies, and multinational corporations who are getting rich off the middle and poor working classes blood, sweat and tears.

I hope all of you who wish to deny those who need help, never find they might need it, too.

I can guarantee you when they sick get or one of their children and they have no where to go; all the cold blooding talking points they are spewing will come back to bite them in their, cold blooded blind @aa?#s.

Never mind graduates without jobs. How 'bout grad students or medical/dental/law students? Where do THEY get coverage?

Here is one for you: Car insurance companies charge child rates for anyone under the age of 30 who is not married. In other words, a 29 year old single person is paying the same rate as a sixteen year old. Maybe the government should look into that one if having a 22 or 23 year old who is still a student on your healthcare is wrong!

The average age of an American soldier in Vietnam was 22, not 19. Source: Combat Area Casualty File, Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC. Westmoreland thought it was closer to 26.

LUKE,,

Why would you Paraphrase instead of just using the Exact Quote. I mean is there a Certain narrative that you would like to Convey?

JH

As it was i have an 18 year old who is n college and she was on my insurance so adding my other daughter didn't cost extra. It's jst that when she had to drop out of college she wouldn't have been able to be on my policy w/o this reform. I don't think t's mandtory so kid sueing parents is a bit unlikely although we keep graduting way to many lawyers so who knows! Our healthcare system was broken and some of the new reforms are helpful to many many people. I resent the mandatory insurance component but think individual components could be removed rather than getting rid of the whole thng -- that's just being lazy.

I think the medical system is in itself broken. The medical profession is addicted to high tech that ends up costing us a fortune (if you buy a $10 million machne you need to use it to recoup your investment), drug use is rampant, administrative/tech/MD salaries are rediculously high, and at the core there's so little attention paid keeping healthy that we guarantee sickness (sedentary lifetyles and unheathy nutrition). If we went low tech and ate better and exericsed healthcare would be much less an issue.

Over the past 60 years we as a nation have done nothing to encourage young adults to get insurance. You can't deduct it on your taxes so you pay a lot more for it then someone who gets it from work.

Auntie-

Don't most universities offer health care as a part of their tuition? Where I went to school it was mandatory unless you could prove that you had insurance through your parents. I went to the health center every other week for my allergy shots and visited several times for various illnesses. Was never charged a dime for these services as they were covered as part of my (extremely high) tuition for the 4 years I was in school.

Also, I believe the was the law was before, you were covered under your parents insurance until such point that you turned 25 years old OR graduated college, whichever came first. So for instance, had I continued on to grad school I would have been covered until 25 as opposed to 23. Only 1 year different from what it is now.

Dismantle and Privatize: these are the collective objectives of elected Republican representatives. Owned by Corporations and Special Interests, they exist to promote and pave the way to a future in which Health care, Education and Police protection will only go to those who can afford it.

Right now, GOP wants to divert us away from their lack of ideas and commitment to job creation. Innovating our way back to fiscal health is not the goal of Republicans in Congress. Their vision is one in which 98% of Americans have little protection and no escape.

I believe that this option discriminates against those poor children under the age of 26 whose parents are no longer alive!

What are THEY supposed to do for health insurance? Who will add these poor lost souls to their policy?

OHHHHHH WOE IS ME!

I mean... what about that poor little 25 year old who has no mommy or daddy... might he/she be forced to live like an adult? Might he/she be forced to face the COLD - HARD - REALITIES OF LIFE?

Say it ain't so!

OHHHHHHHHHHH!

Mother of four-3072869

Here is one for you: Car insurance companies charge child rates for anyone under the age of 30 who is not married. In other words, a 29 year old single person is paying the same rate as a sixteen year old. Maybe the government should look into that one if having a 22 or 23 year old who is still a student is wrong

Get serious, first of all, drop that stupid car analogy floating in right wing world. A car is not a person. What happens when you have too many accidents? Your car insurance gets canceled.

It don't work out like that with healthcare in the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Joanna why do you care, your not human any way!!!! read the post instead of bi*ching,

the provision was put there for College kids, Graduate students, but since you have none why are you posting.

I think that JAS1 is just being obstinate, making arguments for arguements sake.

I LOVE the 'not human' line. That is CLASSIC.

justdontgetit-2670205

Who is going to cover the cost of health care for your baby once it is born?

I understand that you have done a fine and respectable job of trying to stand on your own two feet - LIKE AN ADULT. My hat is off to you for that. If everyone in this country did the same we would be MUCH better off as a nation.

However... Eventually you are going to have to do the ADULT thing and make some sacrifices to get your own health insurance... for your child's sake.

@justdontgetit

First, congratulation is you pregnancy.

Second, you made the right and responsible decision to ensure you had good health care for you self and your child at this time. When you went back on your parents plan, the premiums they were charged went up to cover you, so you nor anyone else in your situation is freeloading.

As a parent, I am happy to pay the additional costs to my insurance company while my son gets his college education and gets himself established following that. Since I am paying the Ins. company for my son's coverage, I don't see why anyone feels they have the call to gripe about it.

justdontgetit-2670205, my sons were covered under my insurance. My recollection is that any insurance for them was paid over and above tuition.

I think that we have a business-centric healthcare delivery model that is geared towards making the MAXIMUM benefit for the businesses that are in that model. The health of the patient is SECONDARY.

With the changes to the Health Care law, and from what I have been reading from the posts above, the model is changing from a business-centric model to a Health-centric model.

That means there will be more money for preventative medicine; there will be more money for wellness and well-being; there wil be more money for those providers that service this 'new' need.

What we will be seeing less of is the 'no-treatment-until-you-are-deathly-sick' method, where a lot of money is thrown at an exacerbated medical issue.

This WILL save us money in the long run because we will be treating the WORST (and more expensive) medical issues LESS. The money to be made will be in keeping people healthy and WORKING.

I am extremely impressed by the compassion by the people who have posted on this thread. I think that with all of the partisan rhetoric, reading about stories that have been conveyed really hits home.

At least it does for me.

Why does EVERYTHING that Bev posts sound soooooo ANGRY?

It's Friday Bev. Take a Chill-Pill (especially since we have this great new HCR) and put a smile on :-D

When my daughter graduated from college, the first job she could find paid $9.00 an hour, which is even now substantially above minimum wage. Luckily it came with health insurance, because just where does anyone think a 22-year-old would get the money to pay $500 a month or more for health insurance on less than $19,000 a year in income?

For JoAnna ~ I know you pride yourself on being in tune with the "real" world. Tell me how your position on this fits in with my daughter's "reality" and that of many young people in this Brave New World of yours where corporate profit always trumps individual welfare.

Justdontgetit

So basically what you are telling us is that you made an adult decision (to get pregnant) but now that you are responsible fo taking care of your child you are running back to mommy and daddy because somehow it is their responsibility to pay for your child while you are pregnant?

Are you at least paying your parents the money that they are having to shell out because their adult daughter is using their insurance again?

While I honestly do feel bad for your situation and I wish nothing but the best for your child (as they did nothing to deserve the situation you have put them in) you are responsible for their care...not your parents....their responsibility ended the day you moved out / graduated college whatever....

Reliant said:

As a parent, I am happy to pay the additional costs to my insurance company while my son gets his college education and gets himself established following that. Since I am paying the Ins. company for my son's coverage, I don't see why anyone feels they have the call to gripe about it.

There is your problem....and why liberalism is an epic fail

Your responsibility to your children stops when they stop being children.

The fact is that no matter what anyone does, someone will be left out. In making policy, law, rules, etc, someone one will be the exception or will be left out. Is it fair? No, it's life.

This is the lesson our children need to learn, not that if you stomp your foot long enough and loud enough you'll get what you want.

We need to learn to deal with those who are left out of the rules, policies, laws, etc, by banding together as a society and pitching in, whether it is with a $5.00 donation or a bag of groceries, or organizing a fund raiser, whatever.

Forcing some to pay for what others need, want, etc is not sustainable. We are seeing it now with the mortgage crisis and all of the states on the verge of bankruptcy. Can some people pay more? Sure they can, but you cannot eliminate greed by legislation. There always has been and always will be greedy people.

It seems that a lot of people want the rich to solve the problems of the world, when they themselves could pitch in much more than they know. The question is, do you REALLY want to? I'd say by reading these posts the answer would be no. How many of you would offer to watch a neighbors kid for free every now and then so they could save the childcare money and use it for insurance? How many of you would cook meals and bring them to the homeless once a week?

My daughter went to McDonald's on Monday and this elderly man approached her and asked her if she could buy him a biscuit. She promptly went inside and bought him an entire breakfast meal. She got much more out of that $4.00 that she spent than any school could ever teach her.

Bitch and moan all you want about rich people. Their money will only go so far. Clamoring about having rich people give more is not going to feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, or help the gentlemen above with his son's medical bills.

I'm quite sure I'll be either flamed or collapsed because my outlook doesn't point fingers at anyone else and cry about others having more than me, which seems to be a favorite past time of most on the First Read threads.

For everyone who says insurance is too expensive, what kid could afford $500 a month for insurance, you are full of it. Blue Cross offers a plan to those ages 19-29 without chronic health problems for $111 a month. This includes no 100% covered preventative care (yearly physicals) $5 co-pays on generic presecriptions and $250 co-pays on emergency room visits. I am willing to bet that all of your kids spend at least $111 a month on cell phones, eating out, going to the clubs, and their morning Starbucks. And if your kid is a college graduate accepting a job that does not offer health insurance, maybe they need to rethink their job choices. I started working full time one week after graduating high school, in an entry level position that offered healthcare benefits. My husband has worked for three different companies since graduating high school, all at entry level positions, all of which offered health care.

People not being able to afford healthcare has nothing to do with actually not being able to afford health care, and everything to do with not considering health care to be a priority.

@Sick-

I agree 100%. Once the baby is born, its my responsibility to cover it medically. I mentioned the state's insurance plan because it is separate from medicare; basically it offers general coverage for kids at a lower cost to the parents, based on income. The situation is not ideal, but it is what I will be able to afford for the time being. At some point, we all hope to be working for a company that offers good health plans. Unfortunately, small businesses have a tougher time of it and right now we are just trying to stay afloat.

@Larry

Actually I didn't ask my parents for help at all. I was prepared for the financial and medical repercussions, but my dad did not want to see his child and grandchild go without proper care, so he added me to the insurance before I could "run" anywhere. I'm betting if you had a grown child in my situation, you'd do the exact same thing. As I've learned harshly over the last few months, sometimes circumstances change and you have to make decisions you never thought you would. Would you rather have someone in my position running to the emergency room for everything with you footing the bill as opposed to my family?

Families are support systems that do not cease to exist when one graduates college, and I feel bad for anyone that is not lucky enough to have that. My parents raised me right, and I've not asked for any other type of assistance (phone bill, car payment, loan payments, rent) since I've been out of school. But, they rallied around me in my time of need and for that I cannot be more grateful and blessed.

Your responsibility to your children stops when they stop being children.

I don't think that's your call, Larry. Typical Conservative telling others what to do.

Larry

Please don't try to conn me into believing you're a christian too -- maybe it's a legal issue at 18 or whatever but you must not have an caring bone in your body -- as far as the reality of healthcare and employers you're living in another in the 1900's.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but most of you commenting on this thread have no idea what you are talking about...but that is to be expected because our healthcare/insurance situation is a complex mess. Bottomline: Most of you complaining about this have no dog in this fight. You are not paying more because someone kept their kid on their insurance for 5 more years-their parents are and it isn't any of your business what anyone does for their children. Insurance is (1) outrageously expensive (not sure about natedom up there...I tried to find that for my sons and the cheapest I found was close to $500/month for catastrophic coverage) and (2) hardly responsive to those ppl paying for it. Insurers are only in business to MAKE MONEY, that means if you actually get sick, they try to deny services. I've been in this field for over 30 years and I can tell you A LOT of stories but why waste my time because it just seems the right doesn't care one damn bit about anybody except themselves. Where is your compassion? IMO, everyone complaining about this has been extremely blessed in their lives and have not ever had to face any healthcare problems. Some of the comments on here are just plain selfish and rude. Have none of you ever had something go wrong where you need help, or are you just so stuck in your own little world that you just naturally assume that anyone who needs help is just lazy or irresponsible? It doesn't work like that. There is absolutely no reason on earth that in a country as wealthy as we are that ANYONE should die because they can't afford treatment. We do not base medical treatment on a person's lifestyle choice or else alot of ppl wouldn't get treated...like obesity, cardiac issues, alcoholism, etc. so what gives you the right to judge someone else's behavior when it is none of your business?

So a politician believe my Children should NOT depend on me for health care but the Politicians kids ARE provided for health care by myself and other tax payers like me?

Why has NOT one single Republican Politician cut any benefits for any executive staff members?

They are tax payer paid right?

Please review. You will see how wall street continues to flip us all the bird.

We need to contact Fox/ MSNBC/every media you can, to get this mess straighten out. PLEASE REVIEW............

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=6

Since we're all trying to do our part to reduce spending and let the private sector handle as many functions as possible, let's eliminate the health care coverage provided for the members of the House and Senate. They are far better paid than the average American. Cancel their government-provided health care. Let them buy individual or family policies on the open market, just as they want all of us to do! No more trips to Bethesda Naval Hospital! Let them wait in the ER of any of the local DC hospitals, with their constituents! In fact, lets start a legislative petition on Facebook and Twitter to pass a law teminating government provided health care for them! They need to "walk the Walk"! Ban organ transplants for any of them until every individual voters has theirs first!

Bob

I think its more accurate to say Republicans want to force adults into dependency on their corporate employers, as if they were children, by making it so difficult for the self-employed and entrepreneurs to afford their own health insurance.

At least, a twenty something adult staying on his or her parent's policy until age 26 means fewer bankruptcies for unpaid medical bills. It's not a good way to start your life, owing thousands of dollars for an emergency appendectomy or broken ankle.

In my household it means that the adult children (age 20 and 22) now pay me to cover their portion of my group plan, rather than each paying separately for an individual plan. We are pleased to have the option.

Nice one Bob! Lets insult the reporter who has a good job with benefits and more then likely makes more money than you! Man, I'll bet he is laughing at you comment. I can here it now... that Bob he's right maybe I should call him before I post on MSNBC he's a regular Einstein.

The venom spewing from some people on this is sick! You don't know what the h&*l you are talking about! I know a lot of young people, I work along side them. Many are responsible self reliant people. However they need help every now and then! for obvious reasons! But hey why am i surprised by what some of you say! You view most people who don't agree with you with the same disdain! sad!!!!

Once again, we have the cradle to grave government entitlement programs to "help people". "It will save money", the pols tell us. "It's the right and compassionate thing to do", the pols say again. "Get the service now, and just put the cost on the national credit card", we're told by the pols. "We care about people", the nice man/woman in the fancy suit standing behind the podium tells us, and right after that they say "Vote for me!!".

Who wouldn't vote for that?

And, how's that working out in Wisconsin?

There's only so many lies our government can tell before it catches up with them, and us.

Darryl Blackshear

The venom spewing from some people on this is sick! You don't know what the h&*l you are talking about! I know a lot of young people, I work along side them. Many are responsible self reliant people. However they need help every now and then! for obvious reasons! But hey why am i surprised by what some of you say! You view most people who don't agree with you with the same disdain! sad!!!!

Right on Daryrrl

These people are brainwashed.

I don't know what it is going to take for them to wake up. They have the audacity to impose their austere republican/teabagger talking points they get directly from anti-establishment Koch Brothers, and the Fear Factor Channel aka Fox News the Republican/Teabagger Campaign Headquarters.

They think the unions are thugs

The Union are ripping the tax payers off

The President is a Muslim born in Kenya

The sky is falling

I'd like to know how of them would refuse to help their adult children should they become since the young adults won't be on their insurance?

Crazy they'd rather help Koch Brothers and corps than their own.

The way it works is that your " kids " can stay on the insurance until 26, however we pay tax on the amount that portion is worth. So for those that think it is free think again. At least this way we still can get insurance for them.

And by the way - our " kid " is finishing college which we paid for without any taxpayer help. Not one cent. And has a minimum wage job. Even with a degree it's tough to have a job to afford health insurance. So how is he or us being a freeloader or liberal?

The words might be interchangeable but you didn't answer the question.

Please Insult Me!

The sky is falling

God. And this coming from the same person who posts "Republican are trying to kill people.

Who or whatever you claim to be show me one time where I said Republicans are trying to kill people.

I have said Republicans are killing people you can start with the "mummy faced" Gov. Jan Brewer who let 2 people die because she choose to put a dome or something er other on a building instead of using that money to save people on the organ transplant list.

Now I don't recall saying verbatim --Republicans are trying to kill people-- but I will say they don't give D@^#. There really isn't much difference there; is there?

Although I was being sarcastic, yes, the sky is falling. Birds are dropping from the sky and fish are washing ashore.

See for youself.

Mass Animal Deaths Around the World: Dead Birds Fall from Sky, Millions of Fish & Crabs Wash Ashore

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/mass-animal-deaths-around-world-dead-brids-fall-sky-fish-crabs-wash-ashore.php?campaign=th_rss

SV 123

In my household it means that the adult children (age 20 and 22) now pay me to cover their portion of my group plan, rather than each paying separately for an individual plan. We are pleased to have the option.

So what you are saying is that you have already started "Gaming" the system...

Does anyone think this is a loophole... one that allows a 'rich' person to pay less... very similar to the tax loopholes that the libs here like to scream about?

And the BEST part is that his/her kids are learning how to 'game' the system and pay less than they REALLY should be! WHOO HOO!

"Obama was 100% wrong when he passed the Democratically-supported 'extention of the Patriot Act' bill."

OK PIM, we're waiting.

Hey Insult, He wasn't wrong. As president he doesn't get to pass bills, he signs them into Law (at least till the supreme court overturns - ). And oh that was the same screed you keep coming back to because you can't handle the way the world works now. Most of the action undertaken in the last two years were at least an attempt to get things moving. Where was the alternative? none provided by our friends on the right.

And also, it seems there needs to be some sanity to each side, you can't cut indiscriminately, and you can't spend indiscriminately, but if they sit and look they might come up with something that will move us ahead. if they each stick to their ideology, there is no middle. This republican is dead wrong, I just hope some 25 1/2 year old doesn't have to prove it with his/her life.

Please Insult Me!

The President is a Muslim born in

yes? in...in...?

See for yourself that is if you want to intermingle with the other nut job birthers and pay to play...

Record of President Obama's birth in 1961 is 'in the archives': Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie Found It.

Imagine: Your very own, handsomely embossed official Barack Obama birth certificate.

Hawaii state legislature would allow anyone to get a copy of the president's Hawaii birth records for just $100. Hawaii could use the money.

http://gawker.com/#!5745413/get-your-own-copy-of-obamas-birth-certificate-for-just-100

What a great idea and present for the nut job xenophobic birthers to have.

BTW: requests for President Obama's birth certificate have dropped to around zero-five per week. Come on patriots what's your hang up?

Please insult me,

okay, your an @&$%(#

"Um ok, how bout if your job doesn't provide good health care?"

Then , OK , slacker, work hard and find another job that does... whining and dependent on mommy , and/or the Nanny State handouts, is no way to go through life, son..unless you are a public sector union slug.

Then why not bump it to 30 years old? Why the arbitrary 26 cut-off?

Hey Hill, you got a cell phone? A car? You pay for housing, gas, groceries? Getting a decent plan for someone under 25, as an individual is far less per month than one new shiny X Box game, and probably the data portion of your IPhone's monthly bill.

Also - how about you going out there and getting a better job?

Well Bob, first I'm not a boy and I wouldn't define what I've done or millions of other recent grads the past 2 years as slacking. We've taken the jobs needed to pay the bills we have--including college loans, rent, bills, health care insurance, etc. Also you can't wave a wand and magically get jobs that will provide amazing benefits and a reasonable salary, and those of my generation are learning there is compromise, you get the money but you don't get the benefits or vice versa. But if that's the perspective you have on my generation, than no reasoned argument will affect your opinion.

And there it is - the entitlement doctrine.

Hill beleives he and his generation are simply entitled to healthcare, and "amazing benefits" and a "reasonable" salary. But there appears to be hope as they are now apparently, for the first time "learning there is comprimise."

Well thank goodness for small things. But you know what really bring that point home Hill? Having to get out there on you own. It's really hard. Because you are not entitled to a job, much less benefits.

Then , OK , slacker, work hard and find another job that does... whining and dependent on mommy , and/or the Nanny State handouts, is no way to go through life, son..unless you are a public sector union slug

Thanks Bob for those words of wisdom. We can always count on your GOP boot straps mentality to come shining through! You know with all those good jobs just there for the asking. Shut Up! Young people and many unemployed middle aged people would tell you those jobs you alluded to just aren't there. But thanks for making sound so simple.

Wow folks, shouldn't even reply but here's the deal: I have been paying for my health insurance for the past two years with my OWN money, working and living as a responsible adult. AND when I recently was getting sick, my AMAZING parents (because they have raised me and my siblings to be responsible and independent adults) wanted to make sure I wasn't racking up bills. I see this health care bill as a privilege and blessing but its not something I've done anything to deserve. And I'm always searching for a job that is ideal. But believe what you want to believe.

...than no reasoned argument will affect your opinion.

Hill, You can add a whole host of other right wingers to your comment like Spanky, PIM, ITM, etc. There are to many that post here to list.

thanks devie- you're right shouldn't have even wasted my breath.

Thanks you Hill for giving us a perspective of every day life, rather than the 'IGMFU' crowds idea of how ordinary Americans live!

Spanky and bob shilling for the trust fund children! Wow!

You so funny Chilled.

See I have been out in the cold hard world paying my own way since I graduated high school. Had a job in High school and started retirement saving at 19. Worked my way through college and law school.

But hey, if it helps you believe what you need to believe, be my guest.

Now, how about you Chilled, you fighting against the MAN out in the harsh world or you living in your mom's basement?

And gosh Fiesty I got to ask: Why don't you have yours?

It the same entitlement drum you all keep beating, but your problem is there is no money. Just math folks, and you can't spin math forever. Just ask all those adults in the room in Wisconsin. What's that they did the grown up thing and ran away? Huh, hard to have an adult conversation if the adults all ran away.

Hill, I'm glad you DID speak up. Please don't be disuaded by folks who are only trying to intimidate you into silence.

My oldest son is in a similar situation. After graduating from Engineering school he discovered as have many young people that the employment situation is especially difficult for young people. Especially young people with college to pay for.

He was able to get part time work and it went a long way, but the whole point of our "part time work" culture is that it gets the employer off the hook for certain expenses, including insurance. Now he's working full time temp work. The pay has increased, hours are both more and better, but again no benefits.

So under the old system he goes without insurance. Maybe he's lucky and stays well. Maybe he gets appendicitis and comes out of the hospital with a bill as big as his "part time" income. He'll work his tail off to pay for it, but realistically the hospital and doctors are going to end up writing off a lot of that. Then it gets tacked onto everyone else's health care bill and everyone's rates go up.

For that reason I'm happy to be able to carry him on my policy until he gets something full time and permanent. At that time he'll carry his own insurance. Until then he'll be covered.

Somehow that's a bad thing to those on the Right. They'd much rather you suffer for your misfortune. That's why it's appreciated and important for you to speak up, Hill. Thank you.

John B. - how do you think that effect the risk managemnt and reserve calculations for you policy?

In the end do you think this makes rates go up, or down?

Spanky - I was without health care for quite some time and had one emergency room visit, which was written off. If you look at this situation from a broad perspective you can see that the cost either way is going to the tax payer and consumer. The lesser of the two evils is that the bill will allow many more people to have coverage including preventative care and preventative care has many many advantages. There are provisions in the bill that I do not like. Being mandated by law to purchase any service or tangible good should be unconstitutional. Take car insurance for example, those drivers without insurance who do have accidents/hit and runs etc. run up the price for those of us who obey the law. Are you against the law that mandates you to carry car insurance?

Some people will never understand the concept of government help. Hopefully, those people never, ever have to want for anything.

And I can tell all of you who laugh at kids living in their parents' basements that they don't want to be there. If you think kids don't want to get out on their own, then you never had a child -or a normal one. As soon as my son could, he was out of the house.

Kids who are graduating now have a hard time finding jobs. Are there free loaders? Sure, but the vast majority are honest, good kids who happened to graduate in the middle of a recession, which I might add, was caused by the very trickle down economics the right wingers want to push today.

How hard is it to do some research? End of Clinton presidency- surplus. Three months into W's presidency - deficit. So why do you insist on voting against your best interests?

Hopefully they will never have to want for anything. Heck, my hope for them is to have to want for EVERYTHING. I actually want all the shills out there to get EXACTLY what they wish for.

Spanky your last post is unclear - can you please elaborate? Are you asking about calculations under current insurance setup, or under the HCR?

Not true PIM. Evidence of actual surpluses here; http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/15/6059927-looking-back-budgets-of-the-past?

Hill,

I've read and reread your posts and I'm confused. So you had and were paying for health insurance until the bill passed. Then once the bill passed, you got sick, so your parents put you on their policy so you wouldn't get into debt because of medical bills.

Okay, if you had health insurance why the switch? And, if you already had the insurance, like you said, why would you go into debt because of medical bills?

Spanky, I work for a health insurance company. Believe me we want those young adults enrolled. As a group, they utilize few services and bring us good money in the family plan rates.

Well let me insult you some more then,

If there can never be an actual surplus, there can not be an actual deficit then can there be?

9/11 happened after Bush had been in control and had his team installed and if you remember there was what bush said was a urgent need to stimulate and THAT is where the money went, had he not given the money away there would have been a surplus when we needed it.

Oh Spanky, did you see the health Insurance Co Employee that shot your other not-so-smart post.

What was it you said you did for a living, you don't seem all that educated, I am just wondering.

wow It shows how out of touch so many people are. Do you know how tough it is to get a job. There are kids out there graduating with 4 year degrees working in fast food. Please if you have some reasonable solution besides walk off your pain and suck it up. Let us in on the secret. You don`t want anyone showing up in the emergency ward, subsidizing health clinics that would be another social service. I guess you would say "Die you peasants" You mean people suck

I'd love to respond but fear being labeled a "cyber-bully." How you holding up after yesterday's attack?

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Navy, this is more Right wing propaganda!!!

the provision that allows kids to stay on your health ins is only is there are in grad school. so if your son is lazy out of work like this guys kids probably are and he is 22 he does not qualify to be on your health ins.

my youngest daughter is 24 she is in grad school and going to graduate in June, she is starting a internship in London in September. the day after she graduates she is off my health ins plan at work. my 25 years old daughter finished her undergrad 3 years ago, Guess what navy, when she graduated and did not go to grad school, she was off my health ins plan. why because she found a job and has her own. that provision was put there to encourage kids to continue there education, but in the south they are not educated.

the republicans are go hypocritical if this southern cousin married to his sister had some balls, they would repeal Medicaid part D!!! but no where in the conversation has this come up, why navy it was signed into law be a republican, even though this plan will add 6 trillion to the deficits over 10 years once it was passed.

What,

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Most kids today are facing high school loans, poor outlook for jobs when the graduate and a slow economy

???????? High School Loans?

Typical response from the right... It's obvious what navy meant from his post. Instead of looking at the meat of an argument and responding intelligently, it's much easier to belittle and try for some laughs.

If you don't have anything to say about the topic at hand, then it's best to keep quiet. Save the belittling for your own kids in college when you tell them not only to they have to work their way through it, but they also have to buy their own insurance and good luck with buying your books and finding time to study. I would love to tell my diabetic college-bound daughter that when she turns 18. For her, HCR helps ensure her future.

High as in big like Sky High Premiums, nice try to misrepresent.

Always someone else's fault that the cynicism running through your veins comes out so disrespectfully?

I've seen disrespectful people on both sides, but I will say this, as factually as possible.

Because of HCR, my daughter with diabetes actually has a chance to have the safety net of health insurance, both through her college years as well as after. If HCR is repealed, getting her through college is going to be rough. It will be her choice, I can give what I can give, and I believe in education. Already she will be working and getting loans through college. Type I diabetes was not an avoidable disease, and I don't believe she should be punished by not being allowed full coverage throughout her life.

That's just me though. Maybe you're okay with your kids with diseases not having health insurance.

@Jeff - no, the provision allows you to keep your children on your insurance until they are 26 is whether they are in school or not. Previously, you could keep your children on your insurance until they were 25 if they were in school. Now, it is 26 regardless of school. I work with a lady who has a 24 year old son, he chose to drop out of high school, he has chosen to not get his GED, he chose to give up his full time job that offered benefits because he didn't like his manager, he has chosen to be content working part time at Wal-Mart. He lives on his own, he has a Cell Phone and internet, he just spent his tax refund on a new TV, and he chooses to not carry his own health insurance, and after this new provision passed, his mother chose to put him back on her insurance, because, while she doesn't agree with all the choices he has made, she doesn't want him to be swamped with medical bills if something does happen.

natedom

@Jeff - no, the provision allows you to keep your children on your insurance until they are 26 is whether they are in school or not. Previously, you could keep your children on your insurance until they were 25 if they were in school. Now, it is 26 regardless of school.

Ok should i trust you or bluecross buel shield, because this is where i got MY information from. where did you get yours from, second hand information?

why would some one do that when all there 26 years kid need to do is get a welfare insurance card. its free.

Where did I get the information from? The letter Blue Cross Blue Shield sent to all their participants notifying them that they could add their children under the age of 26 to their insurance. And also, second hand information from the lady who added her son.

You know it chilled!

Here's a thought - maybe if the Teapublicans actually created some of those J O B S they promised, recent college graduates might be able to land one of 'them' and wouldn't have to depend on 'mommy & daddy'!

Kingston is an idiot Feisty! I suspect that his snarky comment hides his disappointment in what his own kids are really doing!

If, and that's a big IF, his kids are responsible, what does that mean! Afterall, they probably receive 'special attention/benefits/jobs' since daddy is in Congress!

Is this 26 deal open for all young adults or only those in college? I really don't understand how it works. If you have a married or unmarried child who has a child,will they both be covered? If they are, then perhaps we could do some cutting on the welfare rolls that also covers this for unwed Mothers.

No maggie they don't have to be in college. However, as it has ALWAYS been if your child is married they do not qualify. 18 year old married kids didn't qualify before they still don't. It's all there in the bill. It's been available to read for quite a while now.

Is that what happened to you, nojo.....you never matured.

Is that what happened to you, nojo.....you never matured

LOL!

Given her proclivity for being truthfully challenged - I'd say you're right on the money there GM! ;o)

No Jo Bull Connor!!!

the provision was put in for continuing education. but since your were able to continue your education why the hell should any body else do the same, we are not in the 60 any more when Healthcare was cheap when you went to school.

but why do you care,

This from a person that incourages bull connor tacitcs!!!!!!

when are you moving south you yankee!!!!!

You know, Jeff, I usually cut you a lot of slack- but not this time.

For you to use such insensitive language to me of all people is beyond any slack I could give you.

Bull Connor? Why- because I brought up links to articles that prove that Obama dispatched Organizing for America, and the DNC, to foment these labor protests?

That is beyond the pale.

Don't bother responding. You have now put yourself firmly in the camp of the other insensitive, nasty leftwingmposters on this board.

You can join them on ignore.

no joe ~

Infantilizing adults leads to nothing good.

No, you're absolutely right. When it comes to bragging about your children for dumbing themselves down, however ... that leads to paradise.

Sigh.

Is that what happened to you, nojo.....you never matured.

I just shot coffee through my nose on that one! Thanks GM that was a classic!

For your edification, AM, my son took calc one and two in his junior year of high school. His reasoning for not testing out of calc two at U of C was that it had been a while, and he did not want to ruin his GPA by taking a course he could not excel in.

He broke the curve, by the way- got perfect scores on both his midterm and final exams.

By the way, he graduated U of C at the top of his class- in three years.

Is that your definition of "dumbing down"?

Good one Anna M. going after someone's kids.

And hey I totally agree with what you said last night about pulling out of the market. It's going down again. And as indicated it's good you'll have more time here. They really need you.

I'm going with gold and lead. Lots of lead.

njnbnj: . . . brought up links to articles that prove that Obama dispatched Organizing for America, and the DNC, to foment these labor protests?

That much is certainly true. There is no doubt the Democrats are pulling out all the stops on this one. The government largeness and control over people must be preserved, and if the entitlement culture of the unions falls in Wisconsin, it surely will fall elsewhere.

Obama is 4-square soild behind the unions, this time and all the time. And he is against the taxpayers, again, as always. According to Obama, the taxpayers must pick up the tab for the union members, and there will be no debate about that issue. Obama didn't spend hundreds of billions of his "Stimulus" money on the unions last year only to have them challenged by the taxpayers this year.

Last year, Obama paid off the unions (with his deficit spending). This year, the taxpayers need to pay that bill, with more taxes tacked on to their hard earned paychecks.

no joe, no bo, nj

You know, Jeff, I usually cut you a lot of slack- but not this time.

No i'm tired of cutting you slack, everytime you talk Sh*T about a community organizer, your are talking sh*t about Martin Luther King. the civil right movement was created by a community organization, but you are so far up the right wings ass you can't see it what your doing. i hope your proud of you self. I take that from Joanna because she is trailer trash and knows no better, she is ignorant, but i expect more from you.

so you cut the community organizer crap, you are putting down the civil rights movement, and we can go back to agreeing to disagree.

the president want to know when Governor Blow hole is giving him his 271 million back.

Obama has also dispatched OfA and the Dnc to Ohio and Indiana, and there Re plans to spread to Missouri, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

What I want to know is this: is inciting illegal wildcat strikes an impeachable offense?

If not, it should be.

WOW!

You KNOW NJNB is having a bad day when Jeff tells her like it is!

You finally woke up Jeff and realized all they tak is sh!t!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

WOW!

You KNOW NJNB is having a bad day when Jeff tells her like it is!

You finally woke up Jeff and realized all they tak is sh!t!

feisty this is a educator that idolizes a man who want and has tried to roll back Brown verses board of education. Clarence Thomas!!!!!

Hey, no Joe- here's something that should make your head explode.

I'm in Connecticut and made calls yesterday to Congress. Guess who emailed me to do that? OFA!

So now you can add my state to your list.

Or maybe we should go back in time and relive the period that gave us the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory Fire.

feisty this is a educator that idolizes a man who want and has tried to roll back Brown verses board of education. Clarence Thomas!!!!!

Scary part is, one of her many 'claims' is she's a school teacher - if she can't debate honestly on an anonymous blog can you imagine what she does in the classroom?

NJNB is a lot of things, but honest isn't one of them! ;o)

Like I've stated before, No Joe,No Bo, No Brains., just a blow hole for the RNC and tea baggers.

Just to clarify, I didn't insult no joe's son ... she's the one who did that.

Not taking the tough course to hold up his GPA? Makes the rest of what you said not that impressive, no joe.

Looks like it runs in the family.

It is the changing demographics that have them scared. That is why all the older, white politicians and people, are so bothered by Obama's presidency. He's black.

Texas is now predominantely Hispanic. In a few years white people will be the minority.

This scares the crap out of them. When big changes occur, it is very hard for those who love the status quo to let go.

Chandler:

I just saw the breakdown on channel 11 News. Hispanics 36% with estimate of 16% illegal, African American 12%, Anglo/Caucasion 48%, 4% Asian/other.

Now how is it predominately Hispanic? There are a lot but it is still mostly white.

What do you expect with Texas? It does border Mexico. Probably won't happen in our lifetimes.

Anna M. you good with the run away play? Good to aviod a fair vote in the senate by leaving town?

How does that play out down the road? If they keep it up are we not looking at a shutdown, and if it is shut down would it not be the fault of those who left town?

The optics, not good for the Democrats. Not good at all.

Here you have the Wisconsin Democratic state legislatures, sworn to their duty, running off on the Magic School Bus to beautiful Rockford Illinois. Hands over their ears, eyes scrunched shut, chanting "LALALA" so no sound that may contain something they don't want to hear enters their pea size brains.

And you have the teachers, the oh so compassionate teachers, abandoning their stations, their schools, their children to go "Fight for their rights". Everything it seems is a "right" for teachers. It is the entitlement mentality. Next, the teachers will want to make sure they get paid for their unscheduled absence from their jobs, their entitled to that pay too you know. Yeah, sure, for the teachers it's "For the children", well it is, but that ends when someone starts messing with their entitlements.

Doesn't look good. Bad optics.

I'm a teacher and I am sick and tired of teachers being apolitical. I am glad they took to the streets.

Teachers have to stop feeling guilty when they advocate for themselves. Your argument is old.

Teachers don't buy into that guilt complex anymore. We advocate. And if that means taking it to the streets, then the First Amendment gives them the right to do so. That's what a democracy is.

Chandler, good for you, I support you and all teachers. You have, in my opinion, one of the most thankless jobs. I volunteer at my local elementary school, and what the teachers do for their kids never ceases to amaze me.

If you have never done so, go volunteer at a school and if you have young children in school you should be there on a regular basis to help out as many of the mothers who volunteer are also amazing in their generosity of time and treasure, all to make all the children's futures better.

Actually, JoAnna, turns out they were in Chicago. As for what they did, I'd rather stand honestly with public workers than dishonestly with a completely corrupt (by which I mean bought and paid for) republican governor and legislature, which I happen to know something about, and you do not.

And no, JoAnna, actually, the teachers are mostly willing to take their lumps over this. And a few that I know have actually turned in resignations because they're tired of years and years of being browbeaten by the ignorant likes of you. As for their "pea size" brains, around here you have to make that their "Ph.D" size brains, because many of them have Ph.Ds. You?

By the way, if it's so easy, pays so well, and any pea-brain can do it, then why don't you?

Because it sounds like you're PERFECTLY qualified, and it must be a LOT easier than blogging all day, you think?

Many, many people over the age of 21 haven't developed into adulthood either.

Thanks, The9. The FYIGM crowd has no concept and doesn't care to know. You're in a situation that's shared with a lot of other people, though, and it isn't easy.

Please remember that in November, 2012.

@The9 - I am a 30 year-old parent of two who works a full-time job, volunteers no less than 15 hours a month at my son's school and attends college full time. In fact, right now I am taking 15 credits and earning A's in all four classes. My sister-in-law is a 34 year old mother of three working a full time job, working an internship 40 hours a week, spending 20 hours a week driving to and from her job and internship and taking two doctorate classes, she still manages to find time to attend as many of her kids basketball games as possible. It can be done, it is being done by 100's every day. You just have to be able to determine your priorities.

And by the way, this provision does not affect you because parents have been able to keep college students on their insurance until the age of 25 for years.

PatricSulliven: you are so right. I think it is offensive and arrogant for people to say that kids between 21 and 26 can afford medical insurance. That is just pathetic.

Can kids ages 21-26 afford a cell phone? Internet? The latest XBox, PS3, or WII game? Then they can afford health insurance.

Please review. You will see how wall street continues to flip us all the bird.

We need to contact Fox/ MSNBC/every media you can, to get this mess straighten out. PLEASE REVIEW............

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=6