Health care game changer?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In any event, sbane, you are an adult and should have your own plan, with subsidies if impecunious (obviously temporary in your case). Tying adult kids to their parents' hip does not fit into my sense of aesthetics.

Does tying health care into employment fit your sense of aesthetics?  It doesn't fit mine.  The system worked somewhat when we had a semi-feudal employment situation where people tended to stay at one principal job for most of their life, but the lords want to clear the highlands and not have to bother with the well-being of their serfs any more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I also think in theory getting away from the employer provided healthcare system is a good idea, but we must realize employers pay a lot for healthcare. How do we make that up if we move away from this system?

Some form of individual subsidy for low-income and/or high-risk people.  For people who are well enough off that all they need is catastrophic health insurance for non-routine care, why should anyone else be paying for their health care?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In any event, sbane, you are an adult and should have your own plan, with subsidies if impecunious (obviously temporary in your case). Tying adult kids to their parents' hip does not fit into my sense of aesthetics.

didn't you say your parents paid for 8 years of college?

Yes, they did, college, business school and law school (and I know I am very fortunate, yes I do), with their own money, not someone else's through statutorily imposed non means tested cross subsidies.

Money is fungible. If the government mandates that people will be paid more in the form of mandatory health insurance, this will translate into lower cash compensation over time. But since the numbers involved are fairly minimal no one's going to notice.

In the case of being on a parents' plan until 26, without having to pay a market based premium, that means somebody is subsidizing that discounted premium, in this case other insureds, to wit a cross subsidy. I agree with your post of course as to the effect of requiring folks to have a certain level of coverage through the vehicle of an employer plan, as opposed to an individual plan, where the money goes into the employee's pocket, and then out the other to pay the premium.

So you are saying that kids who are covered under their parent's plans are being subsidized by others who are insured under that group plan? You do realize family plans cost more than individual plans?

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this since it's quite simple, but the subsidy for the premium is coming from the company and is a part of the compensation package. There is no cross-subsidization of the premium costs. Where there is cross-subsidization, which will occur in any health plan, is from the healthy to the sick. So a healthy 24 year old's premium (subsidized in part by the company as compensation for their parent) will be paying for the sick olds who work for the company and are part of the same group.

But what about the sick 24 year olds?  Granted, there aren't many of them, but since being covered under your parent's coverage is optional, the sick 24 year olds are far more likely to take advantage of that than the healthy 24 year olds.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh I remember that, but that was not dealing with keeping adult children on their parent's insurance, but rather cross subsidies from the young who purchased their plans to the old.

Also it looks like if you have an individually purchased family plan, insurers would be required to keep on your kids until the age of 26. Of course you would still be paying the premium for the family plan so I don't see what the problem is. If covered by your employers, you and the employer would be paying the premiums on a shared basis.

This is what is confusing you I think....this is what the department of labor says.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

I am not sure what the bolded part means exactly, or its intent. This will just have to be researched as to whether insurance companies are losing money on these 18 to 26 year olds.

I think it means others who are dependent on health insurance from another persons employment such as spouses and children under the age of 18.

What it means is that the people who were kicked off their parent's plan because they were too old but are now eligible to be covered cannot be charged the higher rate that some plans charge if the parent chooses to drop coverage of their dependents, but then seeks to resume coverage.