• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Health insurance premiums to rise because of young adults

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Everybody predicted this one. But Obama's backward logic said that forcing young healthy people into the system would lower premiums/costs? The one thing he's been all too happy to trumpet about how great this dog pile is will actually cost people more money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10605909

The government says letting young adults stay on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26 will nudge premiums higher for employer plans.

The coverage requirement, effective later this year, is one of the most anticipated early benefits of President Barack Obama's new health care law.

The Health and Human Services department says in an estimate released Monday that the benefit will cost $3,380 for each dependent, raising premiums by 0.7 percent in 2011 for employer plans. Some 1.2 million young adults are expected to sign up, more than half of whom would have been uninsured.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
how much money will be saved by having their medical bills paid for instead of defaulted on?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
3380 seems way to high.

Most of these young adults are healthy - preventive care is what is needed.

The only big cost I can forsee across the board for this group would be pregnacy.

I have a 27yr daughter that has been off my insurance coverage since 21. Her employers had no coverage - luckly her ex had. With the exception of pregnancy; she has had no serious issues that required insurance other than preventive care.

The same can be stated for many of her friends.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Uhhhh no shit... Are you stupid? If someone goes on his parent's health insurance, of course the premium for that insurance plan will go up. The per capita premium is still lower because a young person is lower risk....

If you are seriously complaining that if someone chooses to include a child on their coverage it costs more, you need to go back to school and learn some basic critical thinking.
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
raising premiums by 0.7 percent in 2011 for employer plans.
A less than 1&#37; increase to employers? That doesn't sound bad given the raise in premiums without adding this is probably much higher -- many insurers raise rates well over 10%/year.

Some 1.2 million young adults are expected to sign up, more than half of whom would have been uninsured.
So 600,000 uninsured young adults will now get insurance out of this, at a very low cost (+ 0.7% or 70 cents per $100 of current costs).
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Didn't Obama say this would save money? Lies lies lies!!!
Compared to the costs that we'd incur to pay their bills without coverage, yes we'll save lots of money.

Imagine that, doing nothing would actually cost us more, what a novel idea.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
<snip>
If someone goes on his parent's health insurance, of course the premium for that insurance plan will go up. The per capita premium is still lower because a young person is lower risk....
This may add $25/month to an family plan for the employee - using a 4/1 ratio that would be $100/month to the employer which is $125/month overall -$1600/yr

Few in that age group will use $1600 of insurance - however, a larger pool of $$ has been created for the accident & pregancies.

If the numbers are doubled to $50/employee; then I can see where the 3380 mentioned comes from. That I feel is an overkill.

But it would fill the funding pail required for all the others that Obama wants the workers w/ insurance to carry on their shoulders.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07
Everybody predicted this one. But Obama's backward logic said that forcing young healthy people into the system would lower premiums/costs? The one thing he's been all too happy to trumpet about how great this dog pile is will actually cost people more money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10605909



Didn't Obama say this would save money? Lies lies lies!!!
Awesome glad your premiums are rising. Welcome to the club :thumbsup:

Way to go Obama :)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Overall, sure. I don't think he said everyone's premiums would go down.
Well what is it? First this was supposed to be cheaper, then deficit neutral, then lower avg premiums. All theories over time have been disproven. When this thing actually kicks in it probably wont be cost anything like was proposed. A ticking timebomb.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Well what is it? First this was supposed to be cheaper, then deficit neutral, then lower avg premiums. All theories over time have been disproven. When this thing actually kicks in it probably wont be cost anything like was proposed. A ticking timebomb.
More young healthy people does lower average premiums per person. Do you see the difference between that and an employee adding offspring to their insurance causing his total premium to increase? Are you at all familiar with how insurance works?

Here is what you're saying: "If a person chooses to be insured it costs them money and that is a greater cost than $0 therefore premiums won't decrease".

In what reality does a person buy insurance without it costing him anything? Fantasy Teabagland?
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Uhhhh no shit... Are you stupid? If someone goes on his parent's health insurance, of course the premium for that insurance plan will go up. The per capita premium is still lower because a young person is lower risk....

If you are seriously complaining that if someone chooses to include a child on their coverage it costs more, you need to go back to school and learn some basic critical thinking.
That's not the premise of the article. Also employer provided health insurance normally has employee, employee+spouse, or family. It doesn't go up just because you add a dependant unless you are specifically changing coverage levels. Family premiums are the same if you have 1, 2 or 10 kids. That AP article has since been updated.

Insurance premium cost for family coverage will increase about 1&#37; as a direct result of allowing these adults to be on their parents employer insurance. If you get your insurnace yourself it won't be as much.

But the fact remains, premiums will rise 1% specifically because of this ONE provision and nothing else. So Obama just forced families to pay more for their insurance if they have a 25 year old "child" or not. Obama lied, health insurance cost rised.

The situation is different for people buying their family coverage directly from an insurer, as many self-employed parents do. Unlike employers, insurers in the individual market do not have to spread the costs broadly. Parents would face an estimated additional premium of $2,360 in 2011.
 
Last edited:

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
1.2 million additional young people covered who's cost were previously passed on to all of us insured folks in the form of higher premium, for a mere .7&#37; increase in total premiums charged to their parents and not me. Sounds like a win,win,win.

I can understand the OP's disgust, he probably now has to add his dead beat relatives to his plan or let them be subject to a tax penalty, poor OP! He and his uninsured relatives can no longer ride the gravy train. :(
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07
Everybody predicted this one. But Obama's backward logic said that forcing young healthy people into the system would lower premiums/costs? The one thing he's been all too happy to trumpet about how great this dog pile is will actually cost people more money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10605909





Awesome glad your premiums are rising. Welcome to the club :thumbsup:

Way to go Obama :)
And your stupid ass STILL cant multi-quote.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I wonder how this will affect employers who offer medical insurance as a benefit, so the employer would be taking the hit and not the employee. It probably won't be too bad for small businesses but this could be quite a hit to some large companies that they have not budgeted for.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I wonder how this will affect employers who offer medical insurance as a benefit, so the employer would be taking the hit and not the employee. It probably won't be too bad for small businesses but this could be quite a hit to some large companies that they have not budgeted for.
The end goal is to force insurance to be so expensive to employers they choose to no longer offer that benefit. That will drive people to wish for the single payer system which is the end game Obama and most democrats want. They are on record of saying that's the end game.

Remember when Obama said in an interview - "Oh, we can't get rid of the insurance companies right away. But within 10 years I'd say we could get rid of them and will have single payer universal health care."
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I wonder how this will affect employers who offer medical insurance as a benefit, so the employer would be taking the hit and not the employee. It probably won't be too bad for small businesses but this could be quite a hit to some large companies that they have not budgeted for.
Companies may restructure their plans accordingly.

Where it was Employee/Spouse/Family they may add another category for Young Adult.

This will allow fine tuning of the costs and shifting the burden onto the Employee that brings the Young Adult on board. Instead of the 4/1 normal ratio; they may have the Young Adult option as a 3/1 or even a 2/1 ratio.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Companies may restructure their plans accordingly.

Where it was Employee/Spouse/Family they may add another category for Young Adult.

This will allow fine tuning of the costs and shifting the burden onto the Employee that brings the Young Adult on board. Instead of the 4/1 normal ratio; they may have the Young Adult option as a 3/1 or even a 2/1 ratio.
Read the article, it's been updated. They can't do that. The law specifically says they have to be treated the same as other younger dependents and the cost cannot be different.

That's the reason premiums are going to increase, because many more people are going to be in the employers group plan that technically aren't paying premiums. This unintended consequence was predicted by myself and many others. The writing was on the wall as other states that did the same thing saw premiums increase.
 
Last edited:

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
1.2 million additional young people covered who's cost were previously passed on to all of us insured folks in the form of higher premium, for a mere .7% increase in total premiums charged to their parents and not me. Sounds like a win,win,win.

I can understand the OP's disgust, he probably now has to add his dead beat relatives to his plan or let them be subject to a tax penalty, poor OP! He and his uninsured relatives can no longer ride the gravy train. :(

Thats where I think youre wrong. The increase will be to EVERYONE who has a family plan, not just those with slacker children living in the basement.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Companies may restructure their plans accordingly.

Where it was Employee/Spouse/Family they may add another category for Young Adult.

This will allow fine tuning of the costs and shifting the burden onto the Employee that brings the Young Adult on board. Instead of the 4/1 normal ratio; they may have the Young Adult option as a 3/1 or even a 2/1 ratio.
I don't believe they can do that. Personally, my insurance costs wouldn't change if I had a child in this category. I have a family insurance plan, doesn't matter how many kids I have it costs ME the same thing. So if I had an adult child that I added to my plan I don't think my plan or the costs that I see would change as a direct result.

I assume the insurance company will charge more for ALL family plans, the employer can either eat that cost or pass it on to us in someway. Somehow or another I am willing to bet it will cost me something in one fashion or another even though I do not have any children that this rule would apply too. It might help one of the other guys here at the office but it sounds like all of us are going to be footing the bill for it.

As for the argument that "we where already paying for it somewhere else", where exactly will I see a reduction in my out of pocket expenses due to the money we will now be saving? I am not saying this is a bad rule but why can't they charge those, and only those, that actually benefit from it?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I heard an estimate a few days ago that said of all the pregnancies 41 &#37; were to unwed mothers.

Just dont pay insurance. They cant track everyone down.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Companies may restructure their plans accordingly.

Where it was Employee/Spouse/Family they may add another category for Young Adult.

This will allow fine tuning of the costs and shifting the burden onto the Employee that brings the Young Adult on board. Instead of the 4/1 normal ratio; they may have the Young Adult option as a 3/1 or even a 2/1 ratio.
I don't believe they can do that. Personally, my insurance costs wouldn't change if I had a child in this category. I have a family insurance plan, doesn't matter how many kids I have it costs ME the same thing. So if I had an adult child that I added to my plan I don't think my plan or the costs that I see would change as a direct result.

I assume the insurance company will charge more for ALL family plans, the employer can either eat that cost or pass it on to us in someway. Somehow or another I am willing to bet it will cost me something in one fashion or another even though I do not have any children that this rule would apply too. It might help one of the other guys here at the office but it sounds like all of us are going to be footing the bill for it.

As for the argument that "we where already paying for it somewhere else", where exactly will I see a reduction in my out of pocket expenses due to the money we will now be saving? I am not saying this is a bad rule but why can't they charge those, and only those, that actually benefit from it?
Per Spidey's post above; my hypothesis is flawed - therefore I would expect that all Family options will increase whether there is an adult child or not covered.

Tossing out numbers (loosely):
300M people population
250M potentially covered people (Gov was stating there were 45M uninsured)
Figured 1/3 of those are non-Family (1 or 2 adults) 80M
170M family related people
Using 2+2 as a family policy unit
45M policies will be affected

Using the 3380 number translates to $15T added costs
Using my first smaller number still has $7T added costs. to the economy

Something does not add up:\
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY