Obama's Absurd New Classification of "Dependent"

[Atlanteax]

A 125 Premium Plan, the Health Care FSA, HRA and HSA can now be used to provide tax free medical benefits for a child of your employee who has not reached the age of 27 in the calendar year in which the claim is submitted, or premium paid (e.g., If the child’s 27th birthday is in 2010, the child’s 2010 expenses are not eligible for tax free treatment). This is effective for services rendered, supplies provided and premium paid on or after March 30, 2010. The amendments below must be signed no later than December 31, 2010.

A child is defined as an individual who is the son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter of the employee. It also includes both a legally adopted individual, an individual who is lawfully placed with the employee for legal adoption, and a foster child placed with the employee by an authorized placement agency or court. It does not matter if the child resides with the employee, is a full time student or not a full time student, files their own taxes and has an income more than $3200, or is married.
http://www.hfsbenefits.com/email/051310_dependentage.html

.

Hmm, so... if someone has an offspring that is considered to "young adult" who has his/her own home, has a well-paying job, and is married... he/she is *STILL* a dependent!!

Insert epic-face-palm-FAIL.

[Elsymir]

You're somehow against extending insurance benefits to a child under 27?
It may amaze you to know not everyone becomes immediately employed with full benefits at the age of 22.

[Atlanteax]

You're somehow against extending insurance benefits to a child under 27?
It may amaze you to know not everyone becomes immediately employed with full benefits at the age of 22.

Examine it again, and in particular, refer to the bolded section.

[Cephalopod]

I'm unclear on the epic-face-palm-FAIL here... this isn't a rewriting of tax code, it's allowing children to stay on their parent's insurance longer.

While I certainly hope that my kids will be on their own and have their own insurance by the time they're 27 (!), I'm glad I'll be able to cover my deadbeat son or daughter a little longer.

This is especially helpful in the economy now, where in some areas college graduates are having a tough time finding gainful employment with full benefits.

[Carl Spackler]

While I certainly hope that my kids will be on their own and have their own insurance by the time they're 27 (!), I'm glad I'll be able to cover my deadbeat son or daughter a little longer.

So is the rest of America who is going to be paying for them...

[Cephalopod]

So is the rest of America who is going to be paying for them...

I didn't realize my unsubsidized health insurance was secretly being paid by other Americans... why the hell am I still paying!?

Really, though, explain to me how this impacts the rest of the socialization of medicine... if parents can't keep these kids on their own insurance until 27, then the kids have to acquire insurance through some other method thanks to the mandate. If they have to get insurance on their own, chances are that it will have to be federally or state-subsidized (assuming a 27 year old deadbeat), as opposed to parents keeping kids on their own insurance in which case there may be a lesser chance of it being government subsidized.

[ClydeR]

I don't see the word "dependent" used anywhere in the article. To the contrary, the part you bolded emphasizes that it does not matter whether or not the child is dependent on the insured parent.

[ClydeR]

Really, though, explain to me how this impacts the rest of the socialization of medicine... if parents can't keep these kids on their own insurance until 27, then the kids have to acquire insurance through some other method thanks to the mandate. If they have to get insurance on their own, chances are that it will have to be federally or state-subsidized (assuming a 27 year old deadbeat), as opposed to parents keeping kids on their own insurance in which case there may be a lesser chance of it being government subsidized.

There are no free lunches. The cost of paying benefits for these "children" has to be borne by someone. It could be borne by hospitals and doctors in the form of unpaid bills for medical services, insurance companies in the form of lower profits, parents in the form of additional insurance premiums, other insured people in the form of higher premiums, or the government in the form of subsidies.

It appears to me that in some cases it will be in the form of additional premium payments by parents of the insured children, but in most cases by higher premiums paid by everyone. Doctors and hospitals will benefit by having fewer unpaid bills. With regard to this change, then, the winners are children, doctors and hospitals. The losers are everybody else.

Is it worth it? Not to me.

[Carl Spackler]

ClydeR answered for me. Best thing I learned in college was in my Macro Econ class.... No such thing as a free lunch.

[Keller]

The title of this thread is so misleading I might call it a lie.

Maybe try "Congress's Absurd New Definition of "Child" for Purposes of Health-Care Reform".

[Atlanteax]

The title of this thread is so misleading I might call it a lie.

So you agree with Rocktar that lawyers lie professionally? ^^

[Methais]

You're somehow against extending insurance benefits to a child under 27?

Those darn 26-year-old children.

At what age are people considered adults now? 40?

[Keller]

So you agree with Rocktar that lawyers lie professionally? ^^

I'm not sure if you have a point, and, if you do, it escapes me, but what you said is incorrect. Saying things that are incorrect is not necessarily tantamount to lying. But I think you (or likely one of the republi-rage sites you visit) had the intent to state the topic incorrectly. That is a lie.

[ClydeR]

In defense of Atlanteax, I've done some more checking, and it looks like Congress changed the definition of "Dependent" for certain purposes, but not for general purposes, in the final bill. One of those purposes was to say that any Dependent -- meaning a child under age 27 -- is eligible to be covered under the parent's insurance plan.

It doesn't mean you'll be able to claim your adult 26 year old kids as Dependents on your tax return, but it does mean you will be able to have them covered by your insurance plan. Instead of using the word "Dependent," Congress could have used the word "Floccinaucinihilipilificatalist" and defined that word to mean a child under the age of 27. That would be much simpler and would eliminate the confusion. Your Floccinaucinihilipilificatalist would be eligible for coverage under your insurance plan, but you could not claim your Floccinaucinihilipilificatalist as a Dependent on your tax return.

[Methais]

Floccinaucinihilipilificatalist

Did you get that word off of an ingredient label?

[Kithus]

Did you get that word off of an ingredient label?

The name of his hispanic neighbor.

[crb]

I'm unclear on the epic-face-palm-FAIL here... this isn't a rewriting of tax code, it's allowing children to stay on their parent's insurance longer.

While I certainly hope that my kids will be on their own and have their own insurance by the time they're 27 (!), I'm glad I'll be able to cover my deadbeat son or daughter a little longer.

This is especially helpful in the economy now, where in some areas college graduates are having a tough time finding gainful employment with full benefits.

You will not be covering your deadbeat son or daughter.

Society will be, because this is a mandate. Everyone, even people without kids, will be paying for your deadbeat son or daughter in the form of higher insurance premiums.

People tend to dislike having to pay for the failures of others, this is why people tend to dislike these kinds of policies.

[ClydeR]

Did you get that word off of an ingredient label?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-flo2.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/floccinaucinihilipilification

Although it has a much older pedigree, it has been used in the United States Senate at least three times. Robert Byrd and Daniel Patrick Moynihan spent several minutes discussing it on the Senate floor one day. Later, Jesse Helms used it in a committee hearing, saying he learned it from Moynihan. Oh, for simpler times.

I had to modify it to make it refer to a person.

The point is that Congress should not use the same word to mean several different things.

[ClydeR]

The name of his hispanic neighbor.

I don't have to worry about such things because I have a danged fence.

[Elsymir]

Essentially what you've stated is something that already exists, but was raised from 22 (if not in college or 25 (if still in college) to 27 (under all circumstances). I'm not really sure why you hate the idea of more insured people, seeing as how the uninsured who use emergency care are paid for by everyone already.

Considering the parent would be paying additional premiums for another person on their insurance plan, I don't see why its anyone's business or why anyone gives a damn. The person is insured through an already existing plan of the parent, Not through some absurd socialist insurance program (unless that plan is, of course, Medicare).

[Elsymir]

The point is that Congress should not use the same word to mean several different things.

I'm almost certain every word in the english language has at least two meanings. I can say with 100% confidence that the vast majority of them do. It's almost impossible to use a word some lawyer won't immediately go insane about.

For example, the bill says "child" which I interpret to be a genetic offspring. However, others here interpret it as a developmental stage of life. Neither of us are wrong, and therein lies the problem.

[4a6c1]

I don't have to worry about such things because I have a danged fence.

:rofl:

I love you.

And I'm very sad that you're gay. :(

[Kuyuk]

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the whole system, but to me it looks like this:

Child of any age, whether it's 5, 15, or 35 - as long as the parent is paying for their coverage - who cares. Someone is paying for it.

Child of any age cannot get covered by parent, then has to get coverage on their own, usually state provided... now the persons paying are the taxpayer, not the family member.


Am I looking at this the wrong way?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I have no issues with this at all.

[Parkbandit]

I'm almost certain every word in the english language has at least two meanings.

Incorrect. There are many words with but one meaning to them.


I can say with 100% confidence that the vast majority of them do.

Cite source. Also, define "vast majority". If it's over 50%, would that just be majority? What would make it "Vast"?


It's almost impossible to use a word some lawyer won't immediately go insane about.

I don't live my life by what a lawyer would think. I have a very low opinion of most lawyers... as have many people throughout history.

[Elsymir]

Incorrect. There are many words with but one meaning to them.

Cite source. Also, define "vast majority". If it's over 50%, would that just be majority? What would make it "Vast"?

I don't live my life by what a lawyer would think. I have a very low opinion of most lawyers... as have many people throughout history.

I'd say 75% of words have more than one meaning in the dictionary. Do I have a source? No. Did i make up that percentage? Yes. Is it a guess? completely. That's why its called an opinion. I'm not sure if my opinion is correct, but no one's provided a counter-example to disprove it, so it continues being my opinion.

As for what lawyers think, I rarely care as well. the one time I do care what lawyers think, however, is when choosing language for laws. If a lawyer can find multiple meanings from one sentence, than the sentence needs to be tightened - because they lawyer -will- find multiple meanings.

[Parkbandit]

I'd say 75% of words have more than one meaning in the dictionary. Do I have a source? No. Did i make up that percentage? Yes. Is it a guess? completely. That's why its called an opinion. I'm not sure if my opinion is correct, but no one's provided a counter-example to disprove it, so it continues being my opinion.


It's an opinion that you were passing off as a fact.. as evidenced by "I can say with 100% confidence that the vast majority of them do"

So, now that "100% confidence" is "not sure if my opinion is correct".

Ok.

PS - No one has to provide a counter-example to disprove it.. it is your job to prove your opinion when passing it off as a fact.

PPS - You are the liberal answer to Rocktar.

[Rocktar]

I'm almost certain every word in the english language has at least two meanings. I can say with 100% confidence that the vast majority of them do. It's almost impossible to use a word some lawyer won't immediately go insane about.


Is "almost certain" the same as talking out your ass because that is what you are doing?

The English Language is the largest, most complex and most specific language on the planet and I am pretty sure that all words have specific meanings and that substantially less than half of the more than 500,000 words in English have multiple meanings.

Of course lawyers go nuts over words, it is through obfuscation, over complication and misdirection using language that they earn their living. Of course they will jump on any ambiguity or perceived mixed meaning especially when there is the possibility of making money off doing so.

[Elsymir]

[QUOTE=Rocktar;1105218] I am pretty sure that all words have specific meanings [QUOTE]

Bear

[ElvenFury]

Gay!

[Jorddyn]

Hmm, so... if someone has an offspring that is considered to "young adult" who has his/her own home, has a well-paying job, and is married... he/she is *STILL* a dependent!!

Holy misreading, batman.


Society will be, because this is a mandate. Everyone, even people without kids, will be paying for your deadbeat son or daughter in the form of higher insurance premiums

Society is already paying the cost in the form of higher medical expenses to cover those of the people who skip out on their bills, and higher emergency room costs thanks to the uninsured who can't afford to go to a regular doctor's office.



People tend to dislike having to pay for the failures of others, this is why people tend to dislike these kinds of policies.


I'm quite honestly sick of paying for everyone's birth control failures.

[Rocktar]

[QUOTE=Rocktar;1105218] I am pretty sure that all words have specific meanings [QUOTE]

Bear

While having a myriad of definitions, each one is specific. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

Specific does not mean singular.


Thanks for playing.

[Elsymir]

Specific does not mean singular.

Thanks for playing.

So you're somehow arguing that even though it says "Child" it has a very specific meaning of Child and everyone will immediately, without fail, recognize it.

[Rocktar]

No, I am suggesting that the definition of child is specific, the legal classification of child is not quite as specific and that lawyers will make a lot of money on the fine distinctions between the two.

Beyond all that, it is quite clear in modern society that even if words have very exact and limited definitions it is still quite possible and even probable that people will still misunderstand, assume and simply be ignorant of the meaning. See the debate elsewhere about "impeached" as an example.

[Keller]

No, I am suggesting that the definition of child is specific, the legal classification of child is not quite as specific and that lawyers will make a lot of money on the fine distinctions between the two.

Beyond all that, it is quite clear in modern society that even if words have very exact and limited definitions it is still quite possible and even probable that people will still misunderstand, assume and simply be ignorant of the meaning. See the debate elsewhere about "impeached" as an example.

Out of curiosity, what is the "specific" definition of "child"?

[crb]

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the whole system, but to me it looks like this:

Child of any age, whether it's 5, 15, or 35 - as long as the parent is paying for their coverage - who cares. Someone is paying for it.

Child of any age cannot get covered by parent, then has to get coverage on their own, usually state provided... now the persons paying are the taxpayer, not the family member.


Am I looking at this the wrong way?

This is not how insurance works, in almost all cases.

When covered by your employer the fee to add family members is rarely equivalent to the actual cost of adding family members.

Sometimes to add a family member it is free (for you anyways). Sometimes the cost to add kids is free, but a spouse is extra. Sometimes they're all extra. When they are extra it is usually a nominal fee, $20 a paycheck, $10 a week, $100 a month, something like that. Rarely is it the fully couple hundred dollars a month it actually costs to insure that person.
Instead the cost is subsidized by other people paying into the insurance pool.

So, for instance, my wife's insurance through work covers our entire family for free, we've only had it for about a year, previous to that as a self employed business owner I had to buy my own, but that is another thread.

Anyways, with this new slacker law (which is what it is colloquially known as) the employer will be forced to cover children up to age 27 if he chooses to cover children. This will raise his costs. With higher costs he will have three options.

Option 1: Pass costs on to employees in the form of a fee to add children - but he won't be able to discriminate between actual children, and slacker adults, so... everyone with a family would pay more to that the slacker manchilds can be covered.

Option 2: Avoid cost increases by paring back coverage, which might entail an increased copay or something. This hurts everyone at the company, so that slacker manchilds can be covered

Option 3: Continue providing the benefits without a fee, but reduce other compensation (or future raises) to compensate. This hurts everyone at the company, so that slacker manchilds can be covered.


So, you see, it is in fact others who are paying for the slackers, not just their parents.


Furthermore, your point about "uninsured going to the ER but then not paying their bill and thus costing the public money" is a point, but not wholly valid, for multiple reasons.

1. To actually escape a medical bill you need to declare bankruptcy, it may take you a long time to pay the bill, you might not end up paying all of it (but of course hospitals pad the bill in anticipation you won't pay all of it), but it isn't as if 100% of uninsured medical bills get unpaid.

2. The desire to not be in debt, the waiting times, and fear of being unable to pay, are all real issues people worry about when using ERs. Rather than going to the ER for a headache, or a rash, or something, or for drug seeking which is so many ER patients, they will wait a day, or two, or a week, and likely the sickness will pass. Maybe they'll take something OTC. And all of that is fine, because we don't all need to go to the doctor when we're minorly sick, and one of the reasons our healthcare is so expensive is people who have to pay nothing to go to the doctor (because they have good insurance) overindulge. Google overconsumption of healthcare by the insured. So, they will use medical services less often than if they had insurance.

3. It completely ignores the affect of incentives on people. If someone has insurance through Mom & Dad for free, they have 0 incentive to find it for themselves. You cannot assume 100% of slackers in the age range would end up long term uninsured if the law did not exist.

[Keller]

So, crb, I take it you've opted to continue buying your own insurance instead of being a slacker manchild on your wife's company's dime, right?

Right?

Tell me you're not just another angry, delusional hypocrit.

[Rocktar]

Out of curiosity, what is the "specific" definition of "child"?

A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm quite honestly sick of paying for everyone's birth control failures.

Seriously.

I know a lot of the Republicans on this forum are not pro-lifers, but it's hard for me to take the crying over something like this seriously when total fucking idiots are out there procreating when they don't even have the means to properly care for themselves, let alone a child.

And maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see whats so awful about this bill. If a parent wants to use their private insurance to insure their son or daughter, so what? Gen Y/millenials are bearing a lot of the burden of the unemployment right now- most kids are graduating college with a shit ton of student loans and not enough gainful job opportunities. Allowing parents to take care of their kid's health insurance will relieve some pressure off of society, not add to it.

[Carl Spackler]

And all of that is fine, because we don't all need to go to the doctor when we're minorly sick, and one of the reasons our healthcare is so expensive is people who have to pay nothing to go to the doctor (because they have good insurance) overindulge. Google overconsumption of healthcare by the insured. So, they will use medical services less often than if they had insurance.

Anytime something is "free" it's subject to abuse.

I think everyone should pay something. Doctors visits should cost a fee, even for people with the best insurance. I think if a office visit were to cost, say $25, fewer people would go for a sore throat. Everyone should have to share in the costs.

That said, there should be a safety net, this is where medicaid can come into play, for people who truly can't afford it.

[crb]

So, crb, I take it you've opted to continue buying your own insurance instead of being a slacker manchild on your wife's company's dime, right?

Right?

Tell me you're not just another angry, delusional hypocrit.

I'm a husband and father, not a child. My wife's employer optionally decides to provide benefits for entire families. This is reflected in her lower pay for her position. Accepting it does not make me a hypocrit.

It is not a federal mandate to provide insurance for someone who should be capable of providing it for themselves, especially considering how cheap insurance is for people 18-27. It is the choice of the employer, and supported by the employees, not something the government would make everyone do.

A husband and wife is a singular unit, for taxes and possessions and everything else. My job provides the house and groceries, her job provides the insurance, we cohabitate, both our names are on the mortgage, and we even sleep in the same bed. Until the day we die we will be a single unit as such. She could get a job with no benefits but more pay (significantly), and I could buy insurance for the whole family, and it'd be a wash, so what difference does it make?

I also do not oppose mandated benefits for same sex cohabitating lifepartners. They are entitled to not be treated differently from a married couple.

[crb]

Seriously.

I know a lot of the Republicans on this forum are not pro-lifers, but it's hard for me to take the crying over something like this seriously when total fucking idiots are out there procreating when they don't even have the means to properly care for themselves, let alone a child.

And maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see whats so awful about this bill. If a parent wants to use their private insurance to insure their son or daughter, so what? Gen Y/millenials are bearing a lot of the burden of the unemployment right now- most kids are graduating college with a shit ton of student loans and not enough gainful job opportunities. Allowing parents to take care of their kid's health insurance will relieve some pressure off of society, not add to it.

The overpricing of college education is a whole other topic. The return on investment for a 4 year degree has been plummeting over the last few decades. Sometimes you'd be far better off not going to college. There is a bit of a bubble in higher education, it will burst. Kinda starting to in California.

[crb]

Anytime something is "free" it's subject to abuse.

I think everyone should pay something. Doctors visits should cost a fee, even for people with the best insurance. I think if a office visit were to cost, say $25, fewer people would go for a sore throat. Everyone should have to share in the costs.

That said, there should be a safety net, this is where medicaid can come into play, for people who truly can't afford it.

Absolutely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#In_insurance

[Latrinsorm]

Millennials sound like the most aggravating and beautiful flowers of all time.
I think if a office visit were to cost, say $25, fewer people would go for a sore throat.
Absolutely.A thought experiment, gentlemen: suppose you are experiencing a sore throat. Suppose further that you bring this up in conversation with someone you know (who is not a medical professional), and they tell you it's probably not serious. What are the conditions under which you would rely on that person's diagnosis?

If the answer is "there are none", is the situation any different if you are the one offering yourself a diagnosis?

[crb]

It is perhaps a little hard for me to participate in your thought experiment because I know so many doctors.

However, for a sore throat, I would take some nice methol cough drops, if it persists for a week, or if I developed a rash or a high fever I would assume it is strep throat and go see a doctor for confirmation and a prescription.

I wouldn't really ask anyone's diagnosis and rely on my own opinion, but I definitely would value the opinions of people with more life experience than me. I would ask on Internet forums certainly, and in fact have, in the past, to self diagnose, the Internet is a wonderful tool.

Do you not think moral hazard exists Latrin?

[Latrinsorm]

Do you not think moral hazard exists Latrin?Quite to the contrary, I think it certainly exists and strongly endorse the form of it relevant to this discussion. Taken from your citation: "For example, without medical insurance, some may forego medical treatment due to its costs and simply deal with substandard health. But after medical insurance becomes available, some may ask an insurance provider to pay for the cost of medical treatment that would not have occurred otherwise." Not only is this worth pursuing out of basic human decency, it is worthwhile from a practical perspective. Taking a $0.30 statin every day for 30 years is significantly cheaper than open heart surgery in dollars, productivity, work hours, etc. One person taking $20 worth of antibiotics to treat strep throat is probably cheaper than whatever the treatment for a scarlet fever epidemic is.

[crb]

Even cheaper than taking a $0.30 statin is not smoking, eating less, and walking more.

But I would agree with you in theory than certain preventative measures are worthwhile. In fact I would support nationalized preventative medicine, because it does save in the long run. Likewise, I would support tax credits for people who live healthy.

Antibiotics are typically free nowadays by the way. My son actually had strep throat and scarlet fever not 2 months ago. Going to a grocery store pharmacy or walmart and you'll get your antibiotics for free. That is a good sort of creative capitalism. They also often offer free blood pressure screenings and whatnot.

There is also a lot of good results from ala carte concierge clinics located in places like drug stores (walgreens, etc). The problem is they invariably face regulatory hurdles to open through opposition from hospital groups, nurse unions, etc. In many places for instance it is illegal for a doctor to own one, it is like the government wants to punish doctors for any entrepreneurial spirit, which is only going to, in the end, reduce healthcare costs. The same way big hospitals fight the creation of specialty hospitals (which have much much lower infection rates) because they want to keep their monopoly, and the government takes the special interest money and gets in the way.

That is all tangental though.

But I would agree to certain "socialized" preventative medicine services, but I definitely think, as far as reactionary medical services paid for by insurance, moral hazard is a big issue and a big thing to reign in medical inflation would be to make the consumer of healthcare the purchaser of healthcare (which is not the case most often today).