Obamacare

NYT Celebrates the Rise of the 26-Year-Old Dependent, Misses the Point

|

A modest correction on the first sentence of a piece titled "More Young Adults Insured Since Health Law Took Effect" in today's New York Times:

Young adults, long the group most likely to be uninsured, are gaining health coverage faster than expected since the 2010 health law began allowing parents compelling insurers to cover them as dependents on family policies.

For more on the ObamaCare provision that forces health insurers to let young adults remain on their parents' plans until age 26, go here

NEXT: Social Security and the Constitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. damn risk poolz

  2. I think the wording is fine. As it is now if parents want to keep their kids on their insurance until the kid is 26 it is now their choice, therefore it allows them to.

    1. Why wouldn’t I? My family plan has to carry him.
      I repeat — Suckers!!!

    2. no MNG, the wording is NOT fine because it replaces the concept of choice with that of govt force.

  3. My son who just got his undergrad degree will now have my health insurance through law school.
    Thanks, suckers!

    1. That is okay. When yours turns 27, you will be paying for everyone else’s.

      1. Naw. By that time, it’ll all be ashes.

  4. The Big Lebowski: Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
    [the Dude walks out and shuts the door]
    The Big Lebowski: The bums will always lose!
    Brandt: How was your meeting, Mr. Lebowski?
    The Dude: Okay. The old man told me to take any rug in the house.

  5. Since all the insurers have to play by the same rules covering the same people, I don’t see the problem. Market competition is fully intact. There is no “deadweight” loss. It may offend your philosophical sensibilities, but it doesn’t create any serious market problems.

    You could let the insurers force offspring out of the policy coverage before age 26, but I don’t see the gain. The youngsters would either get their own separate policies — the biggest effect being increased paperwork and overhead — or go uninsured and impose uncompensated care on welfare or charity, or go untreated and then we have uneccesary sickness or disability or death.

    In other news, Troy Davis is still dead.

    1. I don’t see the problem.
      Heh, heh.
      I’m sure you don’t.

      1. The Logic Of Dipshit Empire

        1. Isn’t that an new show on HBO this fall?

          1. I’m waiting for the Foundation series on HBO. Almost exactly the same as the books, but with more gratuitous sex.

            1. Really? They didn’t fuck it up? When I heard they were making it my first thought is they would make it into some kind of fucked up parable about environmentalism. You know the old empire fell apart because it didn’t listen to Hari Seldon’s warnings about global warming and fossil fuel use. God, if they didn’t fuck it up, that makes me want to get HBO to see it.

              1. He’s joking. However:

                However, Columbia Pictures (Sony) successfully bid for the screen rights on January 15, 2009, and then contracted Roland Emmerich for direction. Emmerich and Michael Wimer were named as producers.[15] There was no development of the film during 2009?2010.

                AIIIGGHHHHHHHHHH

                Luckily I’m no fan of the Foundation stuff anyway.

                1. They will fuck it up if they ever get it made. They will make it into some environmental parable with lots of explosions.

            2. After reading the Game of Thrones it appears to me much of it was taken out…

              Well except for that red headed prostitute that Theon Greyjoy payed to get “one last look”, that sericed a girl in front of Little Finger while he went into a monologue and who got dressed, presumably after coitus, while Grand Maester Pycelle talked about “the thing about Kings”

              I don’t even think he was in the book.

              1. I don’t even think he was in the book.

                I don’t even think she was in the book.

        2. Why yes it is. Dropping lodes!

    2. Market competition is fully intact.

      Why do we want market competition?

      1 Innovation

      2. Price Control

      3. Signals for resource allocation.

      This is probably not a full list but it will do.

      1. So in your “intact competitive market” insurers and health providers have all the same rules…in other words there can be no innovation because insurers cannot do things the rules do not allow. They also all have the same services and prices so there can be no better product for more money so there is less incentive to invent a better product.

      2. the dependent has no incentive to consume less because he/she is not spending any money so there is no downward pressure on price.

      3. prices and services are set by the government so the health providers have no price signal to direct them on where resources should be allocated.

      This scheme fails to meet all three of the listed benefits of market competition.

      Not meeting any is hardly “intact”.

      In fact a thinking person would say the exact opposite. That market competition has been destroyed.

      1. I thought my response was more in keeping with troll-free Thursday. But, hey — That’s just me.

        1. I can’t keep track of Friday Funnies or the Morning Links…

          …and those are actually sanctioned by the Reason editorial staff.

          I don’t even want to talk about the drinking game.

    3. Market competition is fully intact.

      Well, except that competition by insurers who want to offer cheaper policies that don’t cover these dependents is now illegal.

      You could let the insurers force offspring out of the policy coverage before age 26, but I don’t see the gain.

      Nor do you need to, since it shouldn’t be any of your damn business who insurers choose to insure.

      1. I agree with you, except that most insurers are absolutely fine with adding young, healthy people to their rolls.

        Of course a better way would’ve been to allow insurers to accept these slacker dependents rather than compelling them to, but that sort of subtlety is not exactly a hallmark of our federal government.

    4. In other news, you’re still a moron. You like being a moron? Is that fun for you?

      1. Dude, it’s Thursday.

        All dudes, it’s Thursday.

        Now everybody take your punitive DRINK!. You all go and think about what you’ve done (drunk).

    5. market competition is intact.
      ——————–

      Really? When the state regulates how many service providers can offer their product, is that really a market? And when the largest of those providers invariably covers state employees, is it really competition?

  6. Since all the insurers have to play by the same rules covering the same people, I don’t see the problem.

    Using that kind of logic, let’s make a law compelling all insurers to cover CAT scans and MRIs for cold and flu sufferers.

  7. “Sadly, one of the lowlights of America’s recent slippage towards 3rd World Status is the fact that 30% of kids under 26 years old were uninsured. Covered by the Emergency Room, the costliest coverage of all. Obama may have, saved our dignity as a civilization on this front. ”

    I hate NYT commenters.

    1. one of the lowlights of America’s recent slippage towards 3rd World Status

      I would think starting a war with Libya without congressional approval would make at least the top 2 of those lowlights.

      The government stealing the assets of GM from its creditors whould make at least the top 5.

      Shutting down the whole offshore drilling industry because of one bad operator is #4…

      Hell i think i could find at least a 100 3rd world lowlights that rise above American 20 somethings who choose to spend their money on beer and itunes rather then health insurance.

      1. Another highlight:”This is similar to the choice we face on other issues – tax the wealthy and support education or don’t tax the “job creators” and cut education.”

        Some have learned very well from Obama.

        1. burn the straw man and cut education. You can practically draw a correlation between the formation of the federal Dept of Ed and the rise in state funding increases, and the decrease in educational performance. If the NYT reader really wants 3rd world, plenty of schools in his/her area from which to see it.

          1. the federal Dept of Ed

            Speaking of States Rights…does any 3rd world country even remotely resemble a federation of states?

            On the other hand it is hard to find a 3rd world country that isn’t centrally governed.

            It would seem that states rights advocates are for a system of government that is distinctly 1rst world and advocates for a strong federal government are advocates of government that most resembles the 3rd world.

            1. “On the other hand it is hard to find a 3rd world country that isn’t centrally governed…”

              Somalia!!!!!!!

  8. And the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Yes, Mrs. Smith, it’s a great idea to add your 22 year-old to your plan. (‘Cus we know we’ll never have to pay out a dime on this demographic, tee-hee.)

  9. The youngsters would either get their own separate policies — the biggest effect being increased paperwork and overhead — or go uninsured and impose uncompensated care on welfare or charity, or go untreated and then we have uneccesary sickness or disability or death.

    Or, possibly, young healthy people who are not hypochondriacs will happily go years without ever entering a doctor’s office.

    1. Or they pay cash when they do, like, like… like some sort of animal. Third-world animal.

  10. I don’t get …. oh, I see what you did there.

  11. Most 26 year olds that I know have children of their own. Under whose policy are these children covered?

  12. What if a 70 year-old had a 24 year-old kid? Would the kid be on Medicare?

    1. Simple. We just ban anyone 39 or older from having children. Helps with the overpopulation problem, too. And I heard that older people having kids was unhealthy anyway. So it’s for their own good. Everybody wins! Do we do what’s best for absolutely everyone, or do we let middle-aged mothers die in childbirth?

    2. If that kid is 24 now, then no, that kid would never be on Medicare.

    3. Good question. When my dad turned 65 I was only 24.

      I have a friend who was 14 when his father became eligible for Medicare. How would that work?

  13. … I’ll have a 22 yr old kid. I’d like to know the answer to that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.