Skip to content

Affordable Health Insurance For Young Adults Question & Answers

2016 April 22
by Sarah Fields

Robert asks…

Can I be taken off of my parents health insurance if my job does offer it to me but I decline?

I am 20 years old and I work part time. (I also nanny but I am paid under the table) My job does offer health insurance but I don’t get it because I barely make $200 a week and it doesn’t seem worth it. I thought I should be covered on my parents insurance since I am under 26 and a student but I got something in the mail saying if my job offers insurance then I’m basically being kicked off of my parents.

Sarah Fields answers:

There’s been some confusion on this point in the last year or two. A 2010 provision of the health reform law allows adult children to stay on a parent’s plan until age 26, as you know. However, there is a clause in the law that says that if you are offered health insurance through your employer then Mom and Dad’s health plan doesn’t have to cover you anymore, even if you choose not to enroll in your employer plan.

If your employer plan is too expensive for you, you might ask Mom and Dad how much they’re saving on their monthly health insurance premiums by you not being on their plan. They may be willing to help you cover the difference. You could also look into purchasing an individual health insurance plan on your own. If you’re young and healthy you may have some pretty affordable options. Work with a licensed agent online or in your area to learn more.

Ken asks…

What kind of health care do people from the US now have?

What did Obama do to the health care?

Sarah Fields answers:

Most Americans rely on their employers to negotiate for health-insurance coverage for them (policies for larger employers are not as expensive because a firm that can bring in many customers can bargain for lower rates). Consequently, the quality and amount of coverage depends on the coverage the employer offers. A decreasing number of employers offer comprehensive health insurance, coverage including even dental and vision coverage. More employers, however, are increasingly offering no health coverage or “catastrophic” coverage. My son’s employer, for example, covers some coverage of prescription drugs, but, otherwise, the policy pays no benefits until his out-of-pocket expenses reach $5,000. In addition, many policies specify caps on the amount of health-care expenses the insurer will pay in a given year.

Here in Tennessee, one-half the people under 65 have no health coverage at all.

Health care in the US costs about twice per person what it costs in any other country, even though about 50,000,000 Americans have no health insurance at all!

No other “first world” country has a comparable, for-profit system. All have universal coverage and all negotiate lower costs. Quality in other countries is not for profit; it is outcomes based and it ranks far higher than that in the US. The US is ranked about 37th in overall health-care quality.

The Affordable Healthcare Act has already forced a few long-overdue changes: The insured cannot be dropped (have his policy “rescinded”) because the company simply believes that his care has become too expensive. Coverage cannot be denied because of preexisting conditions, although the cost of the premium may be prohibitive; this lack of access will continue for most Americans until 2014. Children of adults with family coverage must now be covered until they are 26 (19 if the child has a preexisting condition).

In 2014, coverage will become more nearly universal: “…insurers will have to offer plans with premiums based only on age and geographical location, leveling the playing field for those with more-complex health conditions.” (

Also, as in Massachusetts, everyone must be covered or must acquire coverage; those who neglect or refuse to do so will have to pay an annual penalty. This mandatory coverage is important, because some younger, healthier people will buy coverage only when they really need it, thereby causing care and premiums to go up for everyone.

Because the law was written to keep private, for-profit insurance companies profitable, it will have little effect on the astronomical cost of health care in the US. Its advantage is that more people will be covered–a fact that will reduce greatly the rising mortality of 45,000 people who die each year for lack of necessary coverage. Furthermore, more Americans go bankrupt because of medical costs than for all other reasons combined.

Eventually, if the US shakes off the shackles of corporatist rule, we will go to a sensible form of Medicare for everybody. It will cost much less (the overhead for Medicare is about 3%, as opposed to some 30% for private health insurance) and will afford much more preventive coverage.

For now, the Affordable Care Act is the best for which Americans can hope.

Lizzie asks…

What is the difference between Hillary’s, Edward’s and Obama’s healthcare programs?

Hillary keeps saying she is different. Edwards says he is different. Obama says his is different! They all claim to be better than the other candidate?

Sarah Fields answers:

As long as it took me to get all this,.. Only three answers? Does no one know?..
Maybe if people could stop over what obama’s middle name, or is Bill doing to much for Hillary.. People should know what they are voting for.

I just read through the ‘issues’ section on each of their websites,..
Qoutes from their health care plans.
Follow by just a bit of food for thought..

“Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans. ”

“Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. Health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients’ privacy is protected. ”

Clinton –
“Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible. ”

“A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers. ”

Edwards –
“Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance. ”

All three of them are requiring health care coverage to be maintaned. So, penalties will most likely be issued if you fail to do so.

Next, it says a tax credit would be issued to famalies that need assistance, these guidlines will probably be similar to current tax credits for children etc..
We barely make it,.. And are barely eligible for any sort of ‘kid credits’ I dont understand how a family that has to cover their own health insurance would be able to live if they were over the ‘limit’ the limits currently aren’t even middle class, its more like the lower class..[currently mid 30’sk to mid 50’s depending on the number of children, for child credits atleast] Yes it does say under 250,000k for hillary,.. But I’m sure it would be on a sliding scale. If someone has more in depth info, I’d love to see it.

Under Obama and Hillary there was mention of mondernizing health care, this means data basis. Aren’t there enough issues with privacy? People complain about their health care privacy rights currently.. So now we want the government monitoring us as well? And it wouldn’t be as private as they make it sound,.. Think current vaccine data is supposed to ‘private’.. All you have to do is call in, they fax a waver, you sign it saying you’re the parent, and in minutes you have all of someones vaccine history.

I’m sorry but I don’t want an HMO now, I definately would not want a government controlled one..
Look at the other government controlled health care countries,..
It does not work there it is definately not going to work here.

I said its just a bit of food for thought, I dont think people realize all this, with a government controlled health care policy..
Anyone has more in depth numbers, I would love to read them,.. I just got this off of their campaigne sites. I’ll probably get thumbs down for my opinions, but I think I should be able to have my privacy, not the government knowing my every ailment. Or eventually the government telling me I need this or that preventative procedure. Do not say the wont they allready do this with vaccines.

The candidate that has my vote is Ron Paul largely because he supports medical freedom, privacy, AND access to alternative health care.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Leave a Reply

Note: You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS