IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: (2)
It is a qualifying event *for my daughter*, not for me.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life-event/
New Read much?
You may qualify for a Special Enrollment Period if you or anyone in your household lost qualifying health coverage in the past 60 days OR expects to lose coverage in the next 60 days.

https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage-outside-open-enrollment/special-enrollment-period/
--

Drew
New Might depend on what "household" means here.
But I think your interpretation is likely correct. It doesn't make much sense to be able to pick a different policy in one case and not the other.

A quick Google doesn't tell me explicitly what happens to the parents' policy choices when the 26 year old is no longer covered.

Cheers,
Scott.
New They're covered
https://www.healthcare.gov/income-and-household-information/household-size/
Non-dependent child under 26

Sometimes
Include them only if you want to cover them on your Marketplace plan.

If they're on your plan, they're considered a household member.
--

Drew
New That's because ...
like continuing coverage past the birthday, to the next billing cycle, to the end of the month, etc. it is up to (1) the insurance company (2) the State and/or (3) the employer. I won't disagree that most insurance companies will allow you to switch plans after your youngest has his or her 26th birthday, but our broker has told us that a plain text reading of the law does not compel the carrier to do that.
New Didn't you say ...
Because in March the ACA forbids you from continuing to cover your child under your health insurance policy and because the private health insurer will not allow you to change plans mid-cycle

http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/413805/

Now you're down to ...
I won't disagree that most insurance companies will allow you to switch plans after your youngest has his or her 26th birthday, but our broker has told us that a plain text reading of the law does not compel the carrier to do that.

So a plain reading does not compel them, according to your broker. This wouldn't by any chance be a broker you have selected because he agrees with your less-than-charitable views of the industry, would it?

You also aren't disputing my assertion that the clear intent of the law is that children must be covered at least until they are 26, and that their birthday is intended to be considered a qualifying event on the policy under which they're covered.
--

Drew
     The PPACA strikes my daughter. - (mmoffitt) - (67)
         Look through a longer lens. - (pwhysall) - (2)
             How do you understand US politics so well? - (drook) - (1)
                 You know how you don't know who David Davis is, or what he does? - (pwhysall)
         I did not have medical insurance until I was 45 lost it when I was 55, shrug -NT - (boxley)
         gotcher armband & jackboots right here - (rcareaga) - (44)
             Re: second, ... - (mmoffitt) - (43)
                 Point of order... - (Another Scott) - (42)
                     You're missing the point. - (mmoffitt) - (41)
                         it is *still legal* for healthcare providers to refuse to care - (boxley) - (1)
                             Providing healthcare? Yes. - (mmoffitt)
                         You're whining. - (Another Scott) - (31)
                             Serious question. - (mmoffitt) - (30)
                                 Serious answer - (drook) - (2)
                                     By "Pragmatists" you mean capitulators, right? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         Canada's system started in a few provinces then went national. - (Another Scott)
                                 You didn't say "Single Payer". You said "Medicare for All" - (Another Scott) - (26)
                                     Re: What Medicare system are you advocating ... Yes. That one. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                         Our government isn't going to change unless people vote sensibly. Which means voting D. -NT - (Another Scott) - (24)
                                             The last D put private insurers in our system by law. How'd that help? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (23)
                                                 "Put" isn't the word you're looking for there. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Really? Private Insurers were in the system by federal law before? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                         Define "the system" that you're talking about for me. "Medicare Advantage" ring a bell? -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                             Part C is redundant coverage that could have been placed in part B. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                 Shoulda woulda coulda. The law and the system has to deal with reality. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 Action first, payment second - (drook) - (17)
                                                     Not at all. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                                                         What does "as a right" mean? - (drook) - (15)
                                                             In America, you get the healthcare you can pay for and nothing else. That's wrong. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                                                 In Canada... - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                     Well, there was one once. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                         Re: Well, there was one once. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                             So, Mike was privileged even as a youth! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                             So, you know my own experiences better than I? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                                 Point is, you were a sample of one. That is all. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                     Okay, Twas not the thrust anyway. :0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                 Thanks for confirming - (drook) - (6)
                                                                     You've got a strange definition of equality embedded in that statement. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                         More words, please? -NT - (drook) - (4)
                                                                             Re: More words, please? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                 You don't seem to understand *your own* words - (drook) - (2)
                                                                                     Simpler summary of my view: An unequal system is not a defensible system. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                         Do you prefer no system? - (drook)
                         Two things - (drook) - (6)
                             Re: (2) - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                 Read much? - (drook) - (4)
                                     Might depend on what "household" means here. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                         They're covered - (drook)
                                         That's because ... - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             Didn't you say ... - (drook)
         So she would have been covered before the ACA? -NT - (malraux) - (13)
             24 by law, but some plans it would have been 26. Both with no restrictions on pre-existing. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                 OK, so you paid through the end of the month - (rcareaga) - (7)
                     I'd expect that attitude from a Hillary supporter. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                         FIFY - (rcareaga) - (5)
                             But you *DID* get something. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                 What part of "tangible terms" was unclear? -NT - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                     What part of "no tangible thing != nothing" is unclear? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         you are betting hundreds of dollars every month that you will get a dread disease. You lose monthly -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             I'm not so worried about myself. - (mmoffitt)
                 So.... - (malraux) - (3)
                     This bad, it had to be intentional. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                         Never ascribe to malice, etc. - (malraux) - (1)
                             Come on, nobody's that thick. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Could be worse - (dmcarls) - (1)
             Wow. Bibi got his, didn't he? Well done, Obama. -NT - (Another Scott)
         Yeah, Obama's horrible all right. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Touching. Nice to see he knows how to use a six year old. -NT - (mmoffitt)

Sorry, no can do.
155 ms