DescentBB

Insurrectionist wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:-Children can stay on their parents insurance policies until they are 26.

[rant]Great how lazy is a person who wants to live off their parents until they are 26. Get out of your parents house and get a fricking job and pay for your own insurance.[/rant]

I'm 23, still live at home, don't have a job, and don't have any prospects of getting one any time soon, for reasons I'm not about to get into here. And given the current state of the economy, I'm guessing I'm one of many in similar circumstances. So...kindly lay off?

VonVulcan wrote:This just in...
Rasmussen pole of the people, 55% in favor of repeal of the Health care bill, 42% opposed.

I hear the Civil Rights Act was pretty unpopular right after it passed. They totally should have repealed that right away too.

Bet51987 wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:What the hell could possibly go wrong?

Implementing the "Party of No" plan. You've seen it haven't you?

Bee

I tire of hearing that offered as if it's some sort of defense. If I order a dish at a resturant and it's yesterday's garbage, I don't want to hear that I shouldn't complain because the only other option comes from the day before. Don't read too far into that. I'm going to say "what the hell is the matter with these people?!", and I'm going to leave them in their stupidity and take my lunch somewhere where they actually have something good.

Top Gun wrote:

Insurrectionist wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:-Children can stay on their parents insurance policies until they are 26.

[rant]Great how lazy is a person who wants to live off their parents until they are 26. Get out of your parents house and get a fricking job and pay for your own insurance.[/rant]

I'm 23, still live at home, don't have a job, and don't have any prospects of getting one any time soon, for reasons I'm not about to get into here. And given the current state of the economy, I'm guessing I'm one of many in similar circumstances. So...kindly lay off?

So since you took issue with this something not even aim at you or any one in particular. This for you.

Ahh a lazy person that won't take a job flipping hamburgers. Scooping poop either. How about collecting garbage? How about roofing people are always hiring for that. Construction season is coming up. Lawn care season is starting too maybe you like being lazy. I sorry there is always a job to be had if a person will sallow their pride and take what ever they can get. I'm so tried of people who think life owns them something. This is what is going on now days. Too many people think they are worth more than they really are.

I started work when I was 9 selling newspapers around St Louis by the time I was 17 I was out of the house and on my own. I finish my schooling on my own. I don't need the fracking government telling me to buy a product. I need them telling me I have to pay for some else's health care either or house or help a business stay afloat because the owners run into the ground. All they did was postpone the things to come.

Insurrectionist wrote:Ahh a lazy person that won't take a job flipping hamburgers.

OR, he could be sick. He might have a disability. He might be full time caregiver for a sick parent. He might have a record. There are other possibilities that could fit into: "for reasons I'm not about to get into here."

True

Kilarin wrote:OR, he could be sick. He might have a disability. He might be full time caregiver for a sick parent.

valid reasons "IF" thats the case.

He might have a record.

then I have no sympathy for him because it was HIS choices that put him in that situation

Top Gun wrote:..or some of SilverFJ's total lunacy:

*SilverFJ wrote:
Or the armed insurrection...


...what exactly am I supposed to think? (ZOMG, he did read the thread!) I've been doing the forum thing for close to a decade now, and I'm at the point where I can pick out blatant sarcasm reasonably well. The fact that what you posted didn't jump off the page as such would sort of imply that it was close enough to some of your (and others') earlier, more serious statements that it didn't flip the same switches. And if you'll claim that everything you've said was heavily tinged with sarcasm, I'll ask you in turn how that would lead me to take your views seriously.

Lunacy? Read some history books, pointedly about a year called 1776. There's a whole bunch of crazies running out of control, but the most you probably know about them is their heads are on your money.

Top Gun wrote:I'm 23, still live at home, don't have a job, and don't have any prospects of getting one any time soon, for reasons I'm not about to get into here. And given the current state of the economy, I'm guessing I'm one of many in similar circumstances. So...kindly lay off?

Hahahaha
You want a job, hippie? Tell me soon, I'm running out of time to hire. You WILL be hired. All you have to do is step up.



Bettina, that "quote" of you was kinda sarcasm half truth. Look up "Let them have cake" and that's the story of your healthcare stance.

CUDA wrote:then I have no sympathy for him because it was HIS choices that but him in that situation

While it's certainly true that a convict is responsible for the situation they are in. I don't think most of us recognize how hard we make it for people to go straight.

I'm working in prison ministry right now, and its a bit shocking to realize how difficult we make it for people getting out to stay out. They dump you on the street with $75 in your pocket. No drivers license, no car, no place to stay. It's hard to get a job because you are a convict. If you are on parole, it's hard to keep a job because you have to meet with your parole officer on a regular basis, during the middle of the work day. With travel time, it usually means taking a whole day off.

It's their own fault, clearly, they did the crime. But the goal is to get these people OUT of a life of crime and back into society as productive citizens. The current system seems to be deliberately designed to make it very hard to go straight and very easy to go back into crime.

Of course, hard does NOT mean impossible. I've watched several people go straight, and it's incredible to see it work.

I finish my schooling on my own

Insurrectionist wrote:So since you took issue with this something not even aim at you or any one in particular. This for you.

I took issue with it because it described people in my current situation in an overly-simplistic light, without taking into account any mitigating circumstances. Hell, forget my own personal position...the state the overall job market is in right now should be more than enough to understand why someone just out of college would have extreme difficulty in finding a job.

Insurrectionist wrote:Ahh a lazy person that won't take a job flipping hamburgers. Scooping poop either. How about collecting garbage? How about roofing people are always hiring for that. Construction season is coming up. Lawn care season is starting too maybe you like being lazy. I sorry there is always a job to be had if a person will sallow their pride and take what ever they can get. I'm so tried of people who think life owns them something. This is what is going on now days. Too many people think they are worth more than they really are.

In case you haven't noticed, there aren't many open jobs in those fields, even for people willing to take them. Notice how many people have been laid off over the past few years? They've sort of had to scramble to find whatever they can get. It's been well-publicized that the sort of burger-flipping jobs that high school kids would normally snap up are now being held by forty-somethings that haven't been able to find new skilled work. And even some of these fields aren't hiring all that much. (Construction? The new-housing market is in the toilet.) The real problem right now is that many people aren't even able to prove their worth in the first place, because there's simply nowhere for them to do so.

Insurrectionist wrote:I started work when I was 9 selling newspapers around St Louis by the time I was 17 I was out of the house and on my own. I finish my schooling on my own. I don't need the fracking government telling me to buy a product. I need them telling me I have to pay for some else's health care either or house or help a business stay afloat because the owners run into the ground. All they did was postpone the things to come.

I applaud what you were able to accomplish, but keep in mind that the majority of people won't need to undertake that same course themselves. For that matter, from where I'm sitting, no one really should have to. If the day comes when I ever do have children, I'm starting college funds for them on the day that the pregnancy test comes back positive, to ensure they don't enter their post-college days buried in tens of thousands' worth of student loans.

As I said before, I'm not about to get into my own personal situation here, because it's frankly irrelevant, but I will say that it has nothing at all to do with having a record. (I was never a fan of orange jumpsuits. ) Current circumstances prevent me from getting a job, and some things need to happen before I'm able to do so.

*SilverFJ wrote:Lunacy? Read some history books, pointedly about a year called 1776. There's a whole bunch of crazies running out of control, but the most you probably know about them is their heads are on your money.

I have, and I'd wager I could easily go toe-to-toe with you on the root causes of said events. The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries fought against real tyranny, against a government which afforded them no representative voice yet sought to impose its will arbitrarily. People like you go flying off the handle like a lunatic when your legitimately-elected Congress passes one widdle bill that you personally disagree with. I mean, God forbid we have a rational, level-headed debate about differing political views...let's grab our torches and pitchforks and go crazy! Stop making mountains out of speed bumps and get some damn perspective.

*SilverFJ wrote:Hahahaha
You want a job, hippie? Tell me soon, I'm running out of time to hire. You WILL be hired. All you have to do is step up.

Ah yes, raging testosterone and blatant racism solve all the world's problems. Good to know.

Top Gun wrote:As I said before, I'm not about to get into my own personal situation here, because it's frankly irrelevant, but I will say that it has nothing at all to do with having a record. (I was never a fan of orange jumpsuits. ) Current circumstances prevent me from getting a job, and some things need to happen before I'm able to do so

I could of sworn you once told me you were a physics major, I could be confused. I had a similar problem when I graduated with my B.S. in physics in 04', I didn't want to work in defence, and its sort of a "jack of all trade master of none degree" at the B.S. level. Ended up teaching physics and math on the reservation for a year while I did my GRE's,(People need math teachers, I was literally hired the day I called), I then sucked it up and went onto graduate school (Switched to EE though ).

I didn't get to be the young science guy in his mid/early twenties making 80k, but still, it was the right choice, just my $0.02.

No matter what your case is, I wish you the best of luck Top. Not finding a Job after college just puts one in a God aweful place. Ignore the trolls.

.

Yeah, I am a physics major, though it took me a year after I should have graduated to finally earn the degree. The problem is...by the end of my four (or five) years, I generally disliked the content of my courses, and I just barely managed to muddle my way through in the end. Other than a summer spent doing lab work, I didn't take much enjoyment in what I was doing. As a result, putting aside the other personal stuff, I'm currently left with no real idea what I'd like to do; there isn't much I can think of that I would find fulfilling. I feel like I'd probably be a decent high school teacher, if I had my certification, but I don't know that re-hashing the same material over and over again would do much more than start to drive me crazy. It's something I need to do some thinking about.

So yeah...I know this isn't exactly on-topic, but it's just one example of why \"Get a job!\" isn't as cut-and-dry as that. It's all well and good to advise someone to start tending lawns or putting roofs on houses, but some of us are of the opinion that the work we do should be personally fulfilling in some way, instead of just feeling like mindless drudgery.

(Oh, and thanks for the encouragement. )

Top Gun wrote:some of us are of the opinion that the work we do should be personally fulfilling in some way, instead of just feeling like mindless drudgery.

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, but you blew a lot of it with this statement.

Most of us would like to do work we find personally fulfilling. But if we refuse a job because it doesn't meet that standard, it's not reasonable to say we can't find work. It's better to say that we won't take the work available. You've stated that "circumstances" prevent you from getting a job, but it sounds from that statement like "your attitude" is preventing you from getting a job.

When you argue your personal situation of "can't get work" (when it's really "won't work in a job you find unfulfilling") as good reason why people in their mid-20s should be allowed to stay on their parents' health care plans, you open yourself up to criticism.

-----

Personally, I don't think health care coverage should be tied to employment in the first place. The only reason the age of 26 (or whatever the previous age was) is in the law is because companies don't want to have to pay the cost of insuring their employees' adult children. But I see no reason why your parents should be restricted from adding you to their insurance as long as they pay for it, no matter how old you happen to be.

Lothar wrote: Personally, I don't think health care coverage should be tied to employment in the first place. The only reason the age of 26 (or whatever the previous age was) is in the law is because companies don't want to have to pay the cost of insuring their employees' adult children...

wow, now There's some serious perspective. (and a no brainer really) any idea how we got started down that road? Did that start in the mid-80's with the rise of HMO's? (another democrat idea. )
Great thought Lothar.

Lothar wrote:

Top Gun wrote:some of us are of the opinion that the work we do should be personally fulfilling in some way, instead of just feeling like mindless drudgery.

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, but you blew a lot of it with this statement.

Most of us would like to do work we find personally fulfilling. But if we refuse a job because it doesn't meet that standard, it's not reasonable to say we can't find work. It's better to say that we won't take the work available. You've stated that "circumstances" prevent you from getting a job, but it sounds from that statement like "your attitude" is preventing you from getting a job.

When you argue your personal situation of "can't get work" (when it's really "won't work in a job you find unfulfilling") as good reason why people in their mid-20s should be allowed to stay on their parents' health care plans, you open yourself up to criticism.

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not you can support you and your family (if you have one) and for that reason there is never a job that is “beneath” you regardless of your background, education, or skill set.

As for the good reasons, why it’s bad to take a low paying job? They’re bogus, here’s why:

Taking that job takes up valuable time that could be spent job hunting.

This statement is true, we cannot bend space and time yet, but the idea behind it is inaccurate. While it will take up your time to work a job, there is only so much you can do in a day with regards to apply for jobs. You send out resumes, you make some calls, and then you wait. Taking a job that will pay the bills so you aren’t panicking and worrying about them can lift that burden off your shoulders and take the edge of the job hunt.

Low-paying jobs aren’t a solution and you could become complacent.

I find this one very difficult to believe. Let’s say you’re a college educated accountant with 5 years of accounting and just lost your job. After a few months, you turn to a job in retail just to help pay the bills. What’s the probability that you’ll stay in retail because of complacency? Seems somewhat unlikely, doesn’t it?

Less-skilled job doesn’t look good on a resume.

Don’t put it on. Everything listed on my resume exists to further the aim outlined in the objective or summary of qualifications section. When asked about the period of unemployment, tell the truth (never lie) because the interviewer is a human being too. “I was RIF’d by my last employer, spent 6 months looking for a job and then turned to The Gap to help pay the bills.” If the interviewer sees that as a knock against you, you probably don’t want to work there anyway.

source=http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/s ... g-job.html

Top Gun:

Raging testosterone? Okay, I'll admit it.
Where the hell do you get racist from though?

Ooooooh, from the movie clip.
That was just for a little snicker. Clint Eastwood is amazing.

Top Gun there is another alternate and that is the military. College educated you should be able to pick a field where I suspect you will not be overly bored...no more so, at any rate, than any other job.

Lothar wrote:

Top Gun wrote:some of us are of the opinion that the work we do should be personally fulfilling in some way, instead of just feeling like mindless drudgery.

I feel a lot of sympathy for you, but you blew a lot of it with this statement.

Most of us would like to do work we find personally fulfilling. But if we refuse a job because it doesn't meet that standard, it's not reasonable to say we can't find work. It's better to say that we won't take the work available. You've stated that "circumstances" prevent you from getting a job, but it sounds from that statement like "your attitude" is preventing you from getting a job.

When you argue your personal situation of "can't get work" (when it's really "won't work in a job you find unfulfilling") as good reason why people in their mid-20s should be allowed to stay on their parents' health care plans, you open yourself up to criticism.

Sorry, I don't think the way I phrased and ordered my post was clear. The sentiment I expressed there is completely separate from the circumstances that are preventing me from going out and getting a job right now. If there were a choice between having no money at all and doing something like working at my local GameStop, I'd grit my teeth and go with the latter, but that isn't the case here.

Honestly, if I did have a family to support, I suspect I'd feel far kinder about the concept of taking any job available in order to simply earn a living. But I simply don't have that perspective right now. The way I see it, any sort of job would be taking me away from what I want to be doing, so since one does indeed have to work in order to live, I'd at least want to have a job that wasn't of the soul-crushing variety. Despite what some may claim, I've never seen much value in the concept of work for work's own sake.

I'm kind of getting uncomfortable with how personal of a route this thread has started taking, so let me try to swing things back the other way. I support the extension of coverage until the age of 26 because of how many post-college people out there today who are looking for work, who want to work, but simply cannot find significant employment opportunities. And even if they could find something in the lower-paying sector, the employer-provided healthcare would likely be significantly inferior to that of their parents' plan. Extending the age limit allows people a chance to get established and walk on their own two feet before getting cut off from what may be, in some cases, very necessary coverage.

Edit:

woodchip wrote:Top Gun there is another alternate and that is the military. College educated you should be able to pick a field where I suspect you will not be overly bored...no more so, at any rate, than any other job.

No, that definitely wouldn't work for me. I don't exactly take orders well.

Something I've learned, Top Gun, is that life doesn't end if you take a job below your ideal, as long as you work hard to excel in whatever you do. I, for instance, aspire to be, among other things, a professional website engineer (design/script/UI/databases). I find that what interests me most is information management in order to utilize information to its fullest potential (most information isn't used to 1/10th its potential, IMO, and I'm talking about positive, targeted potential, not know-everything-about-everybody potential). ...I work at a small lumber yard right now. Before I worked here I was unemployed for the space of about a year and a half trying to pursue web design (ultimately crashed and burned for two main reasons, and one drove the other: I wasn't productive enough, and I was frustrated by a couple of negative aspects of my situation) During my time at this lumber yard, and more specifically at a lumber yard I worked at for a couple of years before my 1-1/2 year experiment in failure, I learned customer service and productivity (though I have such a thorough disposition that I'm known for the former more than the latter, at my worst). I've also learned a lot about management and managing (I'm not a manager so far, so it's certain I have more to learn on the subject). I've learned a lot of things that will help me in the event that I do decide to go in the direction of professional web-design service. One thing that's certain about life is that education and career are not as simple as anyone who is trying to sell anything make them. Going to college so that you can get the job you planned for before you went is just too linear. The history of great success usually does not follow this format, and personally I find that fact cheering because I think the alternative is liberating. Success is as simple as excelling--being friendly, creative, and hard-working, while having an eye trained to detect opportunity (which is difficult, but it's possible for anyone). If you really did have the insight to know what your work would be from the outset then that's great, but it's not the norm, IMO, and when it just isn't the case denial doesn't help anything.

I hope that this helps you in some way.

Here's my latest website. I charged too little and way underestimated how long it would take me, but it's up, and after a few final tweaks it will put a lot of the competition to shame on many levels! The interesting part is that while I didn't really make enough for the work I put into it (I can afford lessons like that at this time), if it benefits their company that in turn benefits my company. I may just see my way clear to start the first ever web design division of a lumber yard.

Top Gun wrote: I feel like I'd probably be a decent high school teacher, if I had my certification, but I don't know that re-hashing the same material over and over again would do much more than start to drive me crazy. It's something I need to do some thinking about.

I'd call some schools, or look online. In Arizona they are in such dire need of math/physics teachers that a principal can hire you as a "permanent substitute," for two years, where if you decide you like it you can get your certificate while you work. You will have to have a registered teacher in there with you, but they are a dime a dozen whom don't know what you know.

However in general, while you may not like physics anymore, you did learn some valuable skills no matter how you made it to the finish line. You can decompose a problem better then 99% of the world. Keep in mind that is the major that many people drop out of college with after just doing Phy101. So don't lie on the mat for too long without acknowledging that you went against the toughest fighter. (No offence to the math people here)

*SilverFJ wrote: Clint Eastwood is amazing.

Wow, I actually agree with SilverFJ on something. See, Obama is bringing about unity.

Duper wrote:

Lothar wrote: Personally, I don't think health care coverage should be tied to employment in the first place. The only reason the age of 26 (or whatever the previous age was) is in the law is because companies don't want to have to pay the cost of insuring their employees' adult children...

wow, now There's some serious perspective. (and a no brainer really) any idea how we got started down that road? Did that start in the mid-80's

Nope.

WWII wage freezes. Companies couldn't offer employees more money, so they started adding non-salary perks -- like health coverage for the family -- to their job offers. Pretty soon it became an expectation, doctors realized their patients didn't care how much they charged because insurance was paying, insurers and Medicare started negotiating (or getting legislatures to force) "discounts", the government started requiring health care coverage to extend to various dependents since they couldn't buy independent of employment, and voila, we have a health care crisis. (This guy makes a pretty good argument about unintended consequences of various policies, like wage freezes and rent control.)

Top Gun wrote:I support the extension of coverage until the age of 26 because of how many post-college people out there today who are looking for work, who want to work, but simply cannot find significant employment opportunities.

Do you believe parents' employers should absorb the cost of insuring a 26-year-old?

Or should the 26-year-old be allowed to be on the health care plan, but have come up with a way to cover his own costs (possibly by having his parents pay)?

McDonalds might only offer a crappy health care plan, but if you could work at McD's, decline their plan, and buy into your parents plan at a fair rate, wouldn't that be better for everyone? Personally, I think that should be the way it's done no matter what your age. I don't care if you're 18, 26, or 47, you should be able to get good health coverage at an appropriate cost, and not be stuck with what your current job (or your parents' current job) offers.

Top Gun wrote:but I will say that it has nothing at all to do with having a record. (I was never a fan of orange jumpsuits. Razz)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were likely to actually HAVE a record. I was just trying to point out that "personal reasons" could cover a lot of things.

Oh, and at the prison I'm working at, they wear WHITE jumpsuits. go figure.

Well, Top Gun, lets get clinical then.

I like to keep the perspective that the more drudgeoning the work is the more fulfilling it is. What does fulfillment mean to you yourself? Is it how much money you get, how good you feel at the end of the day? I think if you nailed those questions down it would be easier for you. But I can still hire you if you want work until then. Free room and board. Just lemme know.

Keep in mind that you'd probably have to move, Top Gun.

But it's OK. You don't get much prettier vistas than the area he is at.

Money is certainly somewhat of a factor, yes. I would much rather be paid $80k per year than $40k (who wouldn't?), but even in the best of circumstances, I know such things take time, so that's not an immediate concern. What I really mean when I say \"fulfilling\" is that I want what I do on a daily basis to actually mean something, to have some concrete impact on the people around me, and maybe on humanity as a whole. I chose to became a science major, and for that matter loved science in the first place, because I had fanciful visions of one day making some great discovery that could potentially change the way we look at the world. I'm at the point now where I know those dreams will never pan out quite like that, but I still want to do something where I'm helping to generate new information in some way. The one thing I fear above all else is being trapped in a job that a BASIC-programmed robot could perform about as effectively. (Hell, even now, I loathe cutting the lawn. ) And of course, I want to enjoy what it is that I do.

And thanks but no thanks on the job offer. I doubt it'd work out in any sense.

What kinds of work have you done?

If you haven't had a job that will look worse on your resume than working a burger joint. I would hate to see a resume come across my desk with no work experience of a 30 year old person. Even in college peope will do some kind of job. Not to mention seeing it took a person an extra year to get the degree in the field of that persons studies.

One question I would ask during the interview is what have you been doing since graduation? That is if I didn't just file it in the trash bin because there is no work experience.

*edit I say 30 because of the 26 age limit of the health care bill edit*

Lothar wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I support the extension of coverage until the age of 26 because of how many post-college people out there today who are looking for work, who want to work, but simply cannot find significant employment opportunities.

Do you believe parents' employers should absorb the cost of insuring a 26-year-old?

Or should the 26-year-old be allowed to be on the health care plan, but have come up with a way to cover his own costs (possibly by having his parents pay)?

Still waiting for an answer on this one, Top Gun. Should the parents' employers have to absorb the cost, or should the parents have to pay it themselves?

Also waiting for an answer as to why 26-year-olds should be able to be on the plan but not 27-year-olds, or 30-year-olds, or 48-year-olds. Why do we allow arbitrary restrictions on what age person can piggyback on an existing insurance plan? Why do we allow arbitrary restrictions on who can get insurance in the first place, based on their age or employment, instead of just letting everyone buy whatever insurance they deem appropriate for themselves?

Think about this situation: a 27-year-old girl who has been unemployed and therefore uninsured breaks her ankle, and is facing a $40,000 set of surgeries to repair it, with $5000 due up-front. Her parents had insurance, and could have afforded to add her to it even paying the premiums themselves, but legally couldn't. (This isn't a hypothetical; this happened to my sister last week. You can contribute here.)

Lothar wrote:...
Think about this situation: a 27-year-old girl who has been unemployed and therefore uninsured breaks her ankle, and is facing a $40,000 set of surgeries to repair it, with $5000 due up-front. Her parents had insurance, and could have afforded to add her to it even paying the premiums themselves, but legally couldn't. (This isn't a hypothetical; this happened to my sister last week. You can contribute here.)

This is why I'm glad the republicans didn't succeed in stopping the "reform" outright. My hope is that things like this will be dealt with in the final purge of Obama's overreaching self serving exploitation of an issue worthy of addressing properly.

PS: Your sister just got my lottery winnings from today....sorry it was only $20...but I'll be buying another ticket later..

Lothar wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I support the extension of coverage until the age of 26 because of how many post-college people out there today who are looking for work, who want to work, but simply cannot find significant employment opportunities.

Do you believe parents' employers should absorb the cost of insuring a 26-year-old?

Or should the 26-year-old be allowed to be on the health care plan, but have come up with a way to cover his own costs (possibly by having his parents pay)?

Still waiting for an answer on this one, Top Gun. Should the parents' employers have to absorb the cost, or should the parents have to pay it themselves?

...seriously, can't we just allow this conversation to die an ignoble death, as it had been? I feel like I've already been run through the mud because of it, and I was more than happy to attempt to forget that this entire conversation ever happened. Guess I can't do that now.

You want my answer to those questions? I don't know. I don't have a good answer to give you, because I don't have the information and experience to base an opinion on. I've never been under an employee-provided health insurance plan, and I haven't even been covered under my parents' plan since I stopped being a full-time student. (This is despite the statements I've seen about the previous upper-limit on staying under a parental plan as being age 23, which I haven't yet figured out.) I don't even have any experience with insurance companies on a personal level to draw from, let alone on a more systemic level. My whole stake in this issue is that I can see that the system as it stands is fundamentally flawed, and that Obama just signed a bill into law that makes it somewhat-less flawed...and while that particular solution will most likely require substantial tweaking down the line, I view it as at least a start. I can't really offer you anything beyond that.

(I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your sister, and I hope the people around you are generous enough for you to cover her costs.)

If that situation happened here (with the ankle) the whole community pitches in.

Top Gun wrote:You want my answer to those questions? I don't know. I don't have a good answer to give you, because I don't have the information and experience to base an opinion on.

Fair enough. I'm not looking to drag you through the mud, just looking to challenge what I think is a MAJOR problem with the "yay, we just expanded coverage to age 26" argument.

IMO, the "expand to age 26" solution is the very worst of the commonly offered solutions to the problem, for the following reasons:

1) it makes people feel like something has been fundamentally fixed with health care, when it's actually perpetuating the same old problems, namely

2) it leaves us with arbitrary restrictions on who can and can't purchase certain types of health care. People who are willing to pay but don't fit into the arbitrary distinctions are left without. Worse,

3) it leaves health care coverage in the hands of employers, so working at McDonalds guarantees you and your kids are stuck with whatever plan McDonalds offers. IMO, whether you work for McDonalds or Boeing, you should have the same access to health care plans ranging from the most basic to the most advanced/expensive.

4) On top of perpetuating the old problems, it introduces a new one: it shifts even more health-care costs to employers by making them liable for more people's premiums. Now, employers will make this money back by simply holding back on raises or even cutting salaries. The net result is simply that more of health-care costs shift to the invisible "middleman" realm.

IMO, a far better fix would be this: you can add ANY close relative to your plan as long as you pay their premiums. Anything you pay for premiums should have the same tax advantages as your employer gets. And anyone else should be able to buy the same coverage, regardless of who they are employed by, again with the same tax advantages. Do away with arbitrary restrictions on who can get coverage.

If that situation happened here (with the ankle) the whole community pitches in.

Which is exactly what's happening. There's an amazing amount of support already being poured out by her community. People are housing her, taking care of her (just heard she has to stay off her feet for 3 months!), and donating what little money they have.

Still, when it comes to the question of insurance, it's saddening to me that a legislative plan that explicitly denies her the ability to get the same coverage as her younger siblings is being hailed as a great step forward.