GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Dependent Clause

• 51198
  

  Anyone who has transferred their recently-turned 22 year old to a TCC knows that the admin fee amounts to a literally couple of bucks, just as "fed parent" wrote. Wow! that won't even cover a gallon of gas. And count your blessings if your child is healthy; if your child has a pre-existing condition, you can pretty much forget about a less expensive college-sponsored insurance plan. They turned us down flat. The only other option was state sponsored high-risk insurance pool, which says you have to go first through a 6-month period w/o insurance. That's just not a good health practice. TCC coverage was the best option, but not cheap. Saving the admin fee is nothing. I'm not saying woe is me, I'm just saying give these kids a fighting chance to get a good start out of the gate. No one finishes in 4 years anymore. These kids are our future!

  VHA parent Posted May 23, 2008 9:53 AM
• 50433
  

  I have a "late bloomer" that didn't even start college until age 22; now he doesn't have health insurance. And what about we the people having to pay 100% of our dental insurance? I have only been with the government for 2 years and the private sector for over 25 years and other than all the time off provided by the government; the private sector benefits outweigh the government. Most of them (private) pay the 80/20 rule and at least 1/2 of dental and vision. I agree with the sliding income fee to base 22+ for premiums; for I am merely at the bottom of the totem pole. As far as my 22 year old; he is not really a dependent because he works part-time and goes to school full-time and he is not ashamed of it.

  Debbie Posted May 12, 2008 8:08 AM
• 50389
  

  I don't think everyone will be happy until the government pays for all their insurance, their house, their utilities, their gas and all their food.... Even then, they'll just want more....

  Karen Posted May 9, 2008 2:27 PM
• 50315
  

  I beleive students should be kept on the parents dependant until at least 25. My son whose birthday is in Ocotber turned 22 yet had almost 9 months of school left. Not his nor our fault, just fate of when he was born. Yet he was able to get insurance cheaper than I pay for family coverage and his coverage is comparible to mine. Even as a student making slightly more than minimum wage he is able to live up to his obligations.

  Randy Harvel Posted May 8, 2008 3:01 PM
• 50313
  

  "But the new legislation (H.R. 5550), introduced by subcommittee Chairman Danny Davis, D-Ill., would create a young adult dependent option in FEHBP. Under the option, dependents over 22 would still have to pay the full premium, but not the administrative fee".

  Did any of you folks see this? Savings amount to a whopping 2%, which is equivalent to the administrative fee. Young adult dependents still have to fork over the FULL PREMIUM, just like they do now under TOC coverage (and like I am doing for my daughter). Much ado about nothing.

  The most compelling reason for raising the FULL TIME STUDENT coverage age limit is to be competitive with the private sector. I was a benefits manager in the private sector for 10 years befor entering Government service 21 years ago, and it was common practice even back then to cover full time students to 23 and aven 25. My husband works for Lowes and students are covered to 25. The Government can not have it both ways, always talking that pay for performance garbage and the need to function more like the private sector, while not wanting to offer the same benefits as the private sector.

  By the way, to the person who said they would be ashamed to be dependent at age 22: Many young people with birthdays early in the year will reach 22 before graduation, even if they went directly to college after high school. That's what happened to my daughter, who was born in February.

  Read and think before you write, people.

  Federal Parent Posted May 8, 2008 2:51 PM
• 50296
  

  Means test is a good idea as long as the taxpayer isn't paying anything. The Union was informed that in order to totally fund this would increase their members health care contribution by.7%. As soon as they found out that the members would have to pay the freight there was no interest. Amazing that's its 1 for all and all for for 1 as long as the taxpayer is paying the premium. But when the Feds have to pony up their money its not such a great idea

  dan m ketter Posted May 8, 2008 12:44 PM
• 50281
  

  When I first started I had no insurance (temporary) and lived with my parents. After I went condidtional, I only have had to pay my share of it and the gov the rest.

  Even after 15 years and prices going up it's hard living off of 1 income, but I am and paying for a home as well.

  DoD Civ Posted May 8, 2008 11:12 AM
• 50273
  

  Hey, there's an idea...a "means" test! Allow children of feds up to the age of 30 to be insured BUT making it on a sliding scale to include a verification of their income, and that of their parents. Let's help out the young people who really need it, not those who'd rather use their money for trips to the Bahamas.

  marie Posted May 8, 2008 10:46 AM
• 50266
  

  I think I'd be kind of embarrassed to be 22 and still a dependent.

  Dave Stoebe Posted May 8, 2008 10:18 AM
• 50243
  

  Did anybody ever think to look at the income range of most of these "young uninsured adults"? Most of them are just about broke or just making ends meet. There isn't anything left over for insurance payments. Pay folks at the bottom a fair wage!

  ret fed Posted May 8, 2008 1:13 AM