What should a family of 5 have to pay more at a restaurant than a family of 3?

The answer is obvious, right?

They take up more seats, require more server time, and eat more food.

Why do I ask?

Virtually all articles re: ObamaCare are saying “at least save the popular parts like allowing adult children on their parents’ policies until they are 26”.

First, the term “adult-children” gives me the creeps. But, that’s beside the point.

I don’t care if insurance companies have to carry 26 year olds on their parents’ policies, but I don’t understand why you & I have to pay for it … not the adult-children’s parents.

Now, practically all employer-sponsored  health insurance plans charge premiums in tiers: employee only, employee plus spouse, employee plus children, and employee plus spouse and children. Note: it doesn’t matter if the employee has 1 child or a dozen children … same premium.

Say what?

For example, the United Healthcare plan through Georgetown — which is probably pretty typical — charges:


Note that it costs  $7,346 to tack a spouse (or equivalent) — presumably an adult — onto an employee’s policy.

Then it costs an additional $5,746 to tack one or more children onto the policy.

Said differently, it costs $5,746 to add one child to the policy and nothing to add more kids to the policy.

So, those kids are free, right?

Only in Obama Land.

Each additional kid probably costs about the same as the first one — $5,746.

That unpaid cost simply gets spread across all policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

So, back to the 26 year old adult-children …. I’m ok if they get tacked onto their parents’ policies and pay $5,746 … but, I’m not ok being forced to pay for them.

All of which raises a broader issue: Why are children of any age riding free on health insurance policies?  Why not charge $5,746 for all kids, not just the first one?

>> Latest Posts

Tags: , ,

One Response to “What should a family of 5 have to pay more at a restaurant than a family of 3?”

  1. TK Says:

    Aren’t we still ahead of the game since the vast majority of these “kids” are healthy and will need little medical care? Simply leaving them uninsured starves the system of their premium while leaving the burden of emergency care on tax payers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s