I'd be ashamed to be in my 20's and be on my parents insurance plan.
I would have loved to have my parent's insurance pick up the tab on that one.
Often the insurance offered by a parent's plan blows away what can be had through the University. Of course, you can buy individual insurance fairly cheaply... unless you aren't in perfect health, or are a girl.
I'm currently a CS grad student, with zero debt, working as a GTA/GRA (depending on the semester). I get my insurance through the University for an awesome $94 a semester, but if I were still young enough, I'd definitely opt for my parents insurance, and I wouldn't be ashamed of it. It would just make financial sense.
It is a bit shameful to be dependent on one's parents at 26, but because of employer based-benefits and the fact that is it NOT shameful to not yet be locked into a profession at 26 means that family insurance plans are a necessary reality.
The real question is why the system had never evolved to allow affordable family plans rather than employer based benefits. I have some thoughts, but that will make this an even more heated discussion.
During WW2, there were wage controls, but employers needed to attract workers, so Congress gave them this small (at the time) tax break for providing health insurance to workers. (They don't have to pay payroll taxes on that portion of compensation.) Who doesn't want to encourage employers to provide perks to their employees, especially perks that improve their health?
But this has blossomed into a huge market imbalance, where people can't change jobs due to insurance concerns, and buying individual insurance puts you at a huge financial disadvantage compared to employer-provided insurance.
Why did it "blossom"? Why did it not get corrected after WW2? Especially when (forgive my lack of data) I'm sure public data could corroborate that the average time spent in one position/job has decreased steadily since then.
Because health care costs skyrocketed, which led to skyrocketing insurance premiums. Something that was previously 1-2% of compensation is now often >10%.
> Why did it not get corrected after WW2?
It's a rare thing for Congress to pass a bill that reduces complexity... just look at the tax system.
This bill is a case in point. There were numerous way to reduce complexity (and hence costs), but instead they just added more. More complexity isn't always bad, but it's very rarely cheaper.
Ways to reduce complexity: remove the market distorting tax break, regulate insurance at a national instead of state-by-state level, make insurance compulsory, make health insurance actually act like other insurance. (You don't expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes or your homeowner's insurance to pay for smoke detector batteries do you? And in that vein, when was the last time you lost your car insurance because you lost your job?)
The Washington Post covers it here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/health_r...