- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:24 pm to Jax-Tiger
Please, please, please bring this topic over to the OT. If only for the Lulz!
It's not that their lazy, it's that boomers just fricked everything up for them. It's your fault they live at home and have no job opportunity.
tongue-in-cheek
It's not that their lazy, it's that boomers just fricked everything up for them. It's your fault they live at home and have no job opportunity.
tongue-in-cheek
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:29 pm to MSMHater
quote:
It's not that their lazy, it's that boomers just fricked everything up for them. It's your fault they live at home and have no job opportunity.
Who raised them?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:32 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Nowadays so many kids at the age still live at home with their parents. They should be eligible to be on their parents policies.
Lame reasoning, very fricking lame
Personal responsibility. 26 is the magic age? You libs are pathetic.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:33 pm to davesdawgs
quote:
It's a new reality created by liberal progressives not unlike the new norm for unemployment, food stamps, government dependency in general.
at the bolded text. Some of you are hopeless.Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:33 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
It's not that their lazy, it's that boomers just fricked everything up for them. It's your fault they live at home and have no job opportunity.
Who raised them?
Who lets them live in the house until mid to late 20's? Definitely the parents fault.
Just can't see anyone wanting to live with parents over the age of 22 unless they are in school though.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:34 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Nowadays so many kids at the age still live at home with their parents. They should be eligible to be on their parents policies.
Living with your parents doesnt equate to still being a kid.. If simple co-habitation is the standard..then let it be the standard
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:35 pm to TigerBait1127
My whole point is that we set up a system where the young and healthy are supposed to pay more so that the old and sick can pay less. Then we give the young what essentially amounts to a free pass until they are 26.
I know that the cost of family policies will go up, but those are already some of the most expensive policies out there, so you can't raise the cost too much. We need those 24 year olds paying 2 grand a year and going to the doctor zero times to make this work. Am I wrong about this?
I know that the cost of family policies will go up, but those are already some of the most expensive policies out there, so you can't raise the cost too much. We need those 24 year olds paying 2 grand a year and going to the doctor zero times to make this work. Am I wrong about this?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:41 pm to Godfather1
quote:
In the case of this particular 36%, also known as the "Hipster slacker/Ill-equipped to take care of myself" generation.
I'm pissin' all over your lawn, grandpa.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:41 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Nowadays so many kids at the age still live at home with their parents
Well they need to grow up and handle their responsibilities as adults.
If "kids" start living at home until 30, should we just raise the age again?
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:43 pm to MSMHater
quote:
Please, please, please bring this topic over to the OT. If only for the Lulz!
It's not that their lazy, it's that boomers just fricked everything up for them. It's your fault they live at home and have no job opportunity.
tongue-in-cheek
Well, the baby boomers are in charge of this country right now.
Now if those bastards would hurry up, retire and die, and stop running social security dry, we might be able to salvage their mess.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:57 pm to wadewilson
quote:
Now if those bastards would hurry up, retire and die, and stop running social security dry
SS is govt. mandated. We didn't have a choice as to whether or not we wanted to participate, just like you don't have the choice. 
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:03 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Nowadays so many kids at the age still live at home with their parents. They should be eligible to be on their parents policies.
Just because they can't get a job thanks to Obama and his policies?
Or, is it just because they live at home when they should be out on their own because they're a grown-arse adult?
So, why cut it off at 26? Why not make it 56?
And, more importantly, WHO THE F*CK SHOULD PAY FOR IT?
Do you think employers should have to pay for their employees grown-arse ADULT children?
Oh, let me guess, in your demented mind you think it's "FREE" --like unicorns and rainbows.
My premiums went up because of this. Why in the f*ck should I have to pay for some co-workers grown-arse slacker kids?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It's a new reality created by liberal progressives
quote:
Some of you are hopeless.
Wasn't the goalpost moved on the age limit after Obama took office? Oops, look what I found from a NYT article dated 5/10/'10:
quote:
WASHINGTON — The White House issued rules on Monday allowing young adults to remain covered by their parents’ health insurance policies up to age 26.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:06 pm to Homesick Tiger
The next issue will be raising the maximum age for insurance coverage.
The libs will eventually want to raise the maximum age for insurance coverage and run on that issue.
Watch, in 6 years they'll be wanting insurance coverage age raised. Pick a number any number higher than 26. The actual number is not relevant, the relevant thing is they need issues.
The libs will eventually want to raise the maximum age for insurance coverage and run on that issue.
Watch, in 6 years they'll be wanting insurance coverage age raised. Pick a number any number higher than 26. The actual number is not relevant, the relevant thing is they need issues.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:07 pm to wadewilson
quote:
I'm pissin' all over your lawn, grandpa.
And I'm spending your inheritance.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:09 pm to BobABooey
quote:
Aren't they indirectly paying into the system via their parents' payments?
In my case, no. My kids were covered under dependents healthcare along with the wife and it didn't affect the cost at all. When they (kids) both got out of the house and past the 21 year-old age limit my insurance didn't go down.
My goodness, post no. 12,000 and I wasted it on Obamacare. I'm a putz.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:12 pm to Homesick Tiger
A lot of these kids are in college and without full time employment so this is a way to get them insured.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:13 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
When they (kids) both got out of the house and past the 21 year-old age limit my insurance didn't go down.
I have never seen an employer plan (and I've seen many) where your premium is the same whether you have dependents or not.
For my company, they raised everyone's premiums because they couldn't just charge it to the people with these kids between 21-26.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 1:14 pm to Eurocat
quote:
A lot of these kids are in college
But the majority of them aren't.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News