A new study (working paper) by Gopi Shah Goda and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Monica Farid of Harvard, has reported that they found that in the instance of the extended coverage, to age 27, of adult children that

Quote:we find that workers at firms with employer-based coverage – whether or not they have dependent children – experience an annual reduction in wages of approximately $1,200. Our results imply that the marginal costs of mandated employer-based coverage expansions are not entirely borne only by the people whose coverage is expanded by the mandate.

In other words, the study found that the costs of the adult-kid mandate weren’t “only borne by parents of eligible children or parents more generally.” They’re spread over all workers including other young people, the childless and late middle-aged. Isn't that special.

Link

(01-13-2016 08:51 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  A new study (working paper) by Gopi Shah Goda and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Monica Farid of Harvard, has reported that they found that in the instance of the extended coverage, to age 27, of adult children that

Quote:we find that workers at firms with employer-based coverage – whether or not they have dependent children – experience an annual reduction in wages of approximately $1,200. Our results imply that the marginal costs of mandated employer-based coverage expansions are not entirely borne only by the people whose coverage is expanded by the mandate.

In other words, the study found that the costs of the adult-kid mandate weren’t “only borne by parents of eligible children or parents more generally.” They’re spread over all workers including other young people, the childless and late middle-aged. Isn't that special.

Link

Well, as conservatives all know - and somehow liberals never figure out - "someone" is going to pay for that increased coverage. The offering company isn't going to eat it, and the insurance company isn't going to eat it - that leaves everyone in the pool bearing the cost - those it benefits and those it doesn't. I just can't figure out why all those without kids in the 18 to 26 range wouldn't want to give up money to cover someone else's young adults - they should be gladly participating in covering the cost.

If those evil corporations would just accept losing money, everything would be peachy!! Right Libs?