You could make the same case for any sort of insurance company. Using that rationale, the government should also be in charge of everything from auto insurance to life insurance.

Fortunately, we have contracts and laws that require all insurance companies to pay for losses they've insured.

But I digress:
The alternative is a nice government-run system that cares nothing about money, all of which go bankrupt (Medicare, Canada, England, France)and ration care. And to top it off, you have can't get another insurer if you don't like your current one. That's heaven for most brain-dead anti-choice leftists, but call me old fashioned, I'd prefer to be in charge of my own health insurance choices.

Obama Care; Side effects may include headaches, blurred vision, sore throat, vomiting, diarreah, frequent wallet cleaning, delayed treatments, sky rocketing taxes and premature death! The GRIM REAPER has officially changed his name. He is now known as THE END OF LIFE PROVIDER.

Health insurance companies do not exist to pay bills for sick people. They exist to collect premiums and keep the money. The whole system is a Ponzi scheme. It needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. When is the government going to step in and protect us from these thieves? As long as elected officials keep collecting their shares of the take, the public will continue to be conned.

A healthy 26 year old (which is the vast majority of them) can buy health insurance for about $100 per month, the price of an Iphone bill or two nights at the bar. Of that $100, the insurance companies make about $3.50.

The big caveat is that those rates are now going to be jacked up substantially with ObamaCare through rating bands (young subsidize the old) and huge taxes (up to 5 to 10% in premium taxes more than they already pay.)

There's no end to the good that ObamaCare will bring us!

So at 26 are you gonna cut off your kid's Joe? After all they should not be dependent anymore correct? This ought to be interesting?

I have a hard time with Joe Pregont preaching to us about what our children should be doing when. I rarely support things such as expansion of benefits for aging dependents but given the paltry cost of expanding the coverage, those of us concerned about adding entitlements have bigger fish to fry.

I don't like this new insurance thing much myself. Most of the reason health care is so high now is because of the insurance companies and now we want to insure more and keep the parents payin? Good thing that young people don't get sick as much but hey there is only one direction that rates are going...up..

Futurerichguy--So your argument is because of your "reality" that these companies should have to front the health care expense of capable adults with whom they have no working relationship with? Then to top it off, when a business owner speaks out against absorbing an expense that has absolutely nothing to do with his company, you suggest that he supports slavery..... Seriously???

916WI, the problem with your idealistic beliefs about "RESPONSIBILITY, mommy and daddy, coddling, etc.", is that it isn't reality. The reality is there will be 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 year olds who don't have health insurance regardless of what you preach. Even if you tell them to watch Glenn Beck or read the "5000 Year Leap", there will still be 26 yr olds without health insurance. Of course there will be 27-65 yr olds without health insurance too, but that's a whole other issue.

I thought when this law was passed they said alot of it had to do with the fact that kids were graduating and unable to find work due to the recession which therfore left them uninsured and also unable to be on parent's insurance because of their age and no longer being in school? I have 2 kids in college full time. They both work part-time and one does not have insurance offered to them and she also will be attending longer due to her double major so when she reaches that cut off age and is still trying to complete school, what do you advise her to do? Forget school and the fact that you are oh so close to that degree and go get a job that has insurance offered because we don't want your parents paying for you??

I understand the point of kids needing to grow up and pay their own way. (Did it myself at a young age and finished high school) I also know that sometimes the age thing isn't a fair way of doing it, especially when they are putting in the effort to do the schooling and the work to pay for the schooling....

Futurerichguy.....A little dramatic....huh? I seriously doubt that Joe believes that 26 year olds should be sold into slavery. What I got from his statement is that at 26 a person is well into ADULTHOOD and that they should ACCEPT SOME RESPONSIBILITY for the direction that their life is taking. I understand that the younger generation has expected mommy and daddy to coddle and care for them well into their adult years--that's fine if mommy and daddy want to pick up the tab, but forcing a business to pay for it is over the line. Trust me on this one futurerichguy--cut the ties with the parents, stop pushing for handouts and freebees, and go out into the real world work hard and EARN these things that you currently are expecting to just be handed to you--you'll feel so much better about yourself in the end:)

Wow, there isn't a lick of sense in either of those last two posts.

True, 26 yr olds shouldn't be dependent on their parents. Just because that's the way it should be though, doesn't make it so. A 26 yr old without health insurance, is diagnosed with cancer, rings up about $100K in health care costs, and Pregont thinks that 26 yr old should not have access to their parent's health care. Pregont probably believes in the ancient way of selling that 26 yr old into slavery.

I find it quite interesting that people still believe health insurance is optional. There are a couple sides to consider the low wage worker at a small company that is not required to give health care or has crazy high priced optional coverage and the large corporation who owns an insurance company that enrolls all of its employees into their health care company.

The low wage worker has no options, they can pay up to 1/4 their monthly wages to carry insurance. That means a $10/hr @ 40hrs a weeks is roughly 300 take home or $1200 a month. Now 200$ for the worst health care coverage u can get for a single person. Closer to $400 if your looking at a wife and some children and that doesn't even cover dental. So wheres the money now.

Large corporation claims they pay $xxx per month to cover health insurance on their workers, usually as much as they pay them per month and take a tax break. I have seen some allow them to opt out and are given 50 cents an hour more as compensation to find their own health care. Which is its 10$ an hour job is $200. These same company run insurance companies wait until the last second to pay all claims.

Is it simpler to just add on one more tax? Instead of companies providing health care coverage they increase their workers pay by how much they claim is paid. Then add an additional tax on everyone paycheck for insurance. Then implement universal health care.

Wouldn't that provide the same coverage as everyone is getting anyway? Since hospitals have to treat emergencies even those without health care. Those who can't pay crazy bills on the spot, or are in situations like now where a lot of people have no coverage through little to no fault of their own.

The insurance companies and health care wag their finger at the uninsured who they have to pick up slack for. Its not to say they don't work its more likely they can't pay rent and buy food to carry the coverage.

At least everyone would pay no if and or buts with a universal plan with everyone taxed.

I am all for extending coverage for young adults up to age 22 if:

1. Show absolute proof they are attending college at least half time. If they cease to attend school for bad reasons, coverage should end and they should get at least a part time job to help pay the health insurance they are using under their parents plan unitl they choose to start college again. Joe is merely advocating responsibility folks. The liberals seem to think the fed has to take care of society because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.

Joe has my vote to start running a school district and get rid of all the waste in education.

Zoom--That would be a good direction for businesses to go. We don't do it at the company I work for. The companies that many of my friends work at are also are not involved in offering health care discounts for leading a healthy lifestyle. The practice should become the rule rather than the exception.......

916WI, many companies that offer insurance already have monetary "incentives" for their employees to be healthier (i.e. premium discounts), and require their employees to have yearly health evaluations. This practice is actually more widespread in the public sector (that evil government) than in the private sector.

They should have tiered plans and the companies should absolutely pass the entire cost of a parent covering their 26 year old adult "dependent" on to that employee. I also think that if you are overweight, a smoker, etc. you should also have to pay much more of a premium that someone who exercises regularly and has healthy eating habits.

Does the law say an employer can't increase premiums for dependant children on the insurance plan? I'm guessing that most companies will now have tiered family plans for people with and without dependants. Companies are going to pass this cost onto the employees, but as ozzman99 pointd out, the actual health care costs for young adults is much less, so premiums won't increase very much.

I read your entire comment SarahB1, but I chose only to respond to your first two sentences. What did the rest have to do with those?

How many of the whining leftists on this thread have produced one job, let alone a job with health insurance?

None.

Until you do, I don't know how you have ANY standing to criticize those that have and do.

I'm going to quit my job and become a burden now.

I hope this doesn't mean that Prent employees who have young adults will be targeted for downsizing. I read Joe's comments as a kind of warning; don't even ask us to cover your son or daughter.

Rumor has it that this company has conveniently eliminated employees who might cost more in the way of health, retirement, etc.

Doesn't Prent benefit from high medical costs? My understanding is that they profit nicely from providing plastic packaging to medical device manufacturers.

The other option is making the employees pay more for their insurance. I certainly don't want to pay for a colleague's married 25 year old while my 23 year old college graduate is working and paying for their own insurance.

Wow, let's bash one of the better employers in town so he can pick up and leave too. I have done business with Prent and they are a well run company and do things right. Joe has done a great job growing the company to a global operation after his father's retirement.

SarahB1 is asking whether he will show up for work and walk the factory floor today. You know less about Joe and his relationship with his employees than you do about all the other comments you make (which is little to nothing).

The fact is that health care costs are a huge cost to small to mid sized employers and can greatly affect the profits. Why should a company pay for the medical cost of an employees married children? It is absurd that anyone thinks a 26 year old needs to be on their parents insurance. Lets force more production out of the country, that will be the end result here.

Whenever people think something is free they will use more of it.

It's armageddeon!!!

Too bad the "good socialists" provide roads, electricity infrastructure, created the internet, national weather service and so on so that those capitalists can then privatize all those gains and claim no one helped them.

Socialist scientists help build the bomb that saved the capitalists from the fascists.

The motivation for mandating coverage of adult children was purely political. It's purpose was to silence an otherwise very vocal demographic who would have vigorously opposed mandated health insurance. It was a bribe and they took it.

+1 giddyup....The "evil capitalists" that provide employment and pay for the social programs of those who don't work through taxes seem to never be able to provide enough to the demanding masses! I could see health care being extended to 22 for adults who are full time college students. After that, these ADULTS should take responsibility for themselves. I realize that's a foreign concept in today's society--the complete disaster that Obamacare promises to be cements this fact......
Ozzman--if your argument against Joe's comments is based on the fact that people in their 20's generally don't need health care, why burden Prent's finances providing something that's not needed then?

Interesting how many people see profit as evil. Without profit, businesses close. Without businesses, people don't have jobs to pay for ANYTHING, much less health coverage. Without businesses and the jobs they create, the government gets no tax money with which to buy the votes of people with "entitlements" and to pay the salaries & benefits of government workers who, while in many (but by no means all) cases provide important services, further drain money from the economy. Who is going to pay for your "free" government run health care then?

Joe, I can't help but wonder what your father would think of these comments. Would he be proud of you for putting profits ahead of employee welfare? Or would he have more vision than you by supporting this and realizing that a college education is imparative to success and health insurance is too expensive without group plans to mitigate the costs.

Think about it... Sometimes the profit you get from providing for your employees isn't monetary. Loyalty, quality, work ethic, and more are just waiting to be earned.

I don't know anyone in Janesville who was more dependant on his parents then Joe. He would never have been able to build a business by himself. It sounds like Joe has the Scrooge outlook on health care for children, "Let them die and decrease the surplus population!", then I will be more competitive. I wonder if this is how Jack wanted his company to be ran.
You are someone this town should really lookup to.

Joe Pregont makes a very sensible point, which I fear will be looked at as typical Capitalist attitude. But he is right. It seems like 'all' is heading the way of given, instead of earned. Do you think these other nations carry such health care plans for their employees, while they continue to destroy our productivity with unruly competitiveness? Irony.

This whole thing is a joke. Socialism is not good, and I truly believe this is what is happening in the US today. I mean, if all these criminal offenders can claim Badger care and consistently get treatment at the E.R.'s etc etc, then why is the rest of it being crammed down the working man's throat. I watched the news for probably a few hundred hours this last six months trying to figure out what this new plan would 'entitle'. Still completely confused, and I can only wonder....

As Joe Pregont handsomely profits from staffing his factories with part-time mini-shifters who are not offered health insurance, I have little sympathy for his supposed plight. In today's economy a college education is necessary if one hopes to obtain even a shred of financial security. Perhaps these young adults whom Pregont is so sure should no longer be dependent upon their parents are working their way through college and so aren't able to complete their education by age 22? Not everyone has the privilege of growing up the child of a factory owning father who is easily able to pay for the education that will groom them to assume the prosperous family business upon graduation.

And of course employees should not be dependent on employers for their health insurance. This model is followed by only a few countries and none so extensively as the US.

So Joe is saying that he dosen't want any of his employees to have children because it will add to his insurance costs? Better not hire women of child bearing age Joe they might get pregnant and cost you money! People in their 20's genreally dont have too many medical problems in the first place so his argument is BS.