I am 20 and I'm a sophomore in college at Indiana University. I have worked part time (nearly full in the summers) at the local movie theatre for nearly 4 years. My parents insurance plan sent us a letter stating that if my employer (AMC Theatres) offers an insurance plan that I can not be on my parent's plan. I work maybe 15 hours a week during school at AMC, and their insurance plan is clearly not a viable option. Their plan is essentially in place so the company can say that "Yes, we do in fact offer health insurance." No one I know involved in the company actually uses it b/c it is not economically helpful. This is huge deal to me because it is possible I could move up to a Supervisory role in the company within the next year. Basically, what I am asking is it even legal for my parent's insurance company to attempt to kick me off of their plan before age 26? Especially when my job is not remotely close to full time AND I am a full time college student. Those both seem like stipulations that would nix the insurance companies inevitable attempt to screw me over. Please help out if you know anything about this.

Thank you,

-Matt Goodwin

Indiana University, whatever campus, has never been a university. It's a den of thieving. It has employed lots of flunkeys, lackeys, thieves, and leeches as its faculty to produce and honor leeches, thieves, flunkeys, and lackeys.

Yes, this is legal and is a part of "0bamacare".

Option number 3 would be to get your own individual policy. Chances are in most cases and in most states the individual policy will be much, much cheaper at your age than either the work policy or your parents policy.

If your company offers you coverage then you can't be on your parents plan. If they don't offer you coverage then you can. The amount you make, work, etc...does not matter.

The new health care reform laws do allow you to stay on a parent’s plan until age 26 (if your parents are willing), but you’re technically ineligible to do so if you have the option of enrolling in an employer-based health insurance plan. There’s not a very effective way of enforcing that rule, but it really is the rule. You could lie about it, of course, but I wouldn’t recommend it. If you racked up some unexpected medical bills but then it came out that you didn’t technically qualify to be on your parent’s plan, then you could end up retroactively uninsured and paying all those bills on your own. It’s possible you could also run into that kind of trouble by quitting for a month and then failing to inform your parents’ insurer once you were hired back on again.

Your options appear to be: 1) Find a different job that doesn’t offer benefits, and so stick with your parents’ plan. 2) Accept the plan offered through your employer and be removed from your parents’ plan. Or, 3) look into purchasing an individual health insurance policy on your own.

If you want to pursue option 3, work with a licensed agent online or in your area to compare rates for individually-purchased plans. It doesn’t cost anything extra to work with an agent and if you’re young and relatively healthy (which you say you are), you could actually end up with something surprisingly affordable and with decent coverage in case of serious illness or emergency. Since your parents are willing to keep you on their plan now, they may be willing to help you cover the cost of premiums for a plan of your own.

If you can't be on your parents' insurance, the IU Student Health Insurance may be a better deal than the AMC insurance.

Speak with AMC, I'd be willing to bet they don't offer the coverage to part timers. Speak with their HR department, not your supervisor or manager.

If you are working full tiime (which still doesn't sound like its the case, possibly when you become a supervisor though) and they offer you health insurance, you'd have a tough time claiming yourself as a dependent (the new Health Insurance definition).

I do not know what you mean by "not viable", but it does not matter. It also does not matter whether the plan is "economically viable".

The law says that if your employer offers you health insurance, then it is legal for your parent's insurance company to kick you off your parent's insurance. None of the things that you mention are stipulations in the law. The law does not stipulate that the job be full time, that you not be a college student, or even that you be able to afford the plan. The only two things that would force your parent's insurance company to let you stay on your parent's insurance are (a) if you quit your job, or (b) if your job did not offer health insurance.

I do not know what you mean by "not viable", but it does not matter. It also does not matter whether the plan is "economically viable".

The law says that if your employer offers you health insurance, then it is legal for your parent's insurance company to kick you off your parent's insurance. None of the things that you mention are stipulations in the law. The law does not stipulate that the job be full time, that you not be a college student, or even that you be able to afford the plan. The only two things that would force your parent's insurance company to let you stay on your parent's insurance are (a) if you quit your job, or (b) if your job did not offer health insurance.

Yep, that's what the Obamacare law says - whether or not you ACCEPT the insurance, if they offer it, you cannot stay on your parent's insurance.

It's not the INSURANCE company trying to kick you off - it's every single politician that voted FOR the "Health Reform Act".

It's ILLEGAL for your parent's insurance to IGNORE the Health Reform Act, which states that it doesn't matter if you're in college or not.

Your plan to quit and rejoin, isn't going to work - you will be caught, eventually, based on the withholding taxes taken from your paycheck - and then you will RETROACTIVLY be taken off the insurance again, and your parent will be billed for 100% of the bills that were paid out fraudulently.


You're being screwed over by the Health Reform Act, President Obama who signed it into law, and every Senator and Congressperson who voted for it. Not "the corporation". You're pointing your finger and the wrong guilty party.