"My company pays for the employees' health insurance and then the employee can add (and pay for) additional insurance, including for kids. "Kids" insurance costs the same if you have one kid or six kids. When Anna and Ben graduated college and started working, I kept them on my insurance because I was already purchasing the "Kids" insurance for Caroline. Anna switched to her own insurance at 26 and Ben will be 26 soon and do the same. Caroline now has a full-time job with benefits, including insurance. Her insurance is not free, but costs significantly less than "Kids" at my company. I never had a stated plan to insure my children until they were 26-it just worked out that way for my older children and didn't cost me any additional money. But it's clearly a benefit they received courtesy of me that Caroline won't receive."
"Fairness doesn't mean you have to do the exact same thing for all of your adult children. Support comes in different shapes, and for Anna and Ben, it just made sense to handle insuranc"
One child receives a cheaper employer plan while two older children were kept on a parent's family 'kids' policy until age 26, creating an apparent inequity. The parent's choice to keep older children on the family policy was opportunistic and cost-neutral at the time, resulting in an unintended benefit disparity for the youngest. Fairness in adult-child support can mean different forms of help rather than identical actions. Consider compensating uneven benefits through subsidies, transparent communication, and assessing overall contributions and needs so that long-term equity, not momentary sameness, guides decisions.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]