Michael Barone writes,

[A recent ballyhooed study of the phenomenon of extended adolescence] got me thinking about the much ballyhooed provision of the Obamacare bill that allows parents to include “children” up to age 26 in their family health insurance policies…

I think it’s appalling, on several grounds: people aged 26 are not “children,” …and they should not be encouraged to remain dependent on parents for extended periods. In that spirit, let me suggest that the Obamacare bureaucrats, in order to hold down health care expenses, may have to set some terms and conditions for “children” aged 21 to 26 who remain on their parents’ health insurance policies.

…they may be required to be home by 10:30 on weeknights and midnight on weekends. .. they may be required to do household chores including laundry, window washing, lawn mowing and cleaning out the garage.

This reminds me of a pet peeve I have concerning colleges and alcohol abuse. (I am not sure how lowering the legal drinking age would help–colleges for the most part prevent enforcement of the drinking age as it is). On the one hand, colleges generally protect students who abuse alcohol from being arrested or otherwise punished for vandalism and violence that results. In that sense, college students are treated as children not responsible for their actions. On the other hand, colleges do not impose curfews or consequences for students who abuse alcohol. In that sense, college students are treated as adults entitled to freedom from supervision.

As to health insurance, you know that my solution is real health insurance, not prepaid health plans. With real insurance, claims would only be made by people in the top 5 percent of health care expenses. As a result, twenty-somethings would face low premiums and most would be able to afford their own health insurance.