Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: IT Contractors, How's Your Health Insurance?
An anonymous reader writes "In the tech industry, as the economy continues its downturn, IT folks in my circles who were either laid off or let go are turning to contract work to pay their bills. Layoffs and a decline in tech jobs has affected older IT workers the most. Many of us find it more lucrative and enjoyable in the long run and leave the world of cubicles forever. However, there is much to be said for working for a large company or corporation, and health insurance is one of the benefits we value most. But what happens to those who find themselves in this position at mid-career or later in life? Hopefully they have accumulated enough savings or have enough money in an HSA to survive a major medical emergency. Unfortunately, many do not and some find themselves in dire straits with their lives depending on others for help. I have been working IT contracts mostly now for the past 11 years and I've done very well. I belong to a group insurance plan and the coverage is decent, but as I get older, premiums and copays go up and coverage goes down. If you work contracts exclusively, what do you think is the best plan for insurance? Any preferences?"
1 or 0
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Have UK Citizenship
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Get married to someone who has a job that extends health benefits to their spouse.
Move to Scandinavia, I meet lots of people from the US who have a great time over here. Sure the pay after taxes is going to be less, and you will have to learn a new language, but in the end (of your life) you will have gotten the better deal over here.
Treat insurance as insurance, not as a health care account, buy critical illness with a high deductible (maybe 10-20K), but make sure it covers 5-10 years of your expenses for sure. For the normal every day stuff just pay out of pocket.
You can't handle the truth.
If you work contracts exclusively, what do you think is the best plan for insurance? Any preferences?" Canada, failing that, France. Seriously, we need to pass HR676, it would be the greatest economic stimulus ever.
I pay $90/month for a really sub-par insurance that caps payments to 2000. If I get hired full-time at the end of my contract, I will have a proper insurance plan.
I wish I had a public option, or better yet, medicare.
If your young, fit and trying make it the US might be the place for you. When you insurance is telling you that you are (actuarially speaking) no longer young or fit and your bank is telling you you haven't made it, it's time to get the hell out of Dodge. Emigrate while you still can to a more civilized part of the world.
If your in the position to plan your transition, start building up your HSA. IF you don't have an HSA now, taking a few years to contribute to one is exceptionally useful. Cover out of pockets and copays, converts to usable for non medical use after retirement age. Having this, while utilizing a group plan w/ higher costs, softens the blow.
the no pre existing condition/ no drop rule and exchanges (not tied to jobs) is a big boost.
My health plan is to avoid getting sick.
I wouldn't do that long-term, though. I'm only temporarily contracting and start a full time job with insurance benefits in two weeks.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm assuming OP is in the US, because in most other countries this is a non-issue.
This was the kind of situation that Obamacare is intended to address, by making the individual market a viable option for people who aren't getting insurance through their employment, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions and requiring no more than 20% overhead (for reference, Medicare runs at about 3% overhead and the VA closer to 1%).
Other approaches, while you're waiting for that law to fully kick in:
- If you're married, and your spouse is a full-time employee somewhere, use their group plan.
- If you've saved up a lot, which it sounds like you have, consider focusing on catastrophic coverage.
- If you're older than 50, consider the AARP. They provide all sorts of discounts, including on health insurance.
- If your life situation allows, you might be able to relocate to a civilized country. This is obviously a big change, so you wouldn't want to make this lightly.
- Put up with the higher rates and less insurance. It's not pleasant, of course, but it sounds like you can afford it.
I am officially gone from
Single-payer! The only way to control health care costs. Eventually the United States will have to go to a single-payer system. Otherwise, we will continue to have the most expensive and and worse health care system of any developed country.
I contracted for 2 years. During that time, I purchased health insurance for myself, wife and 3 children from a health insurance company. It's actually really easy. I comparison shopped online, picked an insurer with a plan that had good coverage at a rate I could afford, called them up and bought a policy. The insurer did a check of our medical histories, which took about a week, and involved them calling doctors. Fine. The policy took effect about 2 weeks after the medical checks were complete.
I was paying about $300 / mo for myself, wife and my 3 kids - and that includes a kid with autism, which the insurer could not turn down, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (GObama! Sorry, had to :) ). They did charge me $10 extra a month for my autistic child, but that seemed more than reasonable to me. $300 / mo might seem high, but it's only about $50 more than what I pay when getting insurance through an employer. The copays were competitive ($10 prescriptions, $30 doctor visits and such). The other deductibles, co-insurance, etc were a bit higher, but not insanely higher than what you'd see through a plan from an employer.
There was one thing that stunk about the plan, though - if my wife got pregnant, the insurer would drop her coverage. That sucks. In fact, I couldn't find a single insurer that would cover pregnancy - nor would they cover things like IUD, birth control pills, etc. Basically everything you'd typically associate with a woman's health was completely not covered, which is ridiculous.
Once the Affordable Care Act goes completely "live" in 2014, though, insurers won't be able to deny women health coverage if they're pregnant, and they'll have to cover basic women's health care. Anyhow, wasn't trying to make this a political statement, it's just interesting how broken the current system is for women.
When times are good, save up for times that will be bad. An HSA is one tax efficient vehicle for medical expenses but due to contribution limits you'll probably need more than that. Basically spend less than you earn and save the rest for the future. If you're smart enough to be in IT then you're smart enough to know that you will have medical expenses in the future and you're being paid better than the average worker now. Plan accordingly.
I pay a little over a $100 a month, to have insurance for just myself. That equates to having a $1,250 deductible.
My family is on a seperate plan, that is held individually by us. Ironically, it's with the same insurance company. It's $260/month for my wife and 3 kids. Granted it has a $5,000 deductible.
But it makes me wonder just how much my company is paying out. If I am paying $100 for myself, and $260 for four others?
In fact, to add my family would have been more than we currently pay combined. Plus more than the difference in my family's deductible. :-/
Actually not, considering the alternative "plan" presented by the opposition is to "restore" 760 billion of waste and overpayment to the system, one might buy such stock if Romney wins, because then those companies will be looking for somewhere to put all that waste and overpayment, being on the receiving end of it, which could mean dividends.
Someone had to do it.
In my experience, High Deductible Health Plans from *major* carriers are quite good. I'm not talking about those discount $50/mo. plans you can get through trade organizations. I'm talking about "High Deductible" plans from Aetna, Blue Cross, etc... You might have to cover the first $2k - $3k per year out of pocket, but after that you're often covered at the 90% to 95% level with no upper limit for major medical events like cancer, etc...
If you're self-employed, you ought to easily have $2k - $3k per year available to pay pre-deductible health expenses. It's really not that much money.
My observation is that most people seem conditioned to have this totally irrational expectation that ALL of their health expenses should be covered, with maybe a nominal $20 "co-pay" at every office visit. That's silly! Why not just pay for ordinary expenses out of pocket, and save your insurance premiums for the truly disastrous stuff (i.e. broken bones, appendicitis, car accidents, etc...)?
I'm just continually blown away by two income professional households with $120k+ income who just absolutely can not bring themselves to shell out a few thousand dollars per year out of pocket to pay the doctor. What's the big deal? 5% of your income is too much out of pocket expense? They'll happily blow $1500/year on mobile phone service, but $2k - $3k / year on pre-deductible health expenses are too much? But I digress......
High Deductible Health Plan from major carrier. The only way to go.
I have a great job and my company affords me a fantastic health plan. Unfortunately, a close friend of mine got laid off after a head injury caused a concussion and after six months of short term disability he was fired from the job where he'd worked for 13 years. He had been making about $60,000 a year. His wife didn't work. He lives in good 'ol Massachusetts, and his unemployment is too high to warrant MassHealth, so he's paying $1,300 a month for Cobra to cover his wife and two children. His savings are almost depleted and he's still recovering (headaches, dizziness, contant pain). While I fully support a national healthcare plan, the one we have in place -- get healthcare or pay the fine -- ain't doing it. More needs to be done to help those in need of health coverage so they don't wind up going into emergency rooms for chronic illness care. Any study worth its salt shows preventative care is cheaper than reactive care.
It sure is a boost. I'm going to drop my policy completely, pay out-of-pocket for general care, and then call up Aetna when I get really sick. Even with the fine (tax?) I'll save lots of money.
If only they'd fix car insurance, too. Then I'll buy my insurance after I've already crashed my car.
:wq
Yeah, of course: moving to a country with a civilized public health system. Each and every first world country but USA, that is.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. This is to prevent dumbasses from not doing something they really have to do.
But I'm perfectly okay with people who want to make their own choices, as long as they accept the consequences of their choices. Which means if you waaah about not buying health insurance, then when you're sick or injured...you stay home and help yourself unless you can bring cash or a valid credit card with $50,000 available on it to the emergency room. After all, you're the one in charge making the decisions, and the one you made is basically to die or fall on the charity of others WHEN something happens to you. And by the way, I ain't in the mood to be your freaking charity.
The problem we have with the world today is everyone wants choices, but when the consequences show up its someone elses fault and they need a bailout.
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
I'm 51 and have a couple of minor pre-existing conditions that I've resolved by losing a lot of weight gained after suffering a back injury. Even though I'm pretty healthy now, if I lost my current group health absolutely nobody would insure me at any price. Even a high deductible plan and HSA combined with a serious injury or illness would destroy my family finances pretty much for good.
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
You can still have your choice. Pack up and go live in the new mexico desert or the deep plains of wyoming, far from a hospital. I'm quite sure nobody will come to your camp and make you pay.
If you cant afford it, you get it for free or cheap. Same general idea as what Romney did in MA. So lets stop the stupid bickering and random shenanigans and get on with what we grown ups need to do, shall we?
Ehhh...and so we stay on the right side of the fence, voted republican until GW's second term, have voted for Mickey Mouse since.
Actually, expect LESS increases due to "Obama Care"
The reason is more people will be paying in to plans because they have to by law.
I've paid for my own health care since I was 18. I require it due to having moderate to severe Psoriasis. I pay $1300 a month right now for Blue Cross Blue Shield in NY. Yes... Its fucking insane.
The same plan was $250 a month 15 years ago.
Every year they want to increase it about $150.
The theory with Obama Care is more people will now have to pay for a plan so more people paying in, should slow the increase in rates. However we will see if that happens in practice.
Initially the democrats fought for control over price increases but republicans and the insurance lobbyists obviously won that battle.
This country is out of control insane. If you are sick, you better be rich, or just die. That is how our country looks at people. We are burdens on society, and they would rather us all die than provide some kind of help. That is a fact.
America is a disgusting fucking country that I am ashamed to say I belong to. We simply do not care about doing the right thing.
Obama Care is a step in the right direction but its been corrupted by the insurance industry. The public option was eliminated. Single Payer universal Not for Profit insurance wasnt even considered. Big Money runs this place... and Big money sees us all as a burden and thinks the sick should simply die.
If you want health insurance in America. Either you have to pay very high monthly rates, or simply move to another country.
Except that's crap. I've been a contractor for more than a decade and am in my forties. Love the independence, and buy my own insurance. When Obamacare kicks all the way in, it's going to raise my insurance costs a lot, possibly to the point that I will have to go to work as an employee to afford it. So actually, for the situation the poster describes, which is mine, repealing Obamacare, which requires voting Obama out, is actually the better option.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I wish I had mod points. I had a chat a little while ago with some folks very excited about their natural soda pop. They really don't get it, do they?
You fail at logic. You think that it is OK for people to have a "choice" to not buy insurance and must live with the consequences, but note that you would not be able to buy insurance if you lost your current coverage.
Yes, perfectly healthy people below age 50 may have a choice. Many others, who don't have a perfect history of health don't actually have a choice if they lost their current insurance. You admit that you are in this position.
So, yes, many people have a choice to not buy insurance. Unfortunately, many others do not have a choice to buy insurance.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Expect more large increases whether or not we keep Obamacare
FTFY.
Though, I have say I have yet to see anybody actually make a convincing argument that Obamacare will increase premiums, and theoretically the deal struck was that premiums would stabilize after 2014 when the rate-review and the medical-loss-ratio provisions kick in, in return for the assured customer base. If the Republicans do grab control of both houses and perhaps even the presidency, then they can indeed repeal the ACA, and as such they will repeal everything that was in the pipeline to hold premiums down. Of course, their mouth-breathing followers will then have to go find a new Democrat to blame the spiraling health care costs on.
Someone had to do it.
No, it isn't even that. It is a "tax you a little extra if you don't buy it" plan. That way those who do plan ahead get to pay for those who wait until they get sick to buy health insurance. Of course, it's not like anybody wants to go with a rational plan whereby people have an economic incentive to manage their healthcare costs, and providers have an economic incentive to keep costs down so that people can actually afford what they charge.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This IT contractor would have a "major medical emergency" dealt with for free.
(OK so I am actually covered by some private insurance that goes with my wife's job and I do use it from time to time, but in the UK this mostly only covers elective stuff as the private sector isn't set up to cope with emergencies.)
You do know that the healthcare industry almost unanimously backed Obamacare, don't you? I have not seen the numbers recently, but early numbers suggested that they were also betting heavily on Obama's re-election by donating to his campaign (so it is possible that their donations have balanced out or even swung the other way).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
If they are going to be forced to pay taxes anyway, why not? The government isn't going to give you back what you did pay in (through taxes) if you don't use it. Also, I doubt any private business is going to build a fee-based, nation-wide interstate when everyone is just going to use the interstate their taxes are already paying for.
It's a big fat mess of corporate welfare is what it is.
The 5% or so of people that would actually be punished and encouraged to buy health insurance under the plan are simply not that significant. They certainly aren't enough to completely trash our long established rules about the limits on the federal government.
It's like popping zits with a riot gun.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You do realize that Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare, right?
What politicians say they will do and what they do are completely different things.
Vote 3rd party. Maybe there will be a choice that people are actually happy with next time (or maybe 2 elections from now.)
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
No, you are the minority.
It's in the FAQ: Slashdot is an American run, America-centric, primarily American visited website. It's easy to get the wrong impression the way people talk though. Between the attitude and the English as a Second Language commenting I would probably assume the same thing.
AHA drops denying for pre-existing conditions for this reason.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Car and house insurance are there to cover your liabilities to OTHER people. The latter is the result of you entering into a contract with a bank. The former is a miserable stupid failure and is really no great argument in favor of the state forcing you to buy insurance.
Plus IT IS THE STATE. That little detail really does matter. There are some things that states get to do that the feds don't. That's how the rules were set up.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid and the Congress should no more be above the law than you should be.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Expect more large increases due to Obamacare.
I don't know why that would be the case, since every other country with universal health care managed to reduce costs. Of course, you cant have your second liver transplant when you're an alcoholic, and 102 year old aunt sally probably isn't going to get a new hip either.
Of course, we may become the first to spend more on universal health care, considering we'll probably let the insurance companies write the rules.
My wife works in an end of life care facility, where people who have no idea who or where they are (if they're even conscious) are kept alive for years so the family can visit. The vast majority of health care costs are spent in the last year of the patients life...which means whatever was done didn't work. Hundreds of thousands a year per patient.
My wife has a very soft heart, but even she says that people have to get used to the idea that there is an end to every life, and pretty much none of the crap you see on television doctor shows is actually feasible. Think of the last time you watched some show where some kid says "Oh, hold on for 2 seconds while I hack into an NSA satellite and make it zoom in on the bad guys escape attempt!" and you slapped yourself in the head, because even the NSA can't do that in 5 seconds? Yeah, its like that.
Shoot...CPR doesn't work about 80% of the time, yet most people think you can fish someone out of a pond after they've been underwater for 5 minutes and you'll have a serious chance of reviving them. So your chances of someone coming out of a coma or recovering from massive injuries or degenerative conditions is almost nil.
So I think if people all got a minimum level of help that was reasonable considering their age and physical condition, and were able to spend whatever they wanted out of their own pocket to follow their heart...great...but I'm pretty sure my wife would be working in a nearly empty facility if that were to happen.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
It amazes me that the Repubs somehow convinced the Dems that a few of them might cross over and vote for the ACA if the insurance mandate were included in the plan, when in reality it was apprently intended as a poison pill to try to make the whole deal unpalatable to voters and/or be tossed out by the SCOTUS. I guess I'm also amazed that the SCOTUS didn't toss it out, but maybe that's just to keep "Obamacare" as an issue for 2012 elections.
I am not a crackpot.
You may find that the grass is not really greener. We have had our own independent policy for a long time and have never had a desire to switch to an employer's plan even when that was an option. Those plans aren't any better. Plus if you are really unlucky, your employer will switch plans on you and screw you out of your deductible.
The only real answer here is to be free of Big Business and Big Government. Those of us that can fend for ourselves should not be made dependents of either.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For the self-employed, the non-group insurance market was really drying up in the early 2000's (premium increases beyond group, preexisting condition exclusions, absurd caps and other loopholes). RomneyCare made it easy: just log into the exchange, there's about 30 family plans offered by 5-6 different insurers, the tiers aren't too complicated (still some fine print to be careful of, but it's standardized between insurers), the prices are public and comparable (no better pricing available through direct or brokers or secret channels). Premiums have gone up, but remain competitive with group insurance. We got a rebate for premiums this year because our insurer exceeded 15% limit on salaries, marketing, and overhead.
I think ACA will extend most of these benefits to other states by 2014.
I've always thought that the biggest problem WAS insurance. There is no other area where the consumer generally has *no idea* what the cost is of what they consume. They just care about their copay or out of pocket and don't usually know (or care) what the real costs for the services they consume are. It follows that when someone else is paying for it, people tend to consume more than they really need, which drives up costs for everybody.
Running a close second is malpractice liability and the host of "cover my butt" testing now done by doctors. With the patient not really knowing what all this stuff costs and the doctor facing increasing malpractice insurance costs the pressure to do tests "just in case" is huge, even if the test is unlikely to ever catch anything and is expensive. You know that a good percentage of medical testing falls into this category, and this simply drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.
I suggest that we attack this problem on two fronts (once we get the current "Affordable Health Care Act" off the books.)
First, I think the expansion of HealthCare Security Accounts (HSA) is in order. Make it possible for folks to buy catastrophic health care plans (with very high deductibles) but allow them to put pre-tax money into HSAs up to the max out of pocket per year. Structure them like 401Ks and encourage folks to save though out their lives for medical expenses and allow these accounts to be passed down to others upon death. This will put the patient back into a position to care about costs and make it easier for them to refuse unnecessary testing.
Second, we need to put caps on medical malpractice awards for pain and suffering and make the looser pay legal fees in medical malpractice cases. Awards need to be for actual damages (i.e. for past/future medical expenses, lost earning potential etc) but pain and suffering and punitive awards need to be capped. The "looser pays winner's legal fees" will effectively eliminate those who are gaming the system by filing frivolous suits and their lawyers who are looking for a lucky million dollar award from a jury. All this would serve to lower malpractice insurance costs and lower the pressure on Doctors to perform unnecessary testing that drive up costs.
All in all, we need to get back to a system where the patient can take responsibility for the cost of their care. Only then can we hope to contain the ever expanding costs.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
If they are going to be forced to pay taxes anyway, why not? The government isn't going to give you back what you did pay in (through taxes) if you don't use it. Also, I doubt any private business is going to build a fee-based, nation-wide interstate when everyone is just going to use the interstate their taxes are already paying for.
Thanks much for proving my point. Some things are too stupid to do privately or all by ourselves. We have to do it together, for all of us. Even the dummies that are willing to take a chance without it, but will not hesitate to show up at the emergency room, get treated, and not pay the huge bill because they can't. Then I have to pay it for them when I pay my insurance payments, because its a zero sum game.
The thing is...years ago if you got sick or hurt and didn't have insurance, you stayed home with your family. The emergency rooms weren't lined with people with no insurance and no ability to pay. But people figured out that a hospital will treat you even if you cant afford to pay, so now they want the choice to stick me with their bill.
Eh...my choice is to say no.
Seriously.
When health insurance and health care are sold as a for-profit products, it is inevitable that some people will go without insurance and/or care. Why? Because they can't pay enough to make it profitable to sell to them. The market is fine and all, but it can't survive without profit.
Your best bet now is to look very hard for some form of group insurance. The older you are, the greater the probability you will succumb to somthing that requires surgery and/or long-term treatment/rehabilitation. i.e., things that generate 6-figure bills. (Think about things happening that cost $500,000 to deal with. Think about pills that cost $100 a pop.) Better to have good coverage for that eventuality and poor coverage of things like routine doctor visits than vice-versa.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
One other thing that might slow the rate of increase is the fact that they have to use 80% of what they take in on medical expenses.
Car and house insurance are there to cover your liabilities to OTHER people. The latter is the result of you entering into a contract with a bank. The former is a miserable stupid failure and is really no great argument in favor of the state forcing you to buy insurance.
Plus IT IS THE STATE. That little detail really does matter. There are some things that states get to do that the feds don't. That's how the rules were set up.
Ignoring the rules is just stupid and the Congress should no more be above the law than you should be.
Ah, another one. Your health care is also to cover your liabilities to other people, since you'll just go to the emergency room when you're sick or hurt, get treated, stiff them on the bill because you cant afford it, and then everyone who does have insurance ends up paying for your treatment.
The company that loaned you money on the car feels you're likely to be too dumb to buy car insurance, so they'll get stuck with the bill. Same with your mortgage company.
Now, if you smash up your car and don't pay for it, you'll get a mechanics lien on you. He won't charge other people extra to make up for it. Oh, and try canceling your homeowners policy sometime while on a mortgage. Go ahead...I'll wait...
Yes. Because generally when you propose win-win compromises, everyone buys in (except for your political opponents, who just don't want anyone to see you suceed at anything.)
Someone had to do it.
Don't be coy. What plans are those and how does the ACA facilitate those plans? What will they be able to do under the ACA that they can't do now? Here's what's coming by date. Which of the features are the insurance companies going to use to increase overall rates?
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance
One of the key arguments against that section of the affordable care act is that as you say, the states do it. Only the states previously had the authority to make people do something like that under their power to police. The federal government had never done something like that.
....
I'll just leave this here.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09
A lot of the insurance companies are rolling out straight to consumer health insurance to be compliant with the affordable care act.
This accords with what I have experienced. Generally we pay less than 50% of the sticker price for all medical care, if we offer cash.
When my latest was born in 2008, we got everything covered for under $5000 at a very good hospital, simply because we offered cash up front. In fact, we were informed that the price would triple if we couldn't pay the full amount up front--even if we paid all the remainder within a week. That's the nature of risk management in the medical business.
As a family man with 3 kids, we find that life is MUCH cheaper without insurance. If you have a generally healthy family, and actually bother to make sure your family eats well and exercises well (growing your own garden is a major plus), and if you bother to learn a little something about health on your own (my wife is a nurse), you can actually manage to live without constant "health care". Seriously, when did people start needing medical care as an ongoing service, like electricity and water? It's pretty easy nowadays to check your own blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, and quite a few other things. We only go to doctors when something doesn't add up.
I see the world today as gone somewhat mad about how to take care of the body. I know younger people in their 30s who are already on multiple medications--statins, beta blockers, blood-thinners, you name it. Diabetics are everywhere, and Coca Cola sales are exceeding forecasts. We are finding that "diet food" actually makes you fatter. We are finding that a certain amount of sun is actually good for you. We are finding that sitting all day in a cubicle is horrible for your health. It's time to start putting two and two together. If you want a healthier population, the first thing we need to do is get everyone exercising regularly, spending some time outdoors instead of under florescent lighting or the pallid glows of their LCD screens, and eating real food instead of the crap that comes from factories (and most grocery stores, unfortunately).
As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.
> Though, I have say I have yet to see anybody actually make a convincing argument that Obamacare will increase premiums
The idea of what is an "acceptable" insurance policy will be driven eurotrash wannabes that wish to deprive me of the right to be self sufficient and manage my own money. That will likely make my current plan effectively illegal and either force me to buy a plan that costs double of my current one or I will be fined by the federal government.
I would rather just be taxed. It's more honest. They can put an Obamacare tax line item on my pay stub next to SSI and Medicare.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
they are not idiots - they make a pretty rational decision. See when I have a choice to pay and know that in need and/or emergency I will be treated anyway I could imagine that I will not pay - why should I? This is pretty rational decision. It is immoral and asocial but it is reasonable. That is also the reason why health insurance must be mandatory if your health system is to survive. I guess health system is a perfect example for tragedy of the commons. There are different ways to handle this but as this is insurance case we can just borrow from car insurance only this time as long as you have life needing saving you must be insured as with a car being registered and used. You stop using it then you are free not to be insured only in this particular case you are dead... Now they way to organize the system is another thing - some may chose one tier system or private enterprise or combination of different systems as in Holland but I think majority of Tea Partiers and Republicans in general fail at understanding what is the main problem here.
And this right here folks is what is wrong with our country, the "fuck you, I got mine" in the flesh.
This is why we have to force people to get car insurance, because this asshole wants to ripoff society. He can't possibly be expected to actual like a responsible adult.
One feature of Obamacare is health exchanges, which will allow individuals to get the shared-risk benefits of belonging to a group plan. These will start appearing in 2014. The one for my state is planning to offer plans that will cost $200 a month, assuming you're over 30 and have an income of no more than $30K.
The same system we have now. Those who don't plan ahead go to the ER and the rest of us get stuck with the bill. At least that fine/tax can be used to pay that/
This. The memory of the public is sooo short, apparently *nobody* remembers that this wasn't in the first draft and it was only added to get agreement from a few republicans to not fillibuster (fillibuster.. another busted ass piece of legislation..). Everyone should have known this was just very deliberate republican sabotage...
That is pretty much implemented already, with all pre-existing-conditions and purchase-exchanges left for 2014. The other part of Obamacare- the expansion of insurance to half of those who lack it now, also starts in 2014. Expansion includes the mandate, looser medicaid requirements, and insurance grants for the less well off. This second part has invoked big politcal controversy we dont need to talk about here.
So what happens when you get cancer? Or something else that costs hundred of thousands to millions to deal with?
I know what will happen, you will leave me the insurance buyer stuck for your unpaid bills.
You are a fucking moron. You said it yourself: "generally healthy family."
Alot of people need healthcare genius. What happens if your child gets sick? What happens of your child gets diabetes? What if you have a heart attack? Do think it can happen to a health person, think again. Cancer, almost a dead certainty.
Nobody expects to get sick but it happens. But hey keep thinking that way. Jackasses like you are the reason my premiums go up.
I used to have health insurance. I paid for it, of course, since I was self-employed. But then back in the mid-1990's our state government decided to change the game and kicked out all but one of the insurance companies. The remaining one, BCBS, with its monopoly power raised rates tremendously. I went from insuring our family for a few hundred a month and a $500 deductible to paying well over $15,000 a year and a $60,000 annual deductible-copay combo. It changed from being affordable health insurance to being unaffordable disaster insurance. After five years or so of that I dropped it and just paid cash for health care. It was a lot cheaper. Since then prices have only gone up.
Contrary to the popular opinion the uninsured are not a burden on society. The hospitals make sure we pay. When you go in you sign documents so they can come after you if you don't pay and for the most part they take their money upfront. This is true of the Emergency Room care too. Free health care via the Emergency Room for the uninsured is a myth. The uninsured being a burden on the insured is also a myth. If you don't have the money then they take it out of you weekly. I know many people without health insurance who end up paying weekly to the hospitals and doctors. That is reality.
Talking with doctors, of which I know several, the big issue from their perspective is the greedy lawyers and the enormous paperwork associated with insurance. They like us paying directly because then they don't have to deal with the insurance companies or government to get payment. They tell me that about 20% of the cost is paperwork and about 15% is malpractice insurance to protect themselves from the lawyers bringing frivolous suites. That's 35% of the bill that is getting wasted. Health care costs could drop that much with some good sense. This does not include the savings associated with profits for health insurance companies. I do not expect things to improve on any of these fronts with the government involvement.
Quite frankly we were better off before government got into the role of over regulating the health care and driving out the insurance companies from our state. Now that it has happened things will never go back to where we could buy our own insurance so we must move forward into a new model.
No, I can't afford health or life insurance. I live very, very carefully. That is the best assurance.
Here in Belgium it was in the news some weeks ago that delivering a baby was getting disgracefully expensive here, up to 1000 euros for normal delivery, and up to the outrageous sum of 1500 euro for a cesarean. This includes everything by the way, no really, everything.I guess it's all relative...
int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
Or more. There are two components tot he increase. First is medical inflation, doubling premiums every 7-10 years. Second is age increases, doubling every 10-15 years. Toss in a few doubling cycles until you are in late pre-Medicare years (60s), and its easily going to be triple figure monthly premiums, if not already.
Yeah, and if one of your kids gets leukemia, you're going to go bankrupt and then dump the unpaid medical expenses on the rest of us.
Thanks.
Never buy a new car,,,life not worth living? Some people are idiots. New cars are for chumps.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What kind of stupid advice is this? You can be the healthiest person in the world but you are going to need some medical attention if you slip on your front steps and crack your skull open. Accidents happen.
Thank You!
Your sarcasm detector is broken, another obvious failure of the US healthcare system.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Even Ayn Rand accepted Social Security, I guess all these ideas sound better when you are young and healthy or old and wealthy.
Unless you ask for cash discounts before receiving services. Then you will pay about what the insurance companies do.
No. You pay a hell of lot MORE if you don't ask for a discount and actually get it.
The insurance companies negotiate huge discounts with doctors to be a part of their plan. The insurance companies get the docs to give them discounts by promising them more business than they can handle.
Depending on services and the specialty the discounts range anywhere from 30% to as much as 90% in some rare cases. I have seen patient negotiate well in advance of giving birth getting 75% off of their child's delivery. That's over a $10,000 savings because doc's business is so down. This economy is hurting them to.
And that's the frustrating thing - none of this is transparent. The insurance companies say that their pricing is a "trade secret" and therefore they won't share and doctors don't want to say either. Our medical system in the US is so fucked up and the only people who do like it are the insurance companies. More then half the docs I know don't like it either - but you''ll never hear that in the media - especially on Fox News.
You have to call around and be persistent in getting prices. Anyone says "no" doesn't get your business - and it IS a business.
-Just an ex-insurance guy with a wife in medical ....
You do realize that those are federal and state programs, respectively, and that federal and state powers differ, don't you?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The issue isn't related to health insurance or health care IN GENERAL. The issue is in the specifics.
Let's start with today's market. My wife and I just moved from California to Arizona and had to change health insurance policies because of the lack of an interstate market. That's O.K. for us because the mandates in Arizona are fewer than in California so a plan with the same level of coverage and lower deductibles costs about 50% as much as it does in California.
When we talk about the desire to have everyone with health care coverage we use the examples of cancer, vehicle accidents and other types of catastrophic health issues that can easily bankrupt someone without health insurance.
However, when we talk about the implementation of health care coverage we include birth control, Viagra, wellness checks and other non-catastrophic issues. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to debate the efficacy and practicality of things like birth control and wellness checks but these aren't the things we generally discuss when we talk about health insurance coverage.
The difference between my California and Arizona plans is the list of mandates required by each state. California requires that substance abuse treatment have the same level of coverage as other health issues. So, a formerly $6,000,000 policy has to make available $6,000,000 in substance abuse treatment. If California wants to have a public policy debate about substance abuse treatments then they can have that debate. Unfortunately, the debate really never happens. Typically, a special-interest goes for their own coverage issue and get it passed resulting in a market like California where there's something on the order of 40-50 mandates for health insurance coverage.
As a consumer of insurance I don't want to pay for the things I will never use - birth control, substance abuse treatment, etc. But that's not how the health-insurance market works - everyone has to pay something so that everyone is covered for anything that might happen.
So, what in the Affordable Care Act will raise prices? How about these two:
- Requiring coverage for children until the age of 26.
- Having no coverage limits (all of a sudden, California's substance abuse mandate requires health insurance to cover an unlimited dollar amount for substance abuse).
I was buying insurance for the family for about $800/mo. Then my State passed a law that said that all preexisting conditions had to be covered. Two family members had "them" - one was controlled by a $4/mo prescription from WalMart, and the other is a "grow out of it" situation, but the rate to insure against all potential outcomes of those conditions was an extra $600/mo. With me trying to be a decent dad and my wife a stay at home mom, we've been just getting by financially, and there was no magical $7200 per year sitting out there. I looked into real insurance (against catastrophic illness), but again the State has so many requirements on insurers that it can't exist here. I was worried about medical bankruptcies so I looked into that and found out that over 80% of people who go into medical bankruptcy had insurance. So, we went uninsured.
Instead of spending $9600/yr, we now spend $1200/yr on a gym membership and lots of produce and have gotten back in shape. That knee that was aching me is now 'cured' and I feel like an idiot for wondering before if I should be looking at surgery and steroids (no, stupid, lose weight and strengthen the joint muscles).
Now, doctors visits are out of pocket and we visit with skilled nurses unless we really need a doctor. The local hospital charges $430 for a Vitamin D titre, but I found it available elsewhere for $75 including draw with just a short drive. Recently we had a condition that would be treated the same either way whether an expensive diagnostic was run, so we just skipped the diagnostic. None of this is "insured" thinking.
If the worse should happen? That same State that screwed up the insurance market here will force the hospitals to provide care. I don't like it at all, but that's the hand I'm dealt. Let me buy real health insurance and I'll sign up again tomorrow.
Obamacare? Pfft, I make over $29K per year, so they'll 'force' me to buy so-called insurance at the $17,000/yr rate. That money does not exist. They say I'll need to pay a fine of $1300 a year for not having that $17,000 per year (and get nothing in return). But the law is plainly unconstitutional and has no enforcement teeth, so they can pound sand - I'm not cancelling my gym membership to pay these morons a fine just so I can get sick.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Compromise with whom? The Republicans were not even invited to the table. Actually, I would like to know who wins with Obamacare (besides bureaucrats and politicians). There may be some good things in there, but I mean the whole package. The taxpayer does not win because taxes go up. The consumer of healthcare does not win because costs go up and choices go down. I guess pharmaceutical companies win, they at least seem to think so. There may be other winners, but I'm not sure who.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't suffer the misfortune of living in USA. My country has a half way decent free public heath system and being self employed I pay less tax to replace some public cover with private. I end up only paying an extra $500/yr to get full private heath insurance and life insurance for myself and my wife.
More care for less price per unit of care, consumers win.
Less free-rider problems and more systematic efficiencies, insurance companies and providers win.
Less overall cost to taxpayers by preventing illnesses that would be more expensive if left untreated, taxpayers win.
Popular Democratic president vindicated by history, Republican politicians lose.
So I guess that's win-win-win-lose.
Someone had to do it.
That's what critical illness insurance is for. Choose a high deductible to have low monthly payments.
You can't handle the truth.
As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.
This is pretty easy to explain, if you can do percentage math. The medical industry increases profits, the insurance industry instreases profits, and the government gets additional tax revenue.
How it works:
It puts the uninsured, who normally only see a doctor when they go to the emergency room, into the same pool as everyone else by forcing them to buy insurance. This has the effect that the large HMO/Hospital corporations get paid their full asking price for treatment, rather than writing it off at its actual value as a cost of being in the business.
Consider the the case before and after for two people, one insured, the other not, going in for the same $500 worth of treatment:
Before:
Hospital cost: $500
Patient(I) charge: $1000
Patient(U) write-off: $500
Hospital gross profit: $1000 (direct) + $500 (write off)
Hospital profit after 20% tax: $1000 * (1 - 0.2) = $800 (net) +$200 (tax credit) = $1000 (total net)
Government net tax income: $0
After:
Hospital cost: $500
Patient(I) charge: $1000
Patient(I) write-off: $1000
Hospital gross profit: $2000 (direct)
Hospital profit after 20% tax: $2000 * (1 - 0.2) = $1600 (net) = $1600 (total net)
Government net tax income: $400
Result:
Hospital corporations profits: up $600 (= +$600/$1000 = 60%)
Government net tax income: up $400 (= +$400/$0 = infinity%)
That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your (the collective you) pockets.
This is just the hospitals and the government, and just for emergency care.
Insurance company profits also go up, and they get the multiplier they normally get by charging for medical insurance, malpractice insurance for hospitals and doctors, and liability insurance from hospitals, doctors offices, labs, and medical device, drug, and lab equipment and lab reagent manufacturers.
The current (non-single-payer) plan is basically just a continuation of the AIG/Insurance industry bail-out that was already in progress, and a way of substituting activity for action in order to appear to be doing something.
Note that both Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter both proposed single-payer plans that were shot down by congress (Ted Kennedy was involved in both shootings).
The 5% or so of people... not that significant.
15,000,000.
"The death of one is a tragedy..."
Stalin would be proud of you, comrade.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance. There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead". This is a dangerous and slippery slope we are on with this. It's the first time the government required you to buy something, with no way to opt out, no per-requisite purchase (if you buy X, you must also get Y). If you are breathing, you must buy it or face a tax (and per SCOTUS, it is a tax). Ask yourself who will pay that tax? The rich? Are they uninsured? No. The poor/middle class that can't afford the insurance, so they will get slapped with a tax.
I was really hopeful about Obama's original plan for health insurance... getting Democrats, Republicans, Doctors, and Insurance companies together and debating the problem, and having the debates online/on TV. What we got was HillaryCare with "Hillary" scratched off and "Obama" written over it... and funny thing is Obama flat out said that requiring somebody to by insurance then fining them if they can't afford it was going to make the poor worse off... and that is what we got.
You can get the quote here.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
My wife's pregnancy in total including the hospital was around $40. The hospital made me pay for parking. The surgery, the specialists, the midwife... all totaled $0.
Hardly elective. about 18 weeks ago, my NHS doctors misdiagnosed severe ligament and bone damage as simply 'tennis elbow'. My private medical has so far covered 3 orthopedic visits and 9 sessions with the hand therapist. They are also going to cover the surgery to adress the bone damage (with no deductible / excess) as well as all rehabilitative care.
None of this is elective surgery. When it's done, my nose will still be bent, my ears will be flappy and I'll still look like some kind of scary freak, but I'll be able to bend my elbow by more than the current 20 degrees.
If your HSA account can hold out for the next two years, you'll then be able to buy insurance for a sane price from the mandated marketplaces.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
So, the govt should force me to be my brothers keeper? Where is that in the constitution?
I'd rather take care of myself, my family and friends....not have my money taken by a large faceless govt, and given to who knows who, and waste who knows how much doing it.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not invited to the table? Did you somehow miss the (IIRC) 170 amendments they made to the bill?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Per the slashdot FAQ, slashdot is an American centric site, and you should assume that in any unclear case that we are talking USA.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
"In my humble opinion, what everyone really need is a truly free market, where the administration has only limited powers, preventing it from collaborating with big companies and effectively ruining everything"
Thats what we have had in America since the health industry began. It has made health care unaffordable. It has given insurance companies the right to TAKE you rmoney and drop you when you need coverage.
A free market where insurance companies, drug manufacturers and doctors all battle each other for prices has taken us into this mess we are in.
I simply think ethics is what we all lack. Morality... a sense of fucking decency where we dont treat the sick like cash batteries, then drop them when they really need the care.
Obama Care tends to address some of that. I think a universal plan, single payer, or free market.. it all comes down to management, and doing what best to provide an efficient system. Rigght now our system in the US is a for profit industry where the insurance companies boast record profits every year while rates increase every year... and more and more people cant afford the rates.
Free market does not work because its human nature to juice the shit out of any scam until it breaks and falls apart. By then no one usually cares to fix it or do the right thing. Its human nature to get what you want out of something and leave it to die.
That can happen in any environment, private or public, that maintains a list of preferred treatments, which seems both inevitable and useful. Even if you se a completely independent doctor and pay for everything out of pocket, that doctor will have his or her own preferred list. It may be an honest list, or it may be a lits that reflects the size of corporate payments.
My critically-ill mother was booted out of her hospital some years ago, against the explicit advice of all her attending physicians, because an insurance company bureaucrat two thousand miles away, on the phone, who had never been anywhere near my mother, the hospital, or the physicians, said so. If my life is going to be in the hands of bureaucrats, I'd at least prefer that the bureaucrats work for people I can vote for or against, not for anonymous wealthy corporate managers who incentivize their employees to cut costs.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Even with the fine (tax?) I'll save lots of money
depends on the fine (tax). Seriously. For the first couple of years you're probably right. When someone wises up to your scheme and moves a decimal point, not so much.
The way the provision works is you will have to (eventually) pay an annual penalty of 2.5% of your income (beyond the filing minimum, not 100% sure what that means but probably the minimum amount before you have to file your taxes), if you don't buy insurance. If your income is more than 133% of the federal poverty line, *and* you can't find insurance for less than 2.5 % of your income beyond minimum filing then yes, you *might* be better off not buying insurance and paying the penalty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act actually has a handy chart, and you can see where the penalty fits in compared to where your income is. Keep in mind that for 1 person the federal poverty line is like 11k
So you do highlight one thing wrong with the system, someone with 40k income could have an insurance plan costing a maximum of 4 grand, or they could pay the $1000 penalty until they need insurance. Guess how long your plan is going to last before the government moves the decimal place from 2.5 to 25%.
"what do you think is the best plan for insurance?"
Move to Europe, or to any other civilized country.
Right, but then without the individual mandate + tax no one who is healthy would ever buy insurance, so insurance wouldn't be able stay in business because the only people enrolled in the system would be those with more care costs than they can pay for.
But people figured out that a hospital will treat you even if you cant afford to pay,
Is required to treat you. And can send you a bill afterwards. If you can't pay, then it gets dumped on the insurer of the hospital (which is the government) who have to pay for the service. So they in effect are getting socialized medicine, but with and absolutely crazy system.
When I lost my last salaried job in 2003, my health insurance went with it. It was completely impractical to get insurance as a contractor for the next nine years. As it happened, my luck held. I didn't need care during this time, and became eligible for Medicare at 65 last month.
When I was contracting in the early 1980s, I had absolutely no problem whatsoever affording health insurance.
I agree with this Anonymous Coward. I too paid for pregnancy total 6k including taxi etc.. Surgeries etc are 99% of the time planned, so for these visit another country like Mexico or India. Even a heart surgery would cost around 8-15k including hotel, tickets etc. For infectious diseases etc there is no cure anyways(unless vaccinated), also by the time you get a diagnosis you are dead anyways. Eat home cooked(anything packaged is junk food), go to a gym and keep hydrated. Sleeping with open windows keep the flu/cold away(open early morning or 10-5 or 1 hour in winter). Stay away from caffine, caffine is the root cause of anxiety/depression in many. Try quitting coffee it is more difficult to give up than smoking.
You have no idea what you're in for.
Ah, but as with countries that have healthcare systems, suddenly your government is going to be very much responsible for what insurance companies are up to, and if governments like to do one thing, it's look like they're doing something by passing regulations. Incidentally, those regulations may actually be good for people and may improve the system (that's why for example there are constraints on how much you can charge, and for what, and so on in the bill already), but that's really a side benefit to the political benefits of being seen to solve the problem and provide better care.
You make an interesting point...
There seems to be a good cross section between the people claiming "Personal responsibility" the people saying "Fuck you, I've got mine" and the people who's plan is "I'm lawsuit proof."
You people are under the misguided impression that the hospital is required to treat your cancer. They aren't. They have to stabilize you, but they aren't under any obligation to run you through the treatment program. Need a replacement organ? You're F'd. Nobody is going to do squat for you with out cash up front.
There's a reason why medical financing is a growing business in the US. The luck ones are the very very poor that qualify for medicaid or the very old that have medicare. The rest of us better hope we keep our insurance plans.
That's cheap if you're young and healthy. But just as expensive as any other kind of insurance if you're middle aged or are in a risk group.
you have to be careful too, in that the provisions laid out cover the *maximum* premium, which will probably be the premium, but isn't necessarily what will be the premiums. Hence the health exchanges aiming to bring costs down (which is a plan I cannot possibly envision actually working very well, but who knows).
The US has become a corpocracy with just two parties that only marginally differ in reality. The only real difference is how much the companies pay the representatives in "election funds" and not in what they actually decide. If you want change, change your legal representation and make sure actual good laws get passed. Obama's medicare bill wasn't the best on the planet to start with, it got worse with all the compromises, but at least it's an attempt and it may actually proof itself in the future. It is evident that this is the best that the USA can come up with and that this is what the USA voters chose.How about making an actual change and not complain about how bad the government the US chose themselves is doing? If you don't like your government, change it, don't whine that they can't do it right. You chose them, you deal with the consequences. The USA should be able to get every inhabitant of the USA proper medical care for less than what is spent now, there's plenty of proof in other countries. If they can't establish that, they have only themselves to blame.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
That's what the deductible is for. Of-course I don't make rules for what is legal in your country, I'd be very upset if I were you that in USA it is not even really possible to get medical insurance across State borders, but why shouldn't you be able to buy health insurance or any type of insurance across nations borders?
It is illegal for foreign insurance companies to advertise in USA.
You can't handle the truth.
I'm a contractor through a medium-sized employer of about 1000 people. My family of 5 (wife + 3 kids) pays about $1200/mo for our BCBS group medical+prescription PPO. Dental is another $50/mo. No vision coverage -- paid out of pocket for laser surgery about 5 years ago. My employer pays half and I pay the other half. We have no deductible, $10 co-pays, and $10 generics prescriptions. We are a generally healthy family, eat well, and exercise (triathlons!)
We had one kid, it was going well and thought "lets just have one more"... ended up with twins. Our twins were born last year, 10 weeks early due to an emergency c-section after the wife got sick from our oldest kid. It was $10k each for the c-sections (you'd think there would be a discount to get the second one out!) After all the delivery expenses plus wife's week in the hospital the total delivery cost $30k. The girls then had to stay in the Level IIIC NICU for 6 weeks. Total amount that the insurance company PAID ended up being just over $300,000. The providers asked for about $500,000. Only thing they didn't cover was the $500 ambulance ride to the hospital. We spent about 3 months getting them to pay for the c-sections due to an incorrect billing code that neither the provider nor the insurance company seemed to care about fixing.
Overall it seems pretty expensive, but I hardly ever have any problems with them. I've never tested it for anything serious besides the twins, however. When comparing prices, make sure to factor in both the employer and employee payments. I have no idea where these $300/mo plans for a family of 5 are coming from. I looked for an individual health plan 2 years ago when I was thinking about going out own my own and at first BCBS said they wouldn't give somebody an individual plan after they had been on a group plan. Finally they gave us a price of $1500/mo.
I often review the claims when the insurance company sends them to me. It is almost universal that the provider asks for 2x to 4x more than insurance ends up paying. I'm not sure if I'd get a discount or not if I offered to pay cash before a regular visit.
Well, some of the thing you mentioned can be done privately. My point was that by not accepting the public services you are putting yourself at an even greater economic disadvantage than if the public services did not exist at all because you pay at least partially for them even if you don't use them. Even if you did not pay into them, if everyone else is taking advantage of them, the baseline changes. Rather being economically level with everyone else in the same situation, you would instead be economically lower than everyone else in the same situation.
The real problem with services becoming publicly run rather than privately run is that it implicitly gives the government the right to dictate all your actions that deal with the offered services. For example, if the government pays for everyone's healthcare, it gives the government the right to decided what you are allowed to eat, how much you are allowed to eat, how much you exercise, the kind of exercise you do, where you spend you time, and what medications and treatments you will take. If a company does something you are against, you go to a competing company. If the government does something you are against, what immediate options do you have? Sure you can vote but even if the vote is successful, you are being forced for the time being. I prefer to have more freedom over a bigger safety net. The problem is that the government seems to be getting steadily bigger.
Single-payer! The only way to control health care costs.
That is absurd. We all know the government cannot control costs to save its life. That's true of any government agency...
The real way to reduce health care costs is to loosen some of the regulations that are strangling them. Drop restrictions on insurance, let private industry reduce costs where they can. We already have one of the most efficient health care systems on the planet, there's no reason it cannot also be the cheapest.
Additionally, what you are not seeing is the massive inevitable failure of many of the world's "free" healthcare plans, as population declines and the baby boomers continue to age. A lot of the single-payer systems are going to get really bad, very fast.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that in USA it is not even really possible to get medical insurance across State borders
BZZZT! Wrong!
You are free to purchase medical insurance across state borders if you want, there is no law prohibiting it currently. The problem is that you may purchase it and then find that no offices in your area accept it, or that it doesn't cover what a basic policy in your state covers.
What other lies would you like to spread today?
It is illegal for foreign insurance companies to advertise in USA.
Do you have a source for that, which doesn't come from your church? I very highly doubt it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yep, I had a heart attack at the ripe old age of 44. Mother of all pre-existing conditions. Without the ACA, I could never get away from a W2 job that provides group coverage. But with exercise, dietary control, and a cocktail of oh so fun medications, I can expect to live another 40 years easily.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
I was aware it it American run, but thought the American-centeredness was just de-facto. So are Americans really in majority here? Feels hard to believe that they would be even 1/4 of the worlds English speaking geeks...
How is that different than what already happens? The tax penalty makes going naked less attractive, not more. The only thing that makes going naked more attractive is the ban on declining coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Personally I think your plan is foolish, as you won't be covered for emergency care and you'll be paying full price for preventative tests, which at your age won't be cheap. People who buy coverage because they actually want to be covered will do so for the emergency coverage. People who go naked will have $900 less of a reason to do so, and most aren't really using their heads, so they'd do so anyway with or without the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Someone had to do it.
Well, some of the thing you mentioned can be done privately. My point was that by not accepting the public services you are putting yourself at an even greater economic disadvantage than if the public services did not exist at all because you pay at least partially for them even if you don't use them. Even if you did not pay into them, if everyone else is taking advantage of them, the baseline changes. Rather being economically level with everyone else in the same situation, you would instead be economically lower than everyone else in the same situation.
The real problem with services becoming publicly run rather than privately run is that it implicitly gives the government the right to dictate all your actions that deal with the offered services. For example, if the government pays for everyone's healthcare, it gives the government the right to decided what you are allowed to eat, how much you are allowed to eat, how much you exercise, the kind of exercise you do, where you spend you time, and what medications and treatments you will take. If a company does something you are against, you go to a competing company. If the government does something you are against, what immediate options do you have? Sure you can vote but even if the vote is successful, you are being forced for the time being. I prefer to have more freedom over a bigger safety net. The problem is that the government seems to be getting steadily bigger.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Bottom line is what we have doesn't work. Our backup quarterback might look Tebow-ish, but its time to put him in.
My idea of freedom is not paying for other peoples medical bills because they refuse to carry insurance when they should.
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
So, what you're saying is: "The plan is to tax the poor and lower middle class to lower rates"? Somehow I imagine that's not gonna pan out the way you think it will.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance.
Okay then, if you want to make that distinction, if you're not alive then you don't need health insurance. Okay?
There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead".
This would be a simpler discussion if people would educate themselves in the area of discussion vs looking for the easy out. I've yet to see a plan where indigent or people in the lower income classes are required to pay much, if anything at all. So the rest of your argument is invalid. Sorry.
Agree that it'll be better once we get rid of the health insurance companies altogether.
I contracted for about a decade in the USA earning over $140k/yr while taking 8-12 weeks off for vacations and travel.
In 2007, my sugar daddy company decided that I needed to be an employee, so they told me 6 months before, that I was being converted to employee. They never asked. About a month before, they told me my salary would be $100k. They never asked if that was ok. The Friday before the conversion, the guy who signed the timesheets said something like, "I won't have to do this anymore." I responded that he wouldn't, I was leaving. He was shocked and started freaking out. When I left that day, I turned in my laptop, cell phone and keys to my desk to him.
I don't think he believed me. On Monday, they called me at home around noon wondering where I was. I'd missed the new employee training and paperwork. That was 5 yrs ago. I've been contracting at different places ever since - earning more money for even less time working.
I signed up for health insurance through e-health insurance.com in 2007 for about $200/month for an HSA plan with $3000 annual deductible. Every year, that cost increased about $50/month. Last year it was going to be $370/month and be raised to a $5000 annual deductible. I have zero health issues, but I'm in my mid-40s. The costs were going up, up, up, so I needed to find an alternative.
Costco started offering health care to small businesses in my state. i think they do 8 states now. The plan is a little different due to Obama-care, but I'm paying $148/month. The deductible is less than before. The exact same insurance company is providing the coverage. What a racket. Basically, nothing changed, but I'm paying 1/3rd the cost. Same doctors, same network. This should be illegal. A guy in my small company was paying $1000 month due to prior conditions and they refused to cover his wife at all.
We are going to pay for this stuff one way or another, but pricing should not be that varied. That should be illegal. Pricing should be no more than 20% different between the cheapest and highest rates. Pricing must be published for all plans to ensure we aren't being ripped off.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance
One of the key arguments against that section of the affordable care act is that as you say, the states do it. Only the states previously had the authority to make people do something like that under their power to police. The federal government had never done something like that.
I don't care who does it. It needs to happen. Since only a couple of states have made more than middling advances in this regard, then the feds need to step in and work it.
In the meanwhile, check into the states that allow medical marijuana, only to have the feds rappel in from helicopters to arrest and destroy property. So you see, the feds are already trumping the states. Its not something that has never been done. In fact, thats worse because the feds are overriding state authority, the will of the people and real legislation with their own. Many states could make a nice crop out of hemp and would like to, but the feds don't want anyone hiding their pot plants in the mix and making that helicopter work more complicated. The feds also made alcohol illegal a while back, against many serious state objections. So "never" as it turns out is a pretty short time.
The only people I can think of at the state level that are objecting to this are the republican states, and they're only doing it to fight the other guy thats in office. I don't give a crap about that. I want cheap available health care for everyone, and I'd like to stop paying five figures for it because I'm supporting 3-4 other peoples 'choices'.
You can make all the peripheral arguments you want, but what we have wasn't working 5, 10 or 15 years ago and its even more expensive and stupid now.
If the states all had workable plans in place or in motion, and the feds were going to slop over that with something worse or more expensive, I'd have your back.
So, the govt should force me to be my brothers keeper? Where is that in the constitution?
Somewhere right about the part where they force me to support armed forces so that Communists can't move in and carry you and yours off to re-education camps.
Years ago scientists figured out that the body's stress and sex hormones are made from LDL cholesterol. If the conversion from LDL to Pregnenolone isn't working as well as it should (vitamin deficiency, or other cause), the body ramps up production of the steroid prohormone precursor, LDL.
But science doesn't make Pfizer et al $billions, so it gets stuffed in a burlap sack and kicked to the side. There is good health advice out there, for people who choose to search for themselves, and who have a bit of luck. Just be careful when talking to medical professionals, as their training has been excessively influenced by those profiteers...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
I can agree with that. The hospitals should not be forced to pay for people. They can if they choose to but they should not be forced to.
It is kind of ridiculous some of the regulation governments create. I was talking to a friend in Arizona who works in a hospital. He said that it was illegal for them to report illegal immigrants to immigration when they come to the hospital. Apparently, the government doesn't want illegals to be discourage from getting the care they need. Of course, the hospital does not get paid for the expense of treating them so the hospital has to push the cost on those that pay through increased prices.
Not invited to the table? Did you somehow miss the (IIRC) 170 amendments they made to the bill?
--Jeremy
Not invited to the table? Heck, they BUILT the table. "Obamacare" is almost exactly what they were pushing instead of HilaryCare.
I guess you didn't see the part in my comment about catastrophic insurance.
And, jackasses that don't take care of themselves and expect 'the system' to foot the bill are the reason I can't afford regular insurance. Read my comment again.
I know that terrible stuff happens to people on occasion, but we live in a society where 95% of the members act like idiots in regard to their health. Americans are profoundly childish about eating and exercise, or really anythning that involves a little self-discipline.
"Okay then, if you want to make that distinction, if you're not alive then you don't need health insurance. Okay?"
The Supreme Court recently had something so say about the retardedness of that logic. States are different from the Government, and regulating an optional activity (you can live w/o a car) and a non-optional activity (you can't live w/o living) are two different things.
"Agree that it'll be better once we get rid of the health insurance companies altogether."
Why? I don't want government-provided healthcare any more than I want to eat in a government-provided cafeteria.
I pay for my own health care (HSA + out of pocket until I hit a deductable). I buy insurance for the same reason ANYONE buys ANY KIND of insurance: evaluating the risk, financial coverage for catastrophic incidents is more valuable to me than the average financial loss I'm expecting to take (by paying into a pool regardless of use). I expect the insurance company to come out ahead because I expect my insurance company to be solvent enough to pay for my needs under the policy if/when I need it to.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You are correct. Here's an example to prove it. (However, you will notice that even with Medicaid you can't always get treatment.)
Wall Street Journal
September 13, 2007
MEDICAL MAZE
Legal Loophole Ensnares Breast-Cancer Patients
Shirley Loewe Chooses The Wrong Clinic And Starts Long Ordeal
By JOHN CARREYROU
LONGVIEW, Texas -- In June 2003, Shirley Loewe went to Good Shepherd Medical Center here with a softball-size lump in her breast and was diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer. She didn't know it, but she had just made a big mistake.
Ms. Loewe was uninsured. Under federal law, she could have gotten Medicaid coverage -- and saved herself a lot of hardship -- if she'd gone to a different clinic less than a half-mile away. But by walking through Good Shepherd's doors, Ms. Loewe unwittingly let that opportunity slip and embarked on a four-year journey through the Byzantine U.S. health-care system.
It was an odyssey that would take her to five hospitals, two clinics, two charitable organizations and two nursing homes in two states. She was denied assistance or care at least six times along the way, for reasons that ranged from not being poor enough to not being sick enough.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118781024289705455.html
IT Contractors, How's Your Health Insurance?
Uh...I'm a *contractor*, therefore I'm in charge of my *own* insurance.
Also, thanks to the idiotic Obamacare/Romneycare system I don't need insurance. I can drink myself stupid, smoke 3 packs per day, eat terrible food and when it comes time to pay the piper for my poor choices, everyone else will 'share' the bill...
There's no place like
It is crazy. But you'll have a hard time convincing the Rand-intoxicated readership of Slashdot.
Oops, I guess I left out the part about catastrophic. Yes, I believe in having catastrophic insurance, of course. High deductible and all that.
But in general, our insurance system is one of the biggest scams in the world, right up there with Wall St. and the U.S. mortgage/lending system. Each of these has managed to foist itself upon the country as a necessity of life. People just accept unquestioningly that this is the way it has to work, and the vampires rake in the cash at incredible profits.
I'm 46 years old. I've seen all sides. I have relatives in the medical profession. I still stand by what I say. You have NO idea how frustrated most doctors are with the insurance industry. They might wait 9 months to get paid for a $120 procedure that requires 12 different forms to be filled out exactly the right way. Of course they will be willing to give me the same for $60 cash now and no fuss. It's just smart business.
Indeed I do. Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the power to mandate or provide health care. That falls in to the jurisdiction of the state according to the Constitution, making the healthcare debate in this Presidential election cycle legally moot. Of course, regardless of what the constitution said, the Supreme court ruled Obamacare is legal so all bets are off...
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
While there may be upsides to contract labor, they are reserved for the few that do well in any system. For the larger part, contract work is used to dodge benefits and to generally make life hell for workers in the name of "uncertainty". In addition, the two-tier workforce generates more backstabbing from the large amount of people in less-than-voluntary contractorship due to desperation.
The better thing to do would be to penalize contract labor while rewarding direct hires for all skill levels, as well as ensuring that liabilities/benefit requirements cannot be dodged or passed to some staffing agency or contractor. This way, the US heads off the European "contractor-for-every-job syndrome" by rewarding direct-hire, long-term work. No exceptions, no excuses.
As for HSA's, they're fine only if you can throw thousands at them and never consume them. Otherwise they make care worse off for the Rest of Us that cannot treat $5k as if it was pocket change. Conventional plans as a part of a full-benefit package (from a proper direct-hire job) do a better job than the HDHP nightmare.
The sooner that both contracting (as a standard practice) and HSA's DIAF, the sooner things get better. I'll probably get flak for it, but not everyone wants to be a disposable resource.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Bring the anti-structuring laws from banking to remedy such a problem. Kills the 49 Employee Disease, contractor abuse, 32/39.5 hour abuses, and other things businesses do to try to get around the law.
If a reasonable person can see that someone is attempting to circumvent a regulation, treat the business as if it passed an minimums or met any requirements w/o regard to their actual status.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
My inlaws are visting from outside the US and don't have US health insurance. We have had various routine visits as well as x-rays and prescription medication. It was surprisingly affordable, Doctors visits were $40, x-rays were $80, anti-biotics were under $10. I expected it to be very pricy.
Now I think catastrophic care would have been another story, but routine was surprisingly cheap. It may make sense then to pay for routine care out of pocket, and merely get catastrophic coverage.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Out of curiosity, has there ever been a year when your rates did not go up?
Personally, my individual plan rates have gone up 20% every year. It did not matter whether Obama was in office or Bush. (prior to 2001, I was on a company plan and only paying a portion of the total amount, so I can not include the Clinton years.)
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
You fail at logic. You think that it is OK for people to have a "choice" to not buy insurance and must live with the consequences, but note that you would not be able to buy insurance if you lost your current coverage.
Actually, I think the parent poster's logic is sound. You either misinterpret his logic or are faulty yourself.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance. This is to prevent dumbasses from not doing something they really have to do.
But I'm perfectly okay with people who want to make their own choices, as long as they accept the consequences of their choices.
He is basically agreeing that people need insurance. People can opt out if they are willing to not seek treatment without paying up front.
If people hate the 'socialism' of medicine, then I hope they're not driving on the interstates, sending their kids to public school, and won't be accepting social security and medicare, neither of which you 'paid for', but which are paid to you by others as your tax dollars paid for your elders as you worked.
Again, while people are whining "Socialism" and its horrible not respecting individual rights, he makes the point that socialism is necessary in certain cases.
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
That deserves repeating...
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
So shall we all stop weinering about coming to the same damn conclusion that just about everyone else on the planet has? People are too stupid and shortsighted to buy health insurance, but you have to have it, since almost nobody can pay out of pocket for a major car accident, cancer or a heart attack.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Apparently, you not only fail at logic, you fail at reading comprehension.
The point is that some people "choose" to not buy insurance, because their "choice" is to have health insurance, or to have a roof over their heads and food to eat. To translate this (for the weak minded), this means that people who don't have insurance often don't actually have a choice: they simply cannot afford insurance.
That's not a choice. But you don't care, as far as you are concerned, they should just stay at home and suck it up.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Since you seem to be similarly weak-minded, let me explain it for you. The G-GP post explained that, if he lost his insurance, he would not be able to get alternative insurance. He then went on to say that people who choose not to buy insurance should just live with the consequenses of their "choice", despite the fact that the G-GP poster acknowledged that people who don't have insurance may not be able to buy insurance. In other words, they don't have a choice.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
and train to be a doctor yourself?
what you are proposing is a combative relationship with your doctor: "why did you order that test?" "i thought it was best" "but i can't afford it"
or "why didn't you order that test?" "i thought you didn't need it" "let me look up on wikipedia and make an uninformed opinion about your area of expertise..."
the point is, you are proposing a capitalist system where the usual supply/ demand creates discipline in a marketplace. except healthcare doesn't work like a capitalist system. some people, or some conditions, may require an expensive outlay
so then you require insurance, to spread the average costs out so one event doesn't decimate you financially. then you require everyone to have insurance, so uninsured don't avoid the bill and the rate for the insured (who get it because they are sick) isn't too high
"we need to get back to a system where the patient can take responsibility for the cost of their care."
no! this is insane, financially unsound, and destructive
we need compulsory universal insurance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
what happens when mr. young stupid and poor ayn rand acolyte with no health insurance breaks his arm?
he avoids the bill or declares bankruptcy
then the hospital passes the unpaid bills on to the state and feds and WE pay, with our taxes, for the moron's "choice" not to be financially responsible for his own healthcare
to "choose" not to have health insurance is to choose to be freeloading shortsighted irresponsible asshole
health insurance must be mandatory
because too many assholes think freedom means freedom from responsibility
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In Malta the public health service is free and it is one of the best you can imagine.
We managed to get a reallly good system. We even have a state of the art new hospital now. :)
I guess our country is the only place where it has worked
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
You put Belgium before The Netherlands? How dare you deny our rightful claim to this tear away province... what... belgians want to join Holland? eeh... the French, they belong to the French! Belgium? Never heard of it. Where is it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Have you been to Japan? They are TINY! You can fit three inside a single MRI and no bits sticking out. Hell, if they bent their knees a bit, they can walk through.
Mean while the average American needs to go to the docks to get x-rayed in line with shipping containers.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
As a free lancer I could choose private or public insurance. However, the public variant provides one plan. And you have to dependent to your income. The public plan includes automatically all your family members, as long as they do not have their own income. For any normal employee the cost is half because the other half has to be paid by the employer. The service, however, is the same. So normally you do not have to discuss the health care plan if you do not really, really have fun doing it.
If you life in the USA, the picture is quite different. Then you are doomed. Obamacare is only a weak little brother of European health care systems.
I do not believe they are required too, and that is what disgusts me.
Yeah that venn diagram would almost be three circles stacked right up on each other.
If you want that health care to be a govt function, there's a way to do it legally....amend the constitution.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It seems to me that there are three primary drivers to the startling increases in health care costs: mandates that all plans have a wide range of potentially costly and not-necessarily-common conditions covered; end of life care given the advances in technology that we have made for extending life; and the tendency of our "insurance" to cover expected expenses. Consider car insurance if every car had to be insured for headlight wiper blade replacement (even if they didn't have headlight wipers), if we routinely repaired cars no matter what damage or fault they had or how old they were, and if car insurance paid for oil changes and repairs. That's the equivalent of the situation we have in health insurance.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Actually, expect LESS increases due to "Obama Care"
The reason is more people will be paying in to plans because they have to by law.
If you assume that the insurance companies will pass the savings on to the consumer , then that will be the case. However, I don't have as much faith in the for-profit insurance companies that you do. My theory is that when you are required by law to have something, then they can charge whatever they want, and you just have to pay it. I have learned from experience. When auto coverage was made mandatory, the rates went up, not down.When I was a dangerous 16 year old driver, I paid less per year than I pay per month now. That is more than a 15 fold increase since they made insurance mandatory, and yet still most people I know who are hit by somebody are hit by uninsured drivers.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I'm sure that is sarcasm - something lost on most of your replies, and on most of those arguing over the forced-insurance issue.
You can have it one way or the other, but not both:
1. You can allow providers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. You can force everybody to have insurance (private or public or whatever).
The problem with #1 is that it leads to massive abuse, like post-claim underwriting. I see #2 as the lesser of two evils, and it lets you have more of a market for insurance. The only problem with the US implementation of #2 is that the fines for not having insurance aren't high enough - they need to be comparable to the cost of having insurance, or the government will end up having to bail out insurance companies (that is also a legitimate option - view no insurance as a form of partially-taxpayer-funded catastrophic insurance).
If you try to do both you get the scenario described in your post. To some extent that is what the too-low penalties accomplish.
Although I was being sarcastic, I do believe that a vast number of people are going to take the "fine" instead of coverage and then pick up "insurance" when they do get sick. In this way, Obamacare is designed to bankrupt the health care industry. In a few years when that mission is accomplished, then-President Pelosi can step in and socialize the entire healthcare industry, not just the insurance industry. So it's part of a larger conspiracy.
:wq
"As a consumer of insurance I don't want to pay for the things I will never use "
You could have saved your keyboard and just typed:
"I have no idea how insurance actually works. Oh, and I got mine."
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
That might be the case.
Honestly, I think this is inevitable anyway - but not for a while. I think what will really disrupt the industry is improvements in genetic testing/analysis.
If I can fully understand my risk profile at an early age then I have an information advantage over the insurance company and can play games like the one you just outlined. That means they go bankrupt. If they can use the same information against me, then you have huge classes of disadvantaged people, which won't be socially acceptable. The only solution for either is mandatory universal coverage, either via public or private funds.
"Been to the driver license office lately? That will be your doctors office if we go down this path."
they don't love their healthcare in other rich industrialized nations (they all have universal healthcare), but they would not in a million years trade it for the nightmare that is the USA
governments are famous for mismanagement and bungling. and this is still better than the system we have
i don't look forward to government managed healthcare because it will be utopia, i look forward to it because it is clearly better than the nightmare system we currently have
we will pay less, live longer, and not worry about our healthcare. like every other modern industrialized nation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, we could also fix all of this by simply changing the way hospitals work. No shirt, no shoes, no insurance, no cash...eh...turn around and take a hike.
I can agree with that. The hospitals should not be forced to pay for people. They can if they choose to but they should not be forced to.
It is kind of ridiculous some of the regulation governments create. I was talking to a friend in Arizona who works in a hospital. He said that it was illegal for them to report illegal immigrants to immigration when they come to the hospital. Apparently, the government doesn't want illegals to be discourage from getting the care they need. Of course, the hospital does not get paid for the expense of treating them so the hospital has to push the cost on those that pay through increased prices.
Its probably worth pointing out that at no point during a hospital admission, treatment and through discharge does any hospital attempt to determine the legal status of any patient with regards to whether they're an american citizen or not.
Some border area hospitals are overwhelmed with what constitutes the local citizenry...illegal aliens. But most are not even mildly affected by the 'problem', and absolutely zero even marginally acceptable statistics are available...only guesses. Again, the wife has worked in a variety of hospitals in California and such determination is never made.
But I'll tell a funny story...her last job was at an area hospital in a rural area with primarily fruit and nut farms. Plenty of "migrant workers". Not too many of them ever showed up to the emergency room hung over, strung out and with the flu claiming they were about to die. Opinion of the woman who ran the department that processed the billing? The likely "immigrant" folks were more likely to pay their bills or at least try to pay them than the local, legal scumbags. By a wide margin.
Oh, and those folks also made your Sunsweet prunes and bags of walnuts a lot cheaper.
We local legals are used to passing the bill onto someone else for our choices. See the current mortgage fiasco for a big shining example of that. I'm a moron for buying a house I could afford, at a price that represented a decent value, and paid it off. I wish I'd bought a million dollar house with a 110% mortage and got a bailout for half of it. That would have made more sense.
I understand how insurance works. The problem I have is the government's manipulation of the insurance market to the point of it being unrecognizable as a market. We then, collectively, complain about the high cost of health insurance without recognizing the underlying causes.
I guess I could have saved my keyboard some more and recognized that I wouldn't get a response to the underlying issue of mandates and lack of interstate competition in the insurance market.
Until we're willing to tackle the issue of the health insurance market being a wish-list to cover anything we can remotely consider medically related then we're going to continue to misread one of the components to ever-rising health costs.