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?"

38 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. there are only two correct answers... by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1 or 0

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    1. Re:there are only two correct answers... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Nah...easy question to answer.

      If your contracting..first...incorporate yourself, I went for the subchapter "S" version, look it up, lots of benefits to this, including saving yourself significant payroll taxes (SS, medicare, etc)...

      After this..get a high deductible insurance policy...my deductible was about $1200....this is for major medical, the emergency route, heart attack, hit by a bus..etc.

      With a high deductible account..set up a HSA...and load it with money pre-tax...it is not a use it or lose it...at the end, you can roll it over for retirement if you wish..but load this up pre-tax for routine care.

      Do this immediately when starting contracting. I am currently W2...and really miss doing my healthcare this way....although I still have funds in the HSA I can access...I just can't add more to it due to Obama admins even more restrictive terms on HSA's with the affordable care act (I still can't understand why they added more restrictions on it rather than opening it up to make it easier to get and use one)...

      But this worked well for me...insurance premiums were quite reasonable and easy to get..and I'm older than the usual Slashdotter, and I do have pre-existing conditions (sky high triglycerides)...and no problem getting covered. First insurace covered was a little fly by night, but got them, kept them for about 8mos...and then switched to BCBS....

      I had to go that route because I screwed up and let my last W2 insurance drop...it is much easier to get new insurance when you have coverage rather than letting it lapse too long. Get that Cobra if you have to to fill the gap.

      Of course there are special circumstances...but I think this is an excellent system....you maintain it..you shop around for your own Dr. and make your decisions with your Dr.

      I also found, that often, when I told the caregiver I was paying myself, I got up to about 15% discount right of the top....I had an MRI where they did this.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Best Preference by maroberts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have UK Citizenship

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Best Preference by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have UK Citizenship

      Or Canada, Spain, Mexico... a lot of countries offer varying degrees and types of nationalized healthcare. The United States stands alone in being the only G8 country that lacks it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Best Preference by kramulous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. I dropped by to say pretty much the same thing: Move to a country that gives a fuck about the health of its citizens.

      Wealthiest nation on earth, my arse.

      --
      .
    3. Re:Best Preference by Urza9814 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most Europeans I have met, particularly those who were only staying for a year or so, never STOPPED complaining if they had any cause to visit a hospital while here. Months later they'd still be complaining about the costs to anyone who would listen. Of course, as a recent college grad, most of those were students here on visas...and I can't imagine how you'd get health insurance in such a situation...no work, no family, not gonna be here long term...

    4. Re:Best Preference by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or Canada, Spain, Mexico...

      or Italy, Belgium, Israel, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Japan... ...Kuwait, Austria, Finland, Slovenia, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, France, Bahrain...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Best Preference by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must not know any UK expats.

    6. Re:Best Preference by cluedweasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You may jest, but this is my backup plan. As a UK citizen in the US, I hope to make it on the plane and back to Blighty if I get seriously ill. My $780 a month private health insurance is bugger-all use most of the time. With deductibles and doctors who don't seem to be able to diagnose anything without $20k worth of tests, it costs me an arm and a leg.

    7. Re:Best Preference by fm6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      My mother actually traveled to Canada for cataract surgery. She was no longer a Canadian citizen, but she was eligible as a recipient of the Canadian equivalent of Social Security.

      She could have had it done under Medicare, but would have had to cover huge co-payments.

    8. Re:Best Preference by scot4875 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many patients in the US are denied care per year? Care to dig up those statistics? Care to dig up projections on how that number will change under the ACA?

      Because without context, the numbers and anecdotes you've provided are absolutely meaningless.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    9. Re:Best Preference by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please subtract Canada and the UK.

      Please stop watching fox news.

      The latest story I heard is that the UK is cutting doctor salaries (in order to balance the government budget) and it's leading to many doctors quitting

      Probably, the conservatives are gutting the local trusts or whatever they're called too. But that doesn't mean there's going to be a massive shortage of doctors in the UK. When you make cuts and those doctors can pack up an move to switzerland or the US inevitably some will. And then you expand immigration or raise salaries and attract a bunch more. This isn't anything new. The UK can still attract doctors from eastern europe for example.

      But as a canadian, there is no way in hell I would trade what we have here for the US system. For the french system or the british system, sure, they have different cost/benefit tradeoffs, but all of us provide on average better care, for less money than the US, and if you're in the US and you care about healthcare the answer is to leave.

      After reading the various horror stories of patients unable to find a doctor, or being left to die in waiting rooms, or denied basic preventative measures like PAP smears

      The reason you hear about is because we take these things very very seriously. Governments and government agencies are held accountable when they fuck up like this. It does happen, sometimes intentionally so too, as I say with the example of the conservatives in the UK, or with the 'voucher' programme proposed by Paul Ryan for Medicare, when you elect politicians they have a platform they run on for healthcare, sometimes that's good, sometimes bad, and most of the time somewhere inbetween.

      And YES I know you've had nothing but great service in your CA or UK care.

      No, you really don't understand. Between canada and the UK there are 95 million people, within canada each province runs it's own healthcare service under federal law, in the UK the NHS covers england and wales and northern ireland but not scotland I believe. Inevitably there will be things that go wrong, and an underfunded department will perform as well as any under funded agency will, some doctors are corrupt, some nurses are incompetent, some places can't attract enough qualified people especially in rural canada there aren't going to magically people who want to move 2 hours from the nearest walmart to provide healthcare etc.

      http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf is pretty much the definitive guide to healthcare outcomes and assessment methodology, I suggest you read that. Seriously. It's not particularly complicated. If you're scared of reading page 18 has the table summary that's important.

      That combines coverage, quality and spending into a single index. The French and Italians have the best systems overall (along with san marino) even though they have very different spending profiles.

      Now in the long run 'Obamacare' which is basically a copy of the swiss system should be reasonably be expected to have similiar costs to canada (around 11.5% of GDP today), and produce better outcomes (as the swiss system does). So in 2016 or 2017 you might have an argument. But english canada only judges our healthcare system compared to the US, so we pay less, and have better outcomes, and as long that's true no one is going to rock the boat, even though there are better options available. And I'll point out that the swiss system is worse than the UK on both cost and coverage, so theirs isn't really the system you want to copy.

      You hear horror stories from our healthcare systems because we actually care about these things as problems that need to be solved. In the US healthcare system you have one party base that advocates "let them die" and 'vouchers' as a policy platform, so we're not even having the same debate. In the US the question is whether or not you should even try to cover people, in canada in the UK it is a question of how best to do that, and who is responsible when something goes wrong.

    10. Re:Best Preference by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what's your opinion on forcing everyone to pay for a military to protect your free society?

      For things that have to service an entire populace, 'Free Society' sucks. Everyone's out to look after #1 and everyone else suffers as a result.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    11. Re:Best Preference by Kagato · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think emulating the Swiss would be fantastic. There are incredibly capitalistic. Almost all the insurance companies are private, but they can't make a profit on health insurance. To level the playing field the gov't sets the price list and claims policy.

      What I find most interesting is while the companies actually ended up fine in the end. They can't make money on core health insurance, but they can sell other insurance products to the customers at a profit. In the end studies show the insurance companies ended up making more money because they had a semi-captive customer base to market and bundle other products too.

      We pay way too much for services here in the US. MRI in the US is $1500-2500. MRI in Japan is under $200. A Cardiac Surgeon in the US makes a seven figure salary. That level of salary would be a scandal in other parts of the world.

    12. Re:Best Preference by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, by every aggregate measure of health outcomes, Canada and the UK do far, far better than the U.S. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays... It's almost like you're being fed bullshit propaganda slandering the two nearest examples of health care systems that work vastly better than your own.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    13. Re:Best Preference by fm6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      As they say in Wikipedia, attribution required. While there's a lot online about Green's fight with cancer, I can't seem to find anything resembling the 9-month delay.

      This sounds like a typical internet meme. While you often hear Canadians complain about delays, it's always for stuff that can wait, not for something that's likely to kill you soon. Of course, by the time this is filtered through the right-wing blogosphere it's "we're going to have to let you die because we don't have enough beds."

    14. Re:Best Preference by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Knee replacement surgery is a bad example to prove the superiority of the American health care system. It proves the opposite. You shouldn't rush patients into surgery. Canadian doctors say that the long waits are a benefit of their system -- they give people a chance to find out the facts and decide whether the treatment is a good thing.

      First of all, most of the people who get knee replacements are in their 60s or 70s, so in the US they get it under Medicare -- single payer health care.

      Second, Total knee replacements are the fastest-growing and most expensive surgeries in Medicare. Doctors are rushing patients into knee surgery who shouldn't have it. So this is free-market medical abuse on steroids. (In fact steroids turned out to have some bad outcomes.)

      TKR isn't trivial. It's among the most painful procedures in medicine, and if the patient doesn't complete painful physical rehabilitation, the replacement won't work. They usually use Oxycodone for a month or two, but this being the US a lot of surgeons under-dose and leave the patients in pain that drives them to tears (read Jane Brody's account of her own TKR in the New York Times). It's several days in the hospital, a week in a rehabilitation center, a week to a month at home in bed, and 3 to 6 months before you've recovered the function you started with. Then you start to improve, and after 6 months to a year most people can walk and stand again.

      But many people don't. About 15% of TKR patients have permanent moderate to severe pain that can't be cured. They're worse off for having the surgery. Some of them get surgery because they're using a cane as a result of their surgery wind up in a wheelchair. What are the risks? Nobody knows for sure because surgeons have been replacing knees without doing good outcome studies. Countries with national health care systems do outcome studies. Denmark is doing a big randomized study, so we should know the outcomes in 10 years.

      In Denmark, the current practice is that they don't give TKR until the patient has tried less drastic measures for 6 months and they haven't been adequate. The first step is to lose weight, down to a body mass index of 25 ideally. They also give them exercise/physical rehabilitation and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. People who are overweight or obese have a worse outcome after surgery, and in some cases, after weight loss, exercise/rehab, and NSAIDs, they don't need surgery after all. Why go through all that pain, bed confinement and risk when you can get the same results without it?

      Overtreatment is endemic in US health care. Look at the fastest-growing, largest Medicare expenses besides hip and knee replacement. According to a series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, CT scans (another big money-maker for doctors and device companies, a major growing expense for Medicare) are widely overused and a major cause of cancer (about 1/10,000 major CT scans result in an additional cancer, more for CT scans of children). Erythropoietin, a drug that stimulates the growth of red blood cells, was the Medicare/Medicaid's single most expensive drug (=profitable for drug companies and doctors), used in kidney dialysis, and after they finally did the research, it turned out to be actually killing people at the high (profitable) doses they were using. Hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women actually turned out to be a major cause of breast cancer in the formulations they were using. There was a significant bump in the breast cancer incidence curve because of these heavily-promoted estrogen drugs.

      The Canadian health care system has quality as good as ours, costs them half as much, and the tradeoff is that they do have to wait longer (and sometimes don't get advanced procedures that we get here). They have their flaws. But it's not the backward third-world system that conservatives (Google "Manhattan Institute) would have you believe.

      Here's a couple of interesting stories on the Canadian system.

    15. Re:Best Preference by loom_weaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Answer: obviously the cost is split across the entire tax-payer base.

      Now imagine this scenario... his dad has heart trouble and emergency surgery ends up bankrupting him. While he doesn't croak from his sickness his insurance company conveniently drops him afterwards. Further complications cause him to lose his job as he's unable to work.

      He ends up spending the next 20 years on welfare and medicaid. Given that there's no such thing as a free lunch, who pays for it?

    16. Re:Best Preference by slim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, you don't want the UK for anything urgent. In the UK, unless you're willing to pay for a private clinic, you'll usually need to wait at least 6 months before you can see a specialist.

      [citation needed]

      Two NHS anecdotes of my own:

      I had a pain in the left side of my chest while running. Looked at the NHS direct web site, which told me to call an ambulance. I didn't, but I went to A&E soon afterwards. Within 5 minutes I was being interviewed by a nurse, and within 20 minutes I was on an ECG. Within 2 hours I'd had a chest X-ray and a second ECG. Happily I was given a clean bill of health -- the pain was just caused by muscle tension. But I was astonished by the rapid and thorough response.

      More recently, a couple of friends noticed a mole on my back which they thought I should get checked out. I phoned for a GP appointment, and got one 3 days hence. The GP referred me to a consultant dermatologist. That appointment was about a week later. I got to the hospital 10 minutes early, and was seen 5 minutes early. The consultant gave me a thorough examination and recommended a biopsy. I had to take a form to reception -- where there was no queue -- and made an appointment for the biopsy scraping, 1 week later. Again I was seen on time, treated with immaculate professionalism. A couple of days later the test results came through the post -- all clear.

      I appreciate some people have had bad NHS experiences, and of course we must relentlessly maintain/improve standards. But mostly I sense that people in general are pleased with the NHS. In particular, I'm of an age where lots of my friends are having babies, and not one has complained about NHS maternity care.

      Also you say "for anything urgent". My sense is that the NHS is very good at prioritising. If you find yourself waiting, it's because someone with a more urgent need has taken precedence. For example, with my chest pain, I jumped a queue of bleeding but stable A&E patients.

  3. Critical illness by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Critical illness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. You'll pay several times more out of pocket than an insurance company would pay, because of their quantity discounts. It is NOT a competitive free market or anything of the sort. It's monopolies all the way down, and they have the literal power of life and death over you, and they use it.

    2. Re:Critical illness by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. You'll pay several times more out of pocket than an insurance company would pay...

      Wrong:

      A recent article in the Los Angeles Times reported a CT scan of the abdomen costs about $2,400 for patients insured by Blue Shield of California, while the Los Alamitos (Calif.) Medical Center cash price is only $250... Another local California hospital charges insured patients $415 for blood tests that cost only $95 in cash.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Critical illness by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless you ask for cash discounts before receiving services. Then you will pay about what the insurance companies do.

      They love cash, they also love to not have to bill insurance companies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Critical illness by TXG1112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are assuming you will never have a significant medical need. This is a very poor assumption and it is obvious that you are not capable of doing the necessary risk/cost calculations. Bear in mind that one hospitalization will run you $10k, if you need to have a major procedure done that will likely cost you $25k or more. These are just for one time events. If you get a chronic condition, these numbers can go way up.

      The reason insurance is required under the new plan is that people are stupid and short sighted.

      --
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
    5. Re:Critical illness by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He is assuming nothing. However, you are.

      The whole sub-argument is about traditional major medical coverage that handles precisely the sort of large out of pocket costs you're talking about.

      Insurance simply does not scale down.

      For smaller claims, the transactional overhead if more than the cost of the service itself. Everyone is better off just paying cash and avoiding the overhead of the small stuff.

      You avoid the immediate transaction costs of the small stuff plus the any scaling issues you will trigger from magnifying the size of the claims management apparatus.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  4. the no pre existing condition/ no drop rule + exch by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    the no pre existing condition/ no drop rule and exchanges (not tied to jobs) is a big boost.

  5. Affordable Care Act might make this easier by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Just buy insurance...it's honestly that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Just buy insurance...it's honestly that simple. by drgroove · · Score: 3, Informative

      Damn, thought I was logged in for that comment. Sorry about that.

  7. High Deductible Health Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Mine's outstanding, but... by Lucas123 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:The only choice is to vote DEM / obama by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Re:After 20+ years of contracting... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Spouse by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny you mention that because I did marry someone with health benefits, and I didn't really like her that much at the time. But to avoid paying $12,000 a year for health insurance...eh...I'm puckering up.

  12. Vote for People Who Support Single Payer by reallocate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"
  13. Re:Doctors, Dentists and Hospitals *love* cash by rycamor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  14. Re:the no pre existing condition/ no drop rule + e by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Well, that makes sense by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.