Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe universal health care is the answer. We see what has happened in other countries that have it - people who have cancer have to wait too long to have a CT scan or surgery or whatever. There are long waiting lists to see a doctor... What if you had to pay more if you lived in an area where you were more likely to be a victim of violent crime? What if you had a family history of cancer? Would they start checking your driving record and deny you coverage if you are a risky driver? Or make you pay more?
Slippery slope. Why do people always point to waiting lists for procedures, as though everyone in the US can just walk into a cardiac clinic, and get a bypass that same day? Right now, people are dying because of inadequate health care in this country. Of course, if you are wealthy enough you can access the cream of the health care crop, but if you are poor, a list doesn't even exist for you to wait on. The whole idea behind UHC is that we all share the costs because we all reap the rewards. Everyone in the country pays taxes that indirectly support our education system, police and fire, etc. Why should health care be excluded? You do not pay higher/lower taxes because your neighborhood has higher/lower crime rate, health insurance should be no different. Everyone pays, everyone benefits. The free market just doesn't work for some things, including health care.
There are very real social costs to ignoring the health care needs of the country. Let's take a hypothetical situation. Someone in the family is a type 1 diabetic, not a "lifestyle" diabetic, and a son with another medical condition. Because of your medical expenses, both parents have to work so that the family can be double covered. In spite of this, and the 100's you pay every month for premiums, you still have relatively high deductibles to meet, and still have to pay for insulin and pump supplies, and for your child's frequent treatments. Most of this is payed for by the insurance companies, and no matter how many times you crunched the numbers, it is still far cheaper than dropping insurance coverage.
There are other effects. You can not afford to own your own business. Maybe you want to start one, but the numbers simply will not work; you could not afford to pay medical bills. Now you have to compromise by accepting lower paying jobs, giving up your autonomy and self-determination, and try to achieve wealth by working your way up the corporate ladder (assuming they don't downsize.) All this so that someone doesn't have to wait a few extra days for a CT scan.
It doesn't end there. Since both parents have to work, you need daycare for the children. Daycare is not cheap, so you have to work a few more hours, maybe one of you picks up a 2nd job, to be able to afford child care. Now the time you spend with our children; latchkey kids. But again, at least we don't have to be put on a list for surgery. THIS is moral decay. Any suggestion that our health care system is fair/effective/affordabe does not even pass the straight-face test.
All of you 'debate' but so few care to see what may work, and progress to health care solutions in the future Geez............
sorry. .I did not personally mean to ignore your post
The plan seems pretty good. I looked at the yearly cap and lifetime caps.. I think they were $100K a year and 1millin lifetime. So unless someone has a major illness in that one year they may not cap out or wouldjust about hit the end of that cap.
Million lifetime..I never looked at my numbers. I wonder how many years it takes for a diabletic to hit that 1 million mark.
but it looks like a great plan.. premiums based on income on that type of scale is reasonable and I like that idea.
All of you 'debate' but so few care to see what may work, and progress to health care solutions in the future Geez............
You and I have previously debated this in P&OC.
Let me summarize my sentiments this way, if this is the ONLY plan available in CT I am against it. I don't believe in "means tested" health care premiums and deductibles.
If it is one of multiple plans available then it is OK with me, I would likely just choose something else.
As for universal coverage. I say no. Here in the US we have far too many illegals and unemployed individuals for it to cover everyone. Plus, have you even seen how the universal system works in Socialized countries? If you aren't about to drop dead be prepared to wait weeks or months to even get into the doctors office.}
'Frankie117' I don't know where your information is from, but you are completely wrong about how the system works in Europe. I live in the UK and also in France, have many relatives all over both countries and can speak with much experience. It is absolutely not the case that you wait 'weeks or months to even get into the doctors' office.' With respect to the high standards of this forum, what utter nonsense! If I or any of my family want to see a doctor, we telephone at 8.30 am and we are always seen the same day - we have had the same family doctors for 17 years, and they are wonderful. The only time I have ever had to wait is when I have been in the waiting room and a sick child has come in - they always give babies priority, and rightly so.
When it comes to more serious ailments, when my DH had a kidney stone, not only was he seen at once in the ER, but the routine follow-up visits were arranged for the following week, and a check up three weks later. I have had routine surgery with a wait of eleven days.
As for prescription drugs - wow, the differences between US and UK! I am on 6 medications (mostly for stuff like high BP) and I pre-pay yearly - the whole lot costs me £92 (about $160) - and that also covers any other meds I might need such as antibiotics. All are free if you are under 18 or over 60.
And that is just as it ought to be. People often say that they can't think of anything to be proud of about their country - well, I am proud of our National Health service. Yes, you pay a bit more in tax - but you are never one illness away from financial ruin,as so many in the US seem to be, you don't need to work beyond 65 just to be sure of your health care, and you can bet your life that nowhere in the UK or in France will you see those sad pleas for money which seem to be on every second shop counter in the US - a recent one I saw was asking for help to fund the care of desperately premature twins. All are humanely cared for here, as they ought to be - no one, young or old, is turned away for lack of funds.
So glad you wrote to "correct the record" on European Health Care. . . . I am not at all sure that a similar system would not work here in the U.S. Yes, the great number of Illegal residents is a "problem", but if they are working here and contributing to the economy, I would not be opposed to providing care. . . I understand that in European countries, as well as in Canada, that visiting non-residents have the same access to care as citizens. . . . can someone let me know if this is actually the case? Thanks,
The US Government spends in healthcare more than any other in the Western world. The % of the budget that goes to healthcare nearly doubles that of European countries with socialized medicine, and yet a lot of Americans cannot afford insurance. Plus, even some of the "best" companies won't cover you if you need expensive surgery or a long-term treatment. So, if the Government spends taxpayers' money on this, wouldn't be better if they just implemented universal healthcare? That would save a helluva lot of money. I´d understand those who oppose UH if they didn't want to pay for others' healthcare, but the fact is that they are doing it although the companies are the ones that actually profit.
I have no idea what would be the best thing to do about health care costs. In the OP you asked about what our health ins coverage looks like. Well he it is for my family.
Husband has $468.00 a mth taken out of his pay check
No Dental
No Vision
$250.00 per person deductable
$750 total Family deductable
then it's 80/20 coverage for the fist $2000 and then ins pays 100%
Rxs from $5-$25
We have this 300 some page book to explain whats covered and whats not. Like who is really going to read all of that page by page?
Well I wish I did. Some where in there it said that we had to call the ins co within my first trimester and fill out this form to be covered. Well I never knew that so I didn't do it. Now my baby is 5 mths and I though I about had all of my pregnancy/delivery bills paid. I just found out that I now have to pay a $200 penelty for not calling and an extra $200 for each time I was in the hospital related to the pregnancy. I had alot of problems getting my baby here so I have a total of $800 I need to pay.
Plus, I have to pay 20% on everything, the fist $2000 now isn't valid because I didn't call. So here is just what I can think of off the top of my head that it cost us to have our baby.
In 07 for 1/2 the pregnacy
$422 each month from paycheck = $5064
$250 deductable for me
My first $2000 before ins pays 100%
In 07 about $7300
In 08 for 1/2 pregnancy and birth
$468 each month ( you know it raises every year) = $5616
$250 deductable for me
$800 because I didn't call during first trimester
My first $2000 or so I thought
PLUS ???? now because I have to keep paying 20 on everything
In 08 at least $9000++
So i will have paid at least $16000 (including my mthly ins cost) to have my baby.
My husband is a full time teacher who only makes $37,000 a year. So during a 12 mth period we have to pay $16000+++ so that leaves us $21000.
I have no idea what would be the best thing to do about health care costs. In the OP you asked about what our health ins coverage looks like. Well he it is for my family.
Husband has $468.00 a mth taken out of his pay check
No Dental
No Vision
$250.00 per person deductable
$750 total Family deductable
then it's 80/20 coverage for the fist $2000 and then ins pays 100%
Rxs from $5-$25
We have this 300 some page book to explain whats covered and whats not. Like who is really going to read all of that page by page?
Well I wish I did. Some where in there it said that we had to call the ins co within my first trimester and fill out this form to be covered. Well I never knew that so I didn't do it. Now my baby is 5 mths and I though I about had all of my pregnancy/delivery bills paid. I just found out that I now have to pay a $200 penelty for not calling and an extra $200 for each time I was in the hospital related to the pregnancy. I had alot of problems getting my baby here so I have a total of $800 I need to pay.
Plus, I have to pay 20% on everything, the fist $2000 now isn't valid because I didn't call. So here is just what I can think of off the top of my head that it cost us to have our baby.
In 07 for 1/2 the pregnacy
$422 each month from paycheck = $5064
$250 deductable for me
My first $2000 before ins pays 100%
In 07 about $7300
In 08 for 1/2 pregnancy and birth
$468 each month ( you know it raises every year) = $5616
$250 deductable for me
$800 because I didn't call during first trimester
My first $2000 or so I thought
PLUS ???? now because I have to keep paying 20 on everything
In 08 at least $9000++
So i will have paid at least $16000 (including my mthly ins cost) to have my baby.
My husband is a full time teacher who only makes $37,000 a year. So during a 12 mth period we have to pay $16000+++ so that leaves us $21000.
I Just want to SCREAM.....
And rightfully so.. that is really quite ridiculous.
One hing tha makes me scratch my head at that policy is this. Obviously when you go to your OB you go when you feel that you are pregnant and that is done in the first 6 weeks of the pregnancy... test are done and even a sonogram through the vaginal cavity is done.. and I'm sure the insurance company gets the bill with what diagnostic tests are done... plus the follow up visits during the first trimester..
They would already know you are pregnant.. why wouldy ou need a phone call for that.. For what purpose anyway.. not like you need to get permission or pre-approval . you're already pregnant
For me.. all I had to do was inform the insurance that i had the baby so he was covered undre me for 30 days and he can be added to my policy (so that I dindn't have to wait for open enrollment).
hey Stan,
A lot of raised an argument to a UHC in the past about paying for "other's poor lifestyle choices" as a reason to oppose a UHC.
I'm not about someone dictating to another how to live their life. There are some instances of diseases that are unpreventable.. like my Juvenile Diabetes NOT brought on by any poor lifestyle choices.. but there are problems that do arise for those individuals who .. munch on horrible foods and allow themselves to get unhealthy and obese as a result. (there are instances of obesity, however that are NOT caused by lifestyle choices). Smokers too run the risk of cancer.
In a private health care system people do get dinged for their poor lifestyle choices already.. for example, you can be turned down for insurance if you are overweight (it depends on laws in each state) or forced into a guaranteed issue plan with a higher premium if you have been denied from a medically underwritten plan. Worse yet, those that have no control over their conditions are forced into a plan that is more expensive as a guaranteed issue.
I don't think pinging people for their poor lifestyle choices would neccesarily be a bad thing. It might hold people more accountable for their own health. In the current system an unhealthy person doesn't feel the financial effects of their poor health choices because they are not paying the premiums if they are covered by their employer. If they effect is felt differently for them they would then have to make smarter choices to avoid the consequences financially of those poor choices.
I wouldn't even be opposed to having to answer to how well I manage my diabetes in a UHC system and being pinged if I am not managing it properly with my physicians etc.
It might actually make America a lot healthier as a result
This lifestyle business is not as simple as it seems. The popular media are replete with articles about how obesity, eating junk food, lack of exercise, etc, "cause" some disease or condition. The reality is much more complicated. And what do we do with people whose illnesses are documented "lifestyle" choices? I don't think it is compassionate to let them suffer. I don't think they do it in Europe, either, where the smoking rate, for example, is much higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
Fraud and waste are appalling! We could make a difference in the cost of healthcare if each person would report it when they know fraud exists. Sadly, I see people trying to "beat the system" all around me!
And let's not forget nursing homes. How many people do you know who have deliberately said . . . I have to switch around accounts and make it appear my mother has no assets so she can qualify for medicaid and a nursing home? I sure have heard it! In fact, I will be surprised if anyone over 45 or so has not heard that kind of discussion in their own families!!!! Well, that is fraud! If you have assets, you should be paying. Medicaid is not FREE!! And when the dollars go to Grandma's nursing home bill when she actually had $150,000 socked away . .. then that is taking $$ away from others, such as those school aged children w/ cystic fibrosis . . . or the baby w/ a congenital heart defect but whose parents are underemployed.
Also, when we all start talking about UHC, please remember - all sorts of restrictions will be put on access. For example, do you think it would be fair for your neighbor to have a daughter who is comatose and in a vegetative state, and costing taxpayers $3,000 a day, to get that care free when they live in a $600,000 house and have $500,000 in retirement plans socked away? HECK NO. I sure don't. There will be caps on services just like there are caps NOW on insurance policies (usually $1 M).
My mom's attorney told me if you move money arouond deliberately within a certain time period before a person's admission to an NH (I think 3 yrs, but I'm not sure), you can get in big trouble. I agree completely there will be caps on services. I think some people have either been sold a bill of goods about UHC, or in their own minds have the idea there will be no restrictions. We can argue till the cows come home about what restrictions there are/will be with UHC, but we can be sure there will be some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
Here is something that I'm a little perplexed about on the pharma side. My mom needed a sleeping pill..I can't recall the name. She had insurance but had to meet her deductable and was getting her prescription filled at Walmart. She didn't give her insurance card because, I believe she said, she didn't have drug coverage. So she paid $80 for the pills.
Then something came up and they ended up with her insurance card. Suddenly the price dropped to $20 because even though it wasn't covered, they must have had some kind of contract you mentioned.
However, my mom found in town a Pharmacy that sells drugs to those that do not have any insurance and those same pills that were once $80 without her card and became $20 with her card she was suddenly able to buy for $9!!! The SAME pills....
She doesn't know how or why? It is quite a head scratcher.
I don't get this drug stuff either. Most of the grocery store pharmacies, Walgreen's and WalMart around here have a list of $4/mo rx drugs. With our insurance, these are off the books, but we have another savings acct. to pay for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717
the sister of a dear friend, a longtime resident of Italy (married to an Italian man) recently died of cancer. My friend told me that had she been in the United States, the entire family would have been "bankrupt" from paying for her care. Something to "think about". . . this could happen to any of us!
Well, that is not exactly evidence based, just based on their assumptions, since it did not happen in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jest721
Let's take a hypothetical situation. Someone in the family is a type 1 diabetic, not a "lifestyle" diabetic, .
See my previous response about "lifestyle" illnesses. Type II diabetes is not always a "lifestyle" disease. I don't think we should make medical decisions based on stuff in the lay press.
...See my previous response about "lifestyle" illnesses. Type II diabetes is not always a "lifestyle" disease. I don't think we should make medical decisions based on stuff in the lay press.
I'm using my own colloquial definition of lifestyle disease here, not your textbook definition. I have some family members who are Type 2 diabetics because of their lifestyle, and a wife who has been Type 1 since she was a child. It's a bit of a sore spot for me I'll admit; it's insulting when I hear them complain about their diabetes. Type 2 can be usually be manageable with some lifestyle changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
