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.
^^^Agreed. This sounds like a scam, knowing UHC. Many financial people feel these cancer policies are not worth it, either. They tend to prey on people's fear of getting cancer.
Cancer insurance: is it worth it? | Legal > Consumer Law from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-new-york/927195-1.html - broken link)
I read that article and you miss my point, I feel. Right now, because of my employer-based health insurance--if I lose my job, I lose my insurance. If I get sick--I lose my job. If my employer goes under--I lose my insurance.
Sure it would be great if that weren't the case--but it is the case. So what does an individual like me do? I have this policy because it is an option that is available with our screwed-up system and other options aren't.
The article says: a good reliable basic health insurance is better. This is fine advice if that is available but what I have been trying to explain is, it doesn't seem to be available. To me--employer based insurance is not insurance, for reasons I stated above.
I'm upset, I have to admit. I really had hopes this insurance mess would get fixed.
I read that article and you miss my point, I feel. Right now, because of my employer-based health insurance--if I lose my job, I lose my insurance. If I get sick--I lose my job. If my employer goes under--I lose my insurance.
Sure it would be great if that weren't the case--but it is the case. So what does an individual like me do? I have this policy because it is an option that is available with our screwed-up system and other options aren't.
The article says: a good reliable basic health insurance is better. This is fine advice if that is available but what I have been trying to explain is, it doesn't seem to be available. To me--employer based insurance is not insurance, for reasons I stated above.
I'm upset, I have to admit. I really had hopes this insurance mess would get fixed.
The insurance mess can't be fixed. The focus should be on health care, not insurance. Instead of a health care bill, we got an insurance bill.
What should you do? Tell everyone you talk to that you want national health care. Every post you make about this issue should state that you want national health care. Write your Congressman and Senators that you want national health care. Vote for people who support national health care. When you get a telephone call from a pollster, don't answer their questions as though the only choices are insurance and more insurance, tell them you want national health care. People need to speak up.
I read that article and you miss my point, I feel. Right now, because of my employer-based health insurance--if I lose my job, I lose my insurance. If I get sick--I lose my job. If my employer goes under--I lose my insurance.
Sure it would be great if that weren't the case--but it is the case. So what does an individual like me do? I have this policy because it is an option that is available with our screwed-up system and other options aren't.
The article says: a good reliable basic health insurance is better. This is fine advice if that is available but what I have been trying to explain is, it doesn't seem to be available. To me--employer based insurance is not insurance, for reasons I stated above.
I'm upset, I have to admit. I really had hopes this insurance mess would get fixed.
What you can do is get angry. The more people that realize the true problem and get angry, the sooner something will be done about it.
So, as I understand it, this company is insuring your ability to get insurance and not be declined. Essentially, the markeplace responding to the lack of portability problem, mainly. In view of what COBRA does it 'appears' to have limited and possibly temporary application. Another problem I see is that it's not universal (nationwide available) due to conflicting state laws. That brings up another problem. If one advocates for a 'private' insurance healthcare, should we also insist on uniformity of laws by having federal standards? In my original post I suggested a forming of a consortium of insurance companies. That was to spread the risk more evenly and enable lower costs for any given dollar and thus also slightly higher profit. An idea that benefits BOTH ends of the concern spectrum when considering "private" insurers/insurance.
My original requests for ideas was more toward the lines of things that could be use to formulate insurance policy coverages that could reduce cost to insureds and expenditures to insurers. Two opposing goals granted, but two that BOTH need to be addressed to design a well-functioning "private" system. Aside from that type of thing, freeing companies to offer coverages in any state based upon federal uniform standards ONLY, not control...seems like something worthwhile. Also tort reform might be worthwhile digging into as anything in that area could mean a clash of constitutional rights and public law. Nobody has mentioned having insurers consider a new concept in health coverage. Greater 'option' availability to the consumer to pick and choose coverages they want and do not want, so the cost may be made more affordable. Right now such is quite limited. More coverages coud be sold as 'rider' add-ons. In some states disability income policies are sold. Why not have that as a variable feature on a basic health insurance policy itself. If it were primarily designed for 'long-term' disabilities it could be very reasonable costwise and be a lifting of economic burden on society to provide such by state/federal benefits. Also there is the legal definition of total disability that varies from state to state.
I think you have hit on the basic problem. The dilemma being expressed in this thread, is very representative of that which is felt across this Nation. Nobody is providing an actually solution that is acceptable to the vast majority. There is a growing number who feel the only real long term solution would be to Nationalize the care. There are a large number who fear an expanding Govt role, particularly in health care. But, until the pain of experience is felt by more people, they will hold on to these fears. The tide will continue to turn until the realization of what we need to do, becomes more universal.
Thanks. I think nationalizing care would be a long term solution, too. Selfishly, I want to think about the best way for me or for all of us to deal with the current system, or ideas that might help in the mean time, which may now be fifteen years, which is what they say is the normal times between health-care reform attempts.
As long as the American people are duped by Big Business, we'll never get national health care. This thread is about trying to patch a system that is a failure. The only people benefiting from patching the system are those who sell the patches -- the insurance companies and other Big Businesses which were just given the right to spend all the money they want on our elections.
People need to stop thinking about how to patch a failed system and start demanding movement towards a system that works for everyone. The rich will find a way to upgrade any system that's put in place so they won't lose a thing.....and have a lot more than they do now if they stop being rich.
I'm not duped by big business. As much as if feels like a kick in the stomach, those who want health care reform ( including myself) have lost this battle (And I hope I am wrong. I have this fantasy of one lone senator or maybe two standing up and saying--I will do the right thing even if I don't get reelected).
So, as I understand it, this company is insuring your ability to get insurance and not be declined. Essentially, the markeplace responding to the lack of portability problem, mainly. In view of what COBRA does it 'appears' to have limited and possibly temporary application. Another problem I see is that it's not universal (nationwide available) due to conflicting state laws. That brings up another problem. If one advocates for a 'private' insurance healthcare, should we also insist on uniformity of laws by having federal standards? In my original post I suggested a forming of a consortium of insurance companies. That was to spread the risk more evenly and enable lower costs for any given dollar and thus also slightly higher profit. An idea that benefits BOTH ends of the concern spectrum when considering "private" insurers/insurance.
My original requests for ideas was more toward the lines of things that could be use to formulate insurance policy coverages that could reduce cost to insureds and expenditures to insurers. Two opposing goals granted, but two that BOTH need to be addressed to design a well-functioning "private" system. Aside from that type of thing, freeing companies to offer coverages in any state based upon federal uniform standards ONLY, not control...seems like something worthwhile. Also tort reform might be worthwhile digging into as anything in that area could mean a clash of constitutional rights and public law. Nobody has mentioned having insurers consider a new concept in health coverage. Greater 'option' availability to the consumer to picj and choose coverages they want and do not want, so the cost may be made more affordable. Right now such is quite limited. More coverages coud be sold as 'rider' add-ons. i some staesd disability income policies are sold. Why not have that as a variable feature on a basic health insurance poiny itself If it were primarily designed for 'long-term' disabilities it could be very reasonable costwise and be a lifting of economic burden on society to provide such by state/federal benefits. Also there is the legal definition of total disability that varies from state to state.
Just thinking out loud.
The problem is insurance. Buying more isn't the solution.
So, as I understand it, this company is insuring your ability to get insurance and not be declined. Essentially, the markeplace responding to the lack of portability problem, mainly. In view of what COBRA does it 'appears' to have limited and possibly temporary application. Another problem I see is that it's not universal (nationwide available) due to conflicting state laws. That brings up another problem. If one advocates for a 'private' insurance healthcare, should we also insist on uniformity of laws by having federal standards? In my original post I suggested a forming of a consortium of insurance companies. That was to spread the risk more evenly and enable lower costs for any given dollar and thus also slightly higher profit. An idea that benefits BOTH ends of the concern spectrum when considering "private" insurers/insurance.
My original requests for ideas was more toward the lines of things that could be use to formulate insurance policy coverages that could reduce cost to insureds and expenditures to insurers. Two opposing goals granted, but two that BOTH need to be addressed to design a well-functioning "private" system. Aside from that type of thing, freeing companies to offer coverages in any state based upon federal uniform standards ONLY, not control...seems like something worthwhile. Also tort reform might be worthwhile digging into as anything in that area could mean a clash of constitutional rights and public law. Nobody has mentioned having insurers consider a new concept in health coverage. Greater 'option' availability to the consumer to pick and choose coverages they want and do not want, so the cost may be made more affordable. Right now such is quite limited. More coverages coud be sold as 'rider' add-ons. In some states disability income policies are sold. Why not have that as a variable feature on a basic health insurance policy itself. If it were primarily designed for 'long-term' disabilities it could be very reasonable costwise and be a lifting of economic burden on society to provide such by state/federal benefits. Also there is the legal definition of total disability that varies from state to state.
Just thinking out loud.
How about this one--Cobra is extended forever. Policy you have at work--you keep it as long as you pay for it, even if you lose your job.
ANYTHING can be fixed. To get a handle on insurance, 'uniformity' has to occur. That means a commonly accepted resignation to federal law to standardize coverages and responsibilities of insurer and insured. If you cross a state line and unknowingly your insurance coverage changes in that instance it's near useless. That's what we have now though most fail to realize it. Without 'uniformity' you may be right, but I see that as a problem that can be solved.
Federal legislation to standardize and state law for beyond that.
I also disagree. It IS insurance that is the problem.
WHY? Because health costs for almost anything can skyrocket so far out of control that the vast majority cannot deal with it financially.
Insurance MUST be fixed, because everyone depends upon it in some form or another, save for the uber-rich.
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.
Sagran
