Interesting article on healthcare plans...

[masomenos]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.


Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies.


Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform. Barack Obama and John McCain propose to lead us in opposite directions -- and the Obama direction is far superior.


Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:

- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.

- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.


- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.


In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.


Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion. Our figures suggest that decreasing employer costs by this amount will result in the expansion of employer-provided health insurance to 10 million previously uninsured people.


We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care -- nearly $1 trillion -- but our health outcomes are no better.


The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.


In contrast, Sen. McCain, who constantly repeats his no-new-taxes promise on the campaign trail, proposes a big tax hike as the solution to our health-care crisis. His plan would raise taxes on workers who receive health benefits, with the idea of encouraging their employers to drop coverage. A study conducted by University of Michigan economist Tom Buchmueller and colleagues published in the journal Health Affairs suggests that the McCain tax hike will lead employers to drop coverage for over 20 million Americans.


What would happen to these people? Mr. McCain will give them a small tax credit, $5,000 for a family and $2,500 for an individual, and tell them to navigate the individual insurance market on their own.


For middle- and lower-income people, the credits are way too small. They are less than half the cost of policies today ($12,000 on average for a family), and are far below the 75% that most employers offering coverage contribute. Further, their value would erode over time, as the credit increases less rapidly than average premiums.


Those already sick are completely out of luck, as individual insurers are free to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Mr. McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work.


Even for those healthy enough to gain coverage in the individual insurance market, the screening, marketing and individual underwriting that insurers do to separate healthy from sick boosts premiums by 17% relative to employer-provided insurance, well beyond the help offered by the McCain tax credit.


The immediate consequences of the McCain plan are even worse. The

McCain plan is a big tax increase on employers and workers. With the economy in recession, that's the last thing America's businesses need.
Finally, Mr. McCain does nothing to bend the curve of rising health-care costs downward. He does not fund investments in learning, rewarding and preventing. Eliminating state coverage requirements will slash preventive service availability.


The high cost-sharing plans he envisions will similarly discourage preventive care. And as he does nothing about the hidden costs of the uncovered -- expensive ER visits, recurring conditions resulting from inadequate follow-up care.


Everyone agrees our health-care financing system must change. But only one candidate, Barack Obama, has real change we can believe in.


Now one of the authors is an economist who is an adviser to Obama so I don't know that everything in here is unbiased. That said, I would like to hear peoples reactions to the article and point out anything that's false.

[ScipioCowboy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Now one of the authors is an economist who is an adviser to Obama so I don't know that everything in here is unbiased. That said, I would like to hear peoples reactions to the article and point out anything that's false.

It's essentially a fluff piece supporting Obama authored by people who advise and work in his campaign. That's not to say it lacks any substance, but its primary goal is garnering support for Obama, not presenting an unbiased view of both health plans.

Obama would, for all intents and purposes, socialize the US health care system. Universal, government-provided health care has benefits and drawbacks that have been discussed ad nauseum. Our current health care system has benefits and drawbacks that have been discussed ad nauseum.

In this debate, one question supersedes all others: Are you comfortable with the US government providing health care, given its repeated problems handling medicare and social security?

[Danny White]

I can't really refute much of this, because there are very few "facts" there... mostly just "claims."

I don't honestly know the plans inside and out.

But I am suspicious that the author is an Obama advisor. Seems like he has a pretty big stake in the race regardless.

I'd like to see a truly independent analysis of the plans. I don't really know where to get that, though, as right now most of the "details" are given out by the campaigns themselves and are obviously biased.

[Danny White]

Here's McCain's health care plan in his own words:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

[Danny White]

Looking more closely at that article, the author says "Those already sick are completely out of luck." But then later in the same paragraph, he acknowledges that McCain has a provision to cover those with pre-existing conditions, but the author just dismisses that saying "McCain has proposed a high-risk pool for the very sick, but has not put forward the money to make it work." As if Obama has explained how he's going to fully-fund his astronomically expensive program.

I also get a kick how he dismisses the $5000 tax credit, saying that it's only half of what a policy costs. That still sounds pretty good to me. What does he want... the government to pick up the whole tab for your health care? That sounds like socialized medicine to me... oh wait. :D

Also, while I'm not going to challenge what he says a policy costs the average family, I know that $12,000 sounds awful high to me. My company has an excellent plan for our employees, and it costs about $7,000 per year per family.

[JBond]

Sen. Obama's proposal will modernize our current system of employer- and government-provided health care, keeping what works well, and making the investments now that will lead to a more efficient medical system. He does this in five ways:

- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

So Barack Obama is going to determine how and where and when to treat patients instead of doctors.

- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.

So he is going to tie the income of everyone in the medical field based on how well individuals behave when not in a doctors office. Stupid.

- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.

This is already done. The fact he wants to change it worries me.


- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

How is going to enforce peoples behavior? I want Barack to come to my house and drive me to my appointments for colon cancer screening.

- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.

Hidden expenses of the uninsured? It's not hidden. It shows up in every medical bill I pay. Illegals and welfare recipients are destroying the medical field. I'm getting real tired of paying everyone else's way.


In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.

Again with the wealth redistribution. Socialism. First he wants to give my money away to people who don't pay taxes and then he wants some more of my money to pay for their health care. How much is enough?

[BrAinPaiNt]

My only health care plan at this time is called Workers Comp.

I guess if I get hurt, I better hope I get hurt at work.

[dbair1967]

I've worked in the healthcare industry basically all my life, starting from the time I worked in a drugstore, through interning in pharmacy, two yrs of pharmacy school and since college, working in healthcare with various insurance companies either directly or indirectly. I have spent countless hours studying healthcare plans that are domestic and foreign (ie, national healthcare, universal healthcare, single payor systems etc etc).

I can say without a doubt our healthcare system as is, is by far the best in the world. There are FAR too many drawbacks of "national" healthcare systems and both the quality of care and availability of care will be severely compromised. The vast majority of the public think because it will be supposedly "free" (which in itself is an untruth, as it will cost taxpayers billions) that its an improvement. The only people in those systems who actually believe it are the one's who have no reason to access it, or have their care limited mostly to primary care/prescription drug pickup type visits.

I remember in college going to a seminar where we lectured and shown detailed info on "Hillarycare". I was with a large group of pharmacists, doctors and other healthcare indsutry people. We came away shocked at what they were proposing. For people who hate the HMO concept, you better start rethinking your views on "national" healthcare, as its almost an absolute certainty that any version we get (regardless of who puts it in place) will be about the most hardcore version of "managed care" they could see.

There's a reason why people from all around the world want to come here for their care (if they can). We have the highest quality of care along with the best specialists and hospitals in the world. We have the best technology in the world, and have easy access to it. If you go the cardiologist today and find out you have a blockage, in alot of cases you can have it treated and corrected the same day or the next day. If you need a hip or knee replacement, you dont have to wait for months or even years to get it. That is not the case in other countries where they have socialized medicine. Do we have a perfect system? No, but there probably isnt a "perfect" system out there, and its certainly not national healthcare. We can easily see the waste and corruption of Medicare and Medicaid here in the USA, why go to something thats going to cover everyone when they cant even get it right for that small %?

Be careful what you wish for.

[masomenos]

I've worked in the healthcare industry basically all my life, starting from the time I worked in a drugstore, through interning in pharmacy, two yrs of pharmacy school and since college, working in healthcare with various insurance companies either directly or indirectly. I have spent countless hours studying healthcare plans that are domestic and foreign (ie, national healthcare, universal healthcare, single payor systems etc etc).

I can say without a doubt our healthcare system as is, is by far the best in the world. There are FAR too many drawbacks of "national" healthcare systems and both the quality of care and availability of care will be severely compromised. The vast majority of the public think because it will be supposedly "free" (which in itself is an untruth, as it will cost taxpayers billions) that its an improvement. The only people in those systems who actually believe it are the one's who have no reason to access it, or have their care limited mostly to primary care/prescription drug pickup type visits.

I remember in college going to a seminar where we lectured and shown detailed info on "Hillarycare". I was with a large group of pharmacists, doctors and other healthcare indsutry people. We came away shocked at what they were proposing. For people who hate the HMO concept, you better start rethinking your views on "national" healthcare, as its almost an absolute certainty that any version we get (regardless of who puts it in place) will be about the most hardcore version of "managed care" they could see.

There's a reason why people from all around the world want to come here for their care (if they can). We have the highest quality of care along with the best specialists and hospitals in the world. We have the best technology in the world, and have easy access to it. If you go the cardiologist today and find out you have a blockage, in alot of cases you can have it treated and corrected the same day or the next day. If you need a hip or knee replacement, you dont have to wait for months or even years to get it. That is not the case in other countries where they have socialized medicine. Do we have a perfect system? No, but there probably isnt a "perfect" system out there, and its certainly not national healthcare. We can easily see the waste and corruption of Medicare and Medicaid here in the USA, why go to something thats going to cover everyone when they cant even get it right for that small %?

Be careful what you wish for.

This is a good response. Now, that's not to say other people didn't have good responses lol, but I always like hearing from people who are in the industry that a certain issue pertains to. That said, I do know that there is a fairly large number of Drs. who support Obama's plan.

http://doctorsforobama.net/

From that site:

Main features of the Obama Health Plan

HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE: Barack Obama has a commitment and a plan for providing quality, affordable care for every American. His plan will build upon our current system, so that Americans may keep their current insurance but also choose among new options.
MAKING HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE

Reduce unnecessary administrative costs
Emphasize evidence-based care and prevention
Encourage competition in insurance and drug markets
Make generic drugs more readily available
Strengthen our safety net for children and the poor IMPROVING QUALITY, SAFETY, AND EFFICIENCY

Focus on preventive care, evidence based-medicine
Increase support for primary care
Invest in helping doctors better understand what therapies work and what therapies do not
Promote a rational policy on prescription drug use
Not allow insurance companies to discriminate against those with preexisting conditions
Emphasize disease management by encouraging the implementation of care-management programs, team care, and medical-home strategies
Collect and report data on costs, quality, and medical errors INVESTING IN A 21ST CENTURY MEDICAL SYSTEM

Invest in a national, state of the art health information system
Increase funding for biomedical research
Fund programs to improve quality and decrease medical errors FAIR AND TRANSPARENT

Make Insurance plans and drug companies more transparent, competitive, and accountable.
Require plans to disclose how much of insurance premiums go to paying for patient care versus administrative costs, marketing, and profits
Prevent plans from discriminating against those with preexisting conditions REDUCING MALPRACTICE SUITS

Focus on improving patient safety
Monitor behavior of malpractice insurers
Allow doctors to learn from mistakes without penalty
Report preventable medical errors while protecting such reporting from malpractice suits

Interesting stuff, I really hope we get some detailed answers on healthcare during the debates.

[Aikbach]

With all these bailouts we've allowed the financial sector to use Uncle Sam like an insurance provider, at the tax payer expense.

Universal healthcare would be like 20 government buyouts, a ridiculous proposition that is even more maddening than the AIG, Lehman, Merril Lynch, Sterns, etc... hand holding fiasco.

Private enterprise is the engine of the economy and companies should sink or swim on account of their own actions, they were unethical and risky, they deserve to pay the piper.

The public should not have taken loans they could not afford to repay, they to deserve their debts.

[dbair1967]

[QUOTE]This is a good response. Now, that's not to say other people didn't have good responses lol, but I always like hearing from people who are in the industry that a certain issue pertains to. That said, I do know that there is a fairly large number of Drs. who support Obama's plan.

I am sure there are some, however the vast majority that I know and have spoken with on it do not want to see it.

They always cite the main reason for it as "too many un-insured" when the truth is:

1) the majority of the un-insured are illegal aliens, who shouldnt be here anyway and definitely dont need to be covered under our healthcare system

2) the other large % of people without coverage are people who CHOOSE not to be covered, even under employer sponsored healthcare plans. They are normally healthy young people who wont spent $10-20 bucks a week to help cover the cost of a healthcare plan because they dont think they'll use it or ever need it.

3) the final truth is everyone has access to critical care today as is, no hospital will turn you away nor can they. Tax payers are already covering the cost of this in many markets.

[ScipioCowboy]

This is a good response. Now, that's not to say other people didn't have good responses lol, but I always like hearing from people who are in the industry that a certain issue pertains to. That said, I do know that there is a fairly large number of Drs. who support Obama's plan.

http://doctorsforobama.net/

From that site:



Interesting stuff, I really hope we get some detailed answers on healthcare during the debates.

Your assessment is both perceptive and accurate. However, in my defense, I wasn't going for "good." I aimed for mediocrity, and I achieved such - hence why my response was, in fact, a smashing success.:p:

[ThaBigP]

As one of the many who voluntarily choose not to pay for health insurance, I can tell you that folks like me make up a huge percentage (along with illegals) of the uninsured. In fact, I'd bet the vast majority of the uninsured fall into one or the other (perhaps both!) categories. As I get older, though, I'll likely change course. Here's my reasoning: at my company, it would take about $400/month out of my check to get coverage. In my entire post-teenage years, I've spent perhaps $1000 total on medical care. So it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. The problem is too much regulation, and lack of competition. You cannot buy a tax-free insurance policy on your own - in order to do that you MUST go through your employer, meaning you usually have two choices from the same company, PPO or HMO. Buy it yourself and you pay taxes on the money you send to the insurance company. Also, you cannot purchase insurance across state lines. Therefore, the ability to comparison shop is highly limited. So what happens is, people who DO opt to have $400/month or more yanked out of their check make damned sure they "get everything that's coming to them". They take their kids and themselves to the emergency room everytime somebody sneezes. When you bloat a system with artificial demand, the price skyrockets. Look at the housing industry with subprime mortgages if you need any proof of that.

[Aikbach]

As one of the many who voluntarily choose not to pay for health insurance, I can tell you that folks like me make up a huge percentage (along with illegals) of the uninsured. In fact, I'd bet the vast majority of the uninsured fall into one or the other (perhaps both!) categories. As I get older, though, I'll likely change course. Here's my reasoning: at my company, it would take about $400/month out of my check to get coverage. In my entire post-teenage years, I've spent perhaps $1000 total on medical care. So it's a simple cost/benefit analysis. The problem is too much regulation, and lack of competition. You cannot buy a tax-free insurance policy on your own - in order to do that you MUST go through your employer, meaning you usually have two choices from the same company, PPO or HMO. Buy it yourself and you pay taxes on the money you send to the insurance company. Also, you cannot purchase insurance across state lines. Therefore, the ability to comparison shop is highly limited. So what happens is, people who DO opt to have $400/month or more yanked out of their check make damned sure they "get everything that's coming to them". They take their kids and themselves to the emergency room everytime somebody sneezes. When you bloat a system with artificial demand, the price skyrockets. Look at the housing industry with subprime mortgages if you need any proof of that.You need to check into Aetna or Blue Cross then, for about 130 a month you can get full emergency insurance and two doctor visits a year, as well as a $10 dollar co-pay for medicine. It will be very worth it if something happens my friend,without it if you break a leg you'll be out thousands.

If you go to the emergency room with food poisoning you'll be charged two grand!

[ThaBigP]

I will also add that health insurance covers WAY too much in the way of health care. Pretty much anything, even a check-up, is covered by health insurance. So, imagine how much car insurance would cost if everybody filed claims for oil changes...new tires...new windsheild wiper blades....even filling up with gas...or car washes... In that scenario (like the health insurance industry), you're no longer actually selling "insurance", you're just socializing the cost, whatever the cost, of all the activity in that market. Car insurance and home insurance, in contrast, merely cover you in the event of catastrophic loss, such as a car wreck or house fire. You're expected to foot the bill for basic maintenance, meaning the laws of supply and demand truly are at work there, making those things affordable.

[ThaBigP]

You need to check into Aetna or Blue Cross then, for about 130 a month you can get full emergency insurance and two doctor visits a year, as well as a $10 dollar co-pay for medicine. It will be very worth it if something happens my friend,without it if you break a leg you'll be out thousands.

If you go to the emergency room with food poisoning you'll be charged two grand!

Yeah, in fact most of that grand I mentioned that I'd paid out so far was when I accidentally knifed my hand real bad trying to separate frozen hamburger patties with a butcher knife. So, yeah, point taken. :cool:

[dbair1967]

I will also add that health insurance covers WAY too much in the way of health care. Pretty much anything, even a check-up, is covered by health insurance. So, imagine how much car insurance would cost if everybody filed claims for oil changes...new tires...new windsheild wiper blades....even filling up with gas...or car washes... In that scenario (like the health insurance industry), you're no longer actually selling "insurance", you're just socializing the cost, whatever the cost, of all the activity in that market. Car insurance and home insurance, in contrast, merely cover you in the event of catastrophic loss, such as a car wreck or house fire. You're expected to foot the bill for basic maintenance, meaning the laws of supply and demand truly are at work there, making those things affordable.

It's called OVER-REGULATION by government.

The price of individual health insurance would drop DRAMATICALLY if you could eliminate government required mandates from policies, or at least offer the option of eliminating it. Case in point is maternity coverage, which is a state mandate (at least in all states I know of). A young male individual has no need for maternity care, so why have to pay for it?

[Aikbach]

It's called OVER-REGULATION by government.

The price of individual health insurance would drop DRAMATICALLY if you could eliminate government required mandates from policies, or at least offer the option of eliminating it. Case in point is maternity coverage, which is a state mandate (at least in all states I know of). A young male individual has no need for maternity care, so why have to pay for it?True, but would said coverage benefit a married man? Could he transfer it to his wife?

[dbair1967]

True, but would said coverage benefit a married man? Could he transfer it to his wife?

Thats why it would be better as an option.

Individual coverage differs from gruop coverage though in that it is not guaranteed issue. Everyone has to be underwritten and most policies have pre-existing clauses for everything (incl maternity)

[ThaBigP]

It's called OVER-REGULATION by government.

The price of individual health insurance would drop DRAMATICALLY if you could eliminate government required mandates from policies, or at least offer the option of eliminating it. Case in point is maternity coverage, which is a state mandate (at least in all states I know of). A young male individual has no need for maternity care, so why have to pay for it?

Well, yes, I did neglect to point out the big, fat, pink elephant in the room - the fact that the broad coverage for "everything under the sun" is in fact mandated by government.

[jrumann59]

The one thing from the last election that I haven't heard a lot about when it comes to addressing costs is tort reform on malpractice, and capping malpractice payouts. The rising cost has a lot more to do with insurance and dead beats then just normal cost increases.

[masomenos]

[quote=masomenos85;2267707]

I am sure there are some, however the vast majority that I know and have spoken with on it do not want to see it.

They always cite the main reason for it as "too many un-insured" when the truth is:

1) the majority of the un-insured are illegal aliens, who shouldnt be here anyway and definitely dont need to be covered under our healthcare system

2) the other large % of people without coverage are people who CHOOSE not to be covered, even under employer sponsored healthcare plans. They are normally healthy young people who wont spent $10-20 bucks a week to help cover the cost of a healthcare plan because they dont think they'll use it or ever need it.

3) the final truth is everyone has access to critical care today as is, no hospital will turn you away nor can they. Tax payers are already covering the cost of this in many markets.

1) Are the majority of uninsured really illegal aliens? I think there's something like 15 million illegal aliens in the country, are there not 31 million people who are uninsured? I don't ask this with any sarcasm, it's a real question.

2. A large percentage of the uninsured are young people, that's true. You say that a lot of young people won't spend the extra 20 bucks a week for health insurance but I know a lot of college students who actually can't afford to shell out $80 a month. And yes, schools will provide insurance but it just gets tacked onto your student loans. And I would imagine another significant percentage involves children who's parents don't provide them with health insurance.

3. Everyone does have access, you're right. But for some the cost is so prohibitive that they would rather fight out an infection on their own than spend thousands of dollars in medical bills if they're uninsured.

[masomenos]

Your assessment is both perceptive and accurate. However, in my defense, I wasn't going for "good." I aimed for mediocrity, and I achieved such - hence why my response was, in fact, a smashing success.:p:

Oh, shut up, you! :D

[WoodysGirl]

You need to check into Aetna or Blue Cross then, for about 130 a month you can get full emergency insurance and two doctor visits a year, as well as a $10 dollar co-pay for medicine. It will be very worth it if something happens my friend,without it if you break a leg you'll be out thousands.

If you go to the emergency room with food poisoning you'll be charged two grand!
When I was contracting, I would go long periods without insurance. I tried going thru Blue Cross, but it seems they have height/weight proportion requirements. I'm not a supersize person, but I'm pretty sure I fall outside the "standard" for most people. However, I eat healthy, exercise regularly, and don't have any major health issues. I was still denied. This was back in 2004, so maybe it's changed since then.

Haven't had to worry about it since my jobs have provided coverage. My new job pays the premiums 100% so I don't have to pay anything now out of pocket.

[BrAinPaiNt]

When I was contracting, I would go long periods without insurance. I tried going thru Blue Cross, but it seems they have height/weight proportion requirements. I'm not a supersize person, but I'm pretty sure I fall outside the "standard" for most people. However, I eat healthy, exercise regularly, and don't have any major health issues. I was still denied. This was back in 2004, so maybe it's changed since then.

Haven't had to worry about it since my jobs have provided coverage. My new job pays the premiums 100% so I don't have to pay anything now out of pocket.

I used to think that Blue Cross/Blue shield was the tops. Not that I had them mind you but always heard they were the best for years.

Well when they switched the SS prescription plan to private companies they were one of the choices on the list.

My wife is disabled so she is on SS.

I told her to take Blue Cross as they have always had a good reputation.

Man alive did they try and screw us over.

They were doing all kind of things that we just did not approve of so she dropped them and went with another on the list.

About a year after we, I should say she as I am not disabled or on the plan, and was with another group. She went to get some prescriptions and was told her policy was canceled.

So she calls up her group and come to find out that Blue Cross called this other group, and somehow told them that she wanted to cancel with that group and signed her back up to blue cross without her ever requesting that.

She was furious for obvious reasons and we filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau over the situation.

So...I will never trust those people again.

[dbair1967]

[quote=dbair1967;2267736]

[QUOTE]1) Are the majority of uninsured really illegal aliens? I think there's something like 15 million illegal aliens in the country, are there not 31 million people who are uninsured? I don't ask this with any sarcasm, it's a real question.

honestly nobody knows, because we dont know how many illegals there really are. I guess it depends on where you get your number from.

2. A large percentage of the uninsured are young people, that's true. You say that a lot of young people won't spend the extra 20 bucks a week for health insurance but I know a lot of college students who actually can't afford to shell out $80 a month. And yes, schools will provide insurance but it just gets tacked onto your student loans. And I would imagine another significant percentage involves children who's parents don't provide them with health insurance.

I guess I should have clarified, but I wasnt referring to college students, who in most cases can remain on their parents coverage until age 25 or 26 now. I was referring to young FT workers who are eligible to enroll in coverage, but dont.

3. Everyone does have access, you're right. But for some the cost is so prohibitive that they would rather fight out an infection on their own than spend thousands of dollars in medical bills if they're uninsured.

Again, alot of people get care and never pay. Alot of times non payment is written off as a loss, or depending on where treatment was obtained tax payers end up covering it. The statement "people dont have access to care" is untrue. Everyone can get treated regardless fo ability to pay, especially in emergency/critical care situations.

[WoodysGirl]

That's crazy, Brain. I'm actually covered under Blue Cross California through my job and the coverage is great. But if what happened to your wife happened to me, I'd be just as pissed as you.

I don't have any good ideas, but one I would like to see is the COBRA plan. Make it cheaper to continue your health coverage when you're no longer with the company.