SICKO

[skullman]

the only complaint I have is one of my meds(lyrica) for some reason they dont want to pay for it.I will eventually get it but is huge hassle.When I hit 1 grand ins. went to paying 100%.It has saved me a bundle-that is an artteriogram 2surgeries rehab and a prosthesis.It could have cost me a good bit.And I purchased max long and short term disibility.That makes a difference on a weekly check.I

[sluggish]

Sluggish
Yr reply was in very poor taste ....

What is in poor taste is the idea that since I have a job and relatively good health I should pay for the healthcare of someone who has neither.  Or are you suggesting that we extract said healthcare from providers with the barrel of a gun?  I would find that in extremely poor taste.

[Shamus]

What is in poor taste is the idea that since I have a job and relatively good health I should pay for the healthcare of someone who has neither.  Or are you suggesting that we extract said healthcare from providers with the barrel of a gun?  I would find that in extremely poor taste.

That is an attitude that I find common in people who are covered under a group plan and figure that it will be there forever and through retirement, public employees and large corp types come to mind.

The eye opening happens when they get downsized or the employer discontinues the coverage, maybe in their 50's and they hit the individual market for coverage after the COBRA expires. 

[Anaxogoras]

Sluggish, you should also consider those who are self-employed entrepreneurs, or small business owners.  Then there are poor souls who work 2 or 3 part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.  Just because you don't have access to cheap group health insurance doesn't mean you don't work.

Despite the extraordinary high cost of living in Japan, it still costs more to manufacture a car in the United States because of the health insurance and pension burdens on the US auto maker, whereas in Japan those benefits are public.  Private health care costs in this country are making us less competitive capitalists!

[sluggish]

Sluggish, you should also consider those who are self-employed entrepreneurs, or small business owners.  Then there are poor souls who work 2 or 3 part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.  Just because you don't have access to cheap group health insurance doesn't mean you don't work.

Despite the extraordinary high cost of living in Japan, it still costs more to manufacture a car in the United States because of the health insurance and pension burdens on the US auto maker, whereas in Japan those benefits are public.  Private health care costs in this country are making us less competitive capitalists!

You apparently don't understand what "public" means.  It means that the "cans" provide for the "can'ts" and "won'ts".  You do this by either forcibly extracting the cost from a providing class or by forcibly extracting the service from the professionals.

[Anaxogoras]

Go to flamewarriors.  I'm done with this.

Oaktree, I hope you can work out some affordable health insurance.  Good luck.

[Rolex]

That is not what it means. Everyone who pays into the health insurance program in Japan is covered with no pre-existing condition restrictions. People are free to not pay into it, but aren't covered. They are also free to use some other health insurance, but there is no need, since it is affordable for everyone. It includes dental and prescriptions also.

Doctors are in private practice and everyone can choose their doctor. There are private, community and university hospitals, just like in the US. People can choose wherever they want to go. Overall health care costs are substantially less than in the US because doctors don't have to pay $100,000 per year malpractice insurance. Many hospitals are non-profit. That doesn't mean that care is poor, it means that they charge enough to pay for all services and staff, plus funds for reinvestment in future equipment and building costs. Health care is health care with no $50 million CEO's. That's why you pay 5 times what I pay for the same tests and procedures and your health insurance is 5 times what I pay.

[Fulmar]

[oakranger]

Go to flamewarriors.  I'm done with this.

Oaktree, I hope you can work out some affordable health insurance.  Good luck.

Thx Gavai.

[Die Hard]

I'm not a fan of this "one or the other" mentality. Why can't we have socialized basic healthcare for all, and privatized healthcare for those that prefer and can afford it?

[VonMessa]

You apparently don't understand what "public" means.  It means that the "cans" provide for the "can'ts" and "won'ts".  You do this by either forcibly extracting the cost from a providing class or by forcibly extracting the service from the professionals.

It means exactly what Rolex said.

Furthermore, just about everything Rolex stated is true.

I can see your point of paying for those who are unwilling to contribute themselves, but what about what Gavagai said about the people who are willing to work and contribute, but can't secure full-time employment (36 hrs./week here in PA).  What about the senior citizens?  I can tell, as my 87 year old grandfather lives with my wife and I, that MediCare is a crock and that he is damn lucky that he has a secondary insurance.

I also understand what Rox is saying, to a point.  Americans, by and large, have become very lazy, complacent, and do not take care of themselves as well as they should.What I refuse to accept is the "burden" that insurance companies have to bear.  They collect from both ends:  the patients for the health care insurance AND from the Doctors with the (ever increasing and ridiculous) malpractice premiums.  To ice that cake, somehow it is becoming more and more common that the insurance companies get to make the decision about what is "medically necessary" .  Yes, it's a business based upon risk, but why refuse anyone.  Wouldn't it be just as profitable to adjust premiums based on AMOUNT of risk?

I cannot say I am a big fan of socialized health care either.  Not until all Doctors (and health care providers as a whole are all required to adhere to a higher standard to get into, or stay in, the health care system.  Most doctors these days are like a M.A.S.H. unit.  Diagnose and treat the symptom instead of the problem.  "Here take this pill."  Fear not, the drug manufacturers are cashing in on that one, also.  I live about 5 minutes from Merck and in the past 20 years, I have seen their campus grow from a couple of acres to more than a square mile in size.

It's a shame that we, as Americans, live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but yet, cannot seem to take care of our own people (for whatever reason).  One would think that as ingenious and resourceful as we pride ourselves to be, that we could figure this one out.

I do not even have the time to rant about how our vets are treated, either.  How the very people who have pledged their flesh and blood to keep this country safe and free so that these big companies don't need to worry about socialism, etc, cannot even receive decent care for injuries sustained while in the line of duty just confounds me to no end.

Once the power to decide what is needed for a patient has been wrested from the insurance and drug companies and given back to the folks who have gone to school for years and years to become doctors, perhaps then things will be a bit more fair.

[sluggish]

It means exactly what Rolex said.

Furthermore, just about everything Rolex stated is true.

I can see your point of paying for those who are unwilling to contribute themselves, but what about what Gavagai said about the people who are willing to work and contribute, but can't secure full-time employment (36 hrs./week here in PA).  What about the senior citizens?  I can tell, as my 87 year old grandfather lives with my wife and I, that MediCare is a crock and that he is damn lucky that he has a secondary insurance.

I also understand what Rox is saying, to a point.  Americans, by and large, have become very lazy, complacent, and do not take care of themselves as well as they should.What I refuse to accept is the "burden" that insurance companies have to bear.  They collect from both ends:  the patients for the health care insurance AND from the Doctors with the (ever increasing and ridiculous) malpractice premiums.  To ice that cake, somehow it is becoming more and more common that the insurance companies get to make the decision about what is "medically necessary" .  Yes, it's a business based upon risk, but why refuse anyone.  Wouldn't it be just as profitable to adjust premiums based on AMOUNT of risk?

I cannot say I am a big fan of socialized health care either.  Not until all Doctors (and health care providers as a whole are all required to adhere to a higher standard to get into, or stay in, the health care system.  Most doctors these days are like a M.A.S.H. unit.  Diagnose and treat the symptom instead of the problem.  "Here take this pill."  Fear not, the drug manufacturers are cashing in on that one, also.  I live about 5 minutes from Merck and in the past 20 years, I have seen their campus grow from a couple of acres to more than a square mile in size.

It's a shame that we, as Americans, live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, but yet, cannot seem to take care of our own people (for whatever reason).  One would think that as ingenious and resourceful as we pride ourselves to be, that we could figure this one out.

I do not even have the time to rant about how our vets are treated, either.  How the very people who have pledged their flesh and blood to keep this country safe and free so that these big companies don't need to worry about socialism, etc, cannot even receive decent care for injuries sustained while in the line of duty just confounds me to no end.

Once the power to decide what is needed for a patient has been wrested from the insurance and drug companies and given back to the folks who have gone to school for years and years to become doctors, perhaps then things will be a bit more fair.

Basic health care coverage in the US can be had for less than $100 a month.  Around $200 for a family.  This just covers catastrophic expenses like surgeries and emergency visits.   Basic office visits should be paid out of pocket.  This will encourage the consumer to shop for the best deal promoting competition and bringing costs down.

Of the 40 some million uninsured people in the US the majority CHOOSE not to be covered.  These are the people who drive around in a $40k SUV getting 8 mpg with a 60 in plasma hung on the wall complaining about the lack of health care on their $150 a month cell phone.  The real point of this discussion is priorities.

[VonMessa]

Basic health care coverage in the US can be had for less than $100 a month.  Around $200 for a family.  This just covers catastrophic expenses like surgeries and emergency visits.   Basic office visits should be paid out of pocket.  This will encourage the consumer to shop for the best deal promoting competition and bringing costs down.

Of the 40 some million uninsured people in the US the majority CHOOSE not to be covered.  These are the people who drive around in a $40k SUV getting 8 mpg with a 60 in plasma hung on the wall complaining about the lack of health care on their $150 a month cell phone.  The real point of this discussion is priorities.

Indeed, priorities should be addressed also, but the OP's original question was whether or not we were happy with our health insurance.

As for the price for basic coverage that you quoted, it begs the question of "Where do you live?"

Here is a scan of one of this week's junk faxes to my office (Greater Philadelphia area).  Indeed, these prices reflect coverage besides just the "basic", but there are no choices for that listed.  On top of that, the next questions would be "Does the local hospital accept this insurance?  Does my PCP accept this insurance, and if not, what quality of care will I get from a PCP that DOES accept this insurance?  What types of things does the "basic" insurance deem medically necessary? " 



I agree that a competitive market breeds better pricing and, as a small business owner, I can respect that except for when it may have a bearing on the quality of health benefits and care that my family and I receive.
I am certainly not in any rush to have any medical procedures performed by the lowest bidder.

Just for reference, I own a 2006 Jeep Wrangler that gets 15 mpg if I am lucky.  I have a 32" "normal" television, and my cell phone bill is, thankfully, mostly paid for by my business.  I am not complaining about the "lack" of health insurance but moreover the quality, thereof.

I carry $2,000,000 worth of liability insurance for my business that costs me exponentially less than my health care insurance for my family without even factoring in the co-pay expenditures, which tally up to about $100-$200/month between Dr. visits and prescriptions.

Dental insurance?  Well, at least the kids are covered...........

I suspect that even with the questionable priorities that you previously cited, you are possibly being quite liberal with the definition of "choose"

[sluggish]

File a claim on that liability insurance and see what happens to the premiums (you'll probably get canceled).

[VonMessa]

File a claim on that liability insurance and see what happens to the premiums (you'll probably get canceled).

That may very well be true, but I do not make the connection of your analogy (if I may be permitted to make the assumption of what you are intending to compare).

If I "choose" to have health care and, for years, dutifully make payment on my premiums without making any major claims, then all is OK......

but

If someone in my family becomes chronically ill, and it cuts into the profit/loss ratio of my insurance provider, it is perfectly fine for them to cancel my contract at will, as it suits them?    I fail to see the quality in that.  In fact, I would wager on the actual legality of such practice.  The  Hinkley, CA court cases come to mind.   

I think that would be like comparing apples and oranges as far as liability insurance for a business is concerned.