Fingers crossed, that'll be the case here in the US (although I fear it'll be a political mess, like most things in the US).
I pay about $300/month for my health insurance. It is a good value, compared to some other states I've paid.
I'd also venture to think that this economic mess and unemployment is going to make the health care systems much worse than it is now. All those unemployed that have no insurance now...how will they get it if Obama doesn't succeed?
We'll see. I have little faith that things will work out well, although we so desperately need something to help elevate this country to the standards of the rest of the world.
Family coverage is $950 /month and the Individual coverage is $250 / month.
BC/BS PPO $500 deductible. Staff pays 25% to have some "skin in the game" and input on what coverage and deductible we offer.
If you were laid off in the past year, and you were covered then, COBRA can kick in and pay a whopping 65% of your premium for 9 months. Oh wait I got a form in the mail yesterday, for Illinois employees, it is now one year.
So roughly $87.50 / month for Cadillac Insurance taken out of your unemployment benefits.
While it is still money, if you were receiving $350 / week for unemployment that really is not too much to continue coverage.
I've had a HSA for several years now and am quite happy. It's not open enrollment time so I'm not remembering exact numbers but essentially the firm throws in around $1500/year into the HSA. I have the option of adding more to a maximum allowed amount. All preventative care (physicals, eye exam, etc) is 100% covered and not deducted from my balance. Anything I don't spend in a year is rolled over into the next. If I were to get extremely ill the max out of pocket in $3000/year so at most I'd be out $1500 if I needed major surgery, etc. Then again since I've been relatively healthy I have more than $3000 in the account currently. Under family coverage all is the same but the numbers multiply. For single coverage it costs roughly $50/month. Family is around $300 I believe, but the firm contributes more to the HSA as well.
My experience with this plan has been very positive and I think it's a very effective solution for smaller businesses, like architecture, where economies of scale don't play in for the cadillac co-pay plans.
universal healthcare FTW. $13/month for my steroid meds, and when the time comes for surgery, that'll cost me $0.
And I don't pay income tax right now because I'm a student and I don't make enough money to contribute. I also get some dental/vision/meds coverage from my school fees, which I believe are $250/year.
if americans were smart, they'd just cancel their private health insurance policies. this would quickly bankrupt & obliterate those nasty insurance companies that everybody loves to hate...and doctors would be forced to adopt a very primative pay-for-services approach in a competitive market.
of course, that will never happen because they would rather let "obama the great" take care of them...but that will only bankrupt the people, not the companies.
make - if I get sick I pay for it out of the HSA account. Have a debit card for the account and just pay right at the clinic. Had some x-rays recently and paid $150 for the service. Easy as pie. Like I said, after spending $3000 in any year everything is 100% covered and I don't pay anything addn'l, i.e. surgery or major medical.
Dustin - the receiving line for Canadian citizens at the Mayo clinic in Rochester, MN says differently about Universal Care.
With all due respect, being married to a Canadian citizen, having a large family living north of the border and from my own experiences with emergency rooms in Canada, the misconceptions about free and universal coverage north of the border are widespread, especially so for young and healthy Canadian citizens themselves.
First of all each Canadian province has their own gov't healthcare system. They are all similar in design to receive their national funding, but essentially are separate programs, so you have the healthcare your province gives you. Secondly, everyone pays a tax into that system, direct or indirect. There is a price, all be it less than what most American's pay for insurance, I'll give you that.
The cost of that cheaper price is the unintended consequences. Since doctors are paid on a "per visit" basis there is a huge shortage of GP or family practice doctors. Most are fully booked and will simply not accept any new patients while the majority of doctors want to work in emergency clinics where they can see the maximum number of patients in the shortest time. Many Canadian relatives & friends could not believe when we moved cities we were able to find a "family doctor" without trouble or a waiting list.
Secondly, Canada isn't a one-tier system. There are private clinics where people pay out of pocket or with supplemental insurance. My spouse had an employer paid supplemental insurance policy that very much resembled typical American insurance policies. There was a fee deducted on each paycheck for that...and the employees were happy to have it. Doctors like private clinics as they get paid better and patients supposedly get faster and better healthcare, a free market win-win in a utopian univeral system. Explain that.
What really amazes me though is the number of Canadians willing to come to the States and spend their own savings just to get medical care. I wasn't exaggerating about the Mayo clinic. We know several people that have done just that as they were either bogged down in a waiting list or Canadian doctors were simply unable to diagnose a rare condition. These are real people that I know personally and not some article I read in a newspaper.
Essentially I'd warn against saying a national healthcare is free. The costs are there, although not always monetary and not always up front.
The doctors and the insurance companies are seemingly easy targets.
However, they can only be as good as the system they operate within.
The "bad doctors and bad insurance companies" argument reminds me of blaming lawyers for the problems in our legal system.
And, if we look at the majority of waste within the current health care system, isn't it at least a bit interesting that most of the wasteful costs are generated through conformance with the current level of government bureaucracy?
In that light, it seems a bit unlikely that even more government control will reduce costs.
have risen 1.1% less per year than private health insurance costs. That's 33% less since 1970. So there's data that says the government can control costs better than a for-profit industry.
I went 3 years without health insurance, when I was working for a small firm who couldn't afford a group plan for employees. I was living in MA at the time, and was in my 20s with zero previous health issues, no family history of anything, non-smoker non-drinker non-everything. The cheapest quote I could get for minimal, emergency-only coverage was about $330. I opted not to carry insurance for those 3 years. I paid about $75 a year for a yearly clinic check-up, about $25 for the odd test here and there, and $30 a month for a prescription I take (which isn't covered by most plans anyway -- I've almost always had to pay $30 for it, that's the full price). All of these things would have cost me out of pocket regardless, as none of the individual plans I could afford came anywhere CLOSE to covering those. Although I made out ahead monetarily, I was constantly worried about crossing the street, riding in a friend's car, possibly getting strep and needing antiobiotics and a doctor's visit to get them... I am not a worrywort and yet it was just so continually stressful knowing I had no recourse if anything did happen. Thank god it didn't.
Now, the firm I have been working for most recently had a 100% paid PPO w/ BCBS. (Not too shabby!) I believe it cost the firm about $350-380/mo -- still waiting on exact quote. I have been laid off and am working on my own now. I am around 30 yrs of age, still with no health problems and no bad health history. The cheapest quote I could get with BCBS and still keep my doctors was about $130. That's with $5000 deductible and no prescription coverage (which is fine since the insurance companies, again, don't cover my only prescription anyway.) If I switch to HMO and lose my doctors, I could get away with paying $90/mo for emergency coverage only -- that's the lowest quote I got. Even with the 65% COBRA coverage, I will still pay around $140 or so to continue my pre-existing plan. I am weighing my options.
I can tell you from experience, however, that getting health care in France is an amazing and surreal experience. It is quite the opposite of what I hear from Canadians and very much the opposite of my American experiences. You walk RIGHT IN THE DOOR and I have yet to see a wait for any primary care physician. (Perhaps there is for specialists -- I don't know.) By contrast, when I learned I was getting laid off and would be losing my health coverage, I tried to book an appointment with my PCP for sometime within the month -- and learned that my PCP was booked solid for 3 full months. This is not the first time this has happened to me -- in fact, I have consistently had problems making appointments to see PCPs, in multiple states and under multiple health care plans. Again, this is on a fancy-pants PPO, not HMO.
Tell me again why people don't want health care change in this country? Why do people say "the government will make you switch doctors"? I ALREADY lose my doctors EVERY TIME I SWITCH JOBS! I have yet to hold the same doctor for more than 2 years since about Junior High. That includes the college period. Where are the Americans who are happy with their coverage? Who are they??
Btw, the first paragraph above is why I completely disagree with Massachusetts' idiotic "we'll just make it a law for people to have health insurance!" rule.
Also btw, I remember when I first got on this fancy PPO plan, I wanted to make appointments for a round of check-ups. So I went through doctor reviews, cross-checked which doctors were on my plan, and started calling to make appointments. I had already filled up 2 pages of names and crossed them off one by one until I found a doctor that could book an appointment within the same month. What the hell? This is in a major US city. What do people do when there's only a few doctors in town? It's absurd how long it takes to get the most basic appointments and check-ups. And then when you get there, they barely even look at you. It's amazing how patient and, frankly, thoughtful the French doctors have been in sitting with me and slowly making their examination. Again, with no wait in the waiting room.
A few reasons why many prefer that the Government leave health care alone (I, for one, love my plan)
-Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
-About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
-Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare
-End of life counselling every 5 years for America's over-65 population of 38-million would require hiring/training a gazillion government employed counsellors. How will we pay for that?
-Paying for health care for millions of illegals is a MAJOR ordeal. Not with my tax dollars!
-The US Government has a horrible track record with regards to running public programs.
-Lastly, a fantastic observation found in a health care blog...
"Maybe you, or others who support a 'public option', can answer one question. The United States has already tried its hand at a single-payer system. Based on an agreement in 1787, the government is responsible to provide health care to Native Indians on reservations. This government run single-payer system is an utter, complete failure. American Indians have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease. And, after Haiti, where in the Western hemisphere do men have the lowest life expectancy? It’s on Indian reservations in South Dakota. The government has failed to provide adequate health care for 1.9 million Native Americans (Google Indian Health Service failure). What makes you think they will do any better job with the 47 million uninsured or all 300 million of us? The government does not deserve to be given any additional role in health care at this time. If they can fix medicade, medicare, the VA, and IHS, then they could come back to us and ask for permission to expand their role in our health care."
About the illegals thing, the American economy is loosely based off the idea that you should be pumping out a minimum of three kids.
The great thing about immigration is that it allows us to keep families small (and cheap) while maintaining our ridiculous demand for growth.
Nationalized healthcare really only makes sense if you wish to move away from a growth economy to economy that maintains itself.
America is slowly finding out that an economy purely based on "growth" is terrible. Not only do we not have the human capital for it, we're finding out that we will very soon find a limit to our water, energy (both fuel and chemical), soil and social productive capacity.
So, why I am not necessarily happy about immigration... I personally do not want to have 8 kids.
"The US Government has a horrible track record with regards to running public programs."
Also, this is pure BS. The government had a wonderful track record with running things before the 1930s. In fact, the New Deal and the early mass privatization is what bankrupted many American cities, was the foundation of organized crime and was one of the primary reasons for the decline of many industrial centers in the U.S.
Also, some of the best things over the last 100 years to happen have been a result of government oversight. Although one could argue that this country might be a better place if we used all of the money we've spent on the space program towards beautifying and maintaining our cities.
Either way, If you want to walk down that road... just remember that defense spending and things like the Space Program are upper-class white collar welfare.
Yes, I have some pretty nice insurance. I do not pay for it. Someone takes care of that.
No, other than a bout of rheumatic fever I got as a result of taking cheap expired antibiotics I bought in Juarez and three stab wounds, I have not had any pressing health emergency in over 10 years.
In fact, I've never had a broken bone and I was only hospitalized once when I was five.
I'm one of those people who really does not need health insurance yet.
Honestly, I truthfully think that people who love their plans either a) have held the same job in a steady field of employment for many many years, something that is increasingly rare and thus these are all mostly middle-aged to older folks or b) have never experienced anything better and therefore don't understand how it could be better.
By the way, I actually don't really agree with the revisions currently being proposed -- I agree that they aren't very helpful in many ways. It looks like the "system" is going to become more of a clusterfuck for a time, before it eventually gets better. Frankly a better system in my mind would be to literally start over from scratch, but in our cat-fighting balance of a system, this will never happen. Therefore, the norm is to implement incremental changes that frustrate everyone for a more protracted time period than wholesale change would have.
What makes you say that XX number of people will lose their insurance? Because their employers switch them to the public plan? Wouldn't this only happen in the short term? The idea is that the mass exodus from expensive and crappy private plans will force insurers to provide better plans. This makes sense in theory, I just think it's going to be worse in the short term until the health insurance carriers decide to get over themselves and come around. The idea is that health insurers right now basically are a cartel who hold the market in their court. The only way to break up the cartel is to provide another player who beats them at their own game.
I would think this would appeal to conservatives -- you are providing a positive, market-driven incentive to businesses to improve their product, rather than forcing them to change their product via regulation.
I had a great employer-paid plan at my last firm. It cost me nothing but 415/month to add dental coverage. When I gave birth to my child, I paid about $200 for everything: all my pre-natal appointments, ultrasounds, etc. AND five days recovering from a C-section in the hospital. Also, I had my wisdom teeth out, which cost me about $50. For my coverage, the firm paid about $700/mo, when I had a child and my husband switched jobs we were able to add the two of them to the plan - the firm paid about $1,200/mo for the three of us, and I paid around $75/mo.
So that's a HUGE benefit to someone making $50k/year, no?!
Now, I pay $600/mo for the three of us on a private high deductible plan, but! maternity care isn't covered AT ALL. Neither of course is birth control, though I'll bet Viagra is (haven't looked into it for sure). My son had ear tubes inserted recently: I paid $3,000 for them; the same surgery under my old plan cost me about $100 out of pocket.
I said on another thread recently: I have no problem paying for small things myself. Regular care, vaccinations, OB/GYN, even prescriptions I basically see as my own responsibility. But if one of us gets cancer, it's highly likely that we'll fall prey to rescission, which means the insurer will boot me off the contract for a supposed "preexisting condition" - but I sure as hell won't get the $25,000 already paid into that contract back!
Like manta said above: why this fear of change, when as the industry stands now every time you change jobs you are forced to change your medical situation anyway? Health care should not have anything to do with someone's place of employ.
I have held 4 jobs and have never been unsatisfied with my insurance. Health/dental/vision packages have been the norm at each employer. Sure, it could be better, but I'm not complaining. To the credit of those who are unhappy, I'm a person who rarely gets sick, has never needed major surgery, does not require regular treatment and does not take prescription drugs. Perhaps my story would change if my situation were different.
I'm definitely not against making changes, but this fly by the seat of the pants, shove a plan down our throats in a matter of weeks is nonsense. Obama has tried time and time again to explain this plan, and even the brightest commentators don't get it. It's not about a feeling, it's about the facts. It's a nice thought/feeling that the US can become the apparent utopia you say France is; however, you must face a ton of facts about what is going to happen should this plan pass in its current form. FYI- my sister lived in Paris for 3 years and came back wondering why we would ever want their form of healthcare. Her experience was much different than yours.
We should learn a valuable lesson from getting hooked on feelings. When Obama said, "I won't increase taxes on the middle class ONE dime", it felt great to hear! 6 months later, he's hitting us with the facts...taxes most likely will increase!
In the case of healthcare, the facts have trumped Obama's ability to arrouse our emotions.
this fly by the seat of the pants, shove a plan down our throats in a matter of weeks is nonsense.
scribble, I actually agree with this, and imagine manta does too, since we are concerned that the next several years/decade of transition are going to be a huge mess. It seems likely that a half-assed change is what is about to happen, but I'm taking the long view that SOME form of change now will enable greater change, for the better, eventually.
aqua, I agree with a lot of what you said - the Canadian system is not perfect. I have waited for HOURS in hospital emergency rooms. The wait to see a specialist can be months. It's difficult for some to find a family practitioner. All true. But these problems also exist in the US, right? What I'm saying is that my Canadian system needs some fixing, just like yours.
But at the end of the day - and this is what really matters - I will go have my surgery and not pay a cent out-of-pocket. I'm not a moron and I realize my healthcare does come out of my taxes, but guess what? The U.S. spends more per-capita on healthcare than us Canucks do, and you have nothing resembling universal healthcare.
If I get cancer and need surgery, I don't pay out of pocket. If my kids need ear tubes (whatever those are), I don't pay. If I get hit by a car on the way home tonight, I'll be fixed up and sent on my way. (Holy shit, I hope I haven't jinxed myself here...) ETC...
A small company I worked for (8 employees?) brought in a health insurance rep to discuss having private insurance. We were all on contract so we'd have to pay for it ourselves. There were different options but basically it was for vision/dental/medication coverage, to varying degrees, with some 'perks' like private hospital rooms, etc. Yes, there are different tiers of healthcare available, but they are optional. If I don't want to pay $150 or $400 or $1000 per month for supplemental insurance, I don't. And even so, I can sleep easy at night knowing that I'll get adequate care without mortgaging my life to pay for it.
Universal or public health insurance isn't going to change anything. It will be the same as now, some doctors will take it others wont. The rich will be able to afford better care than the poor and the costs will continue to increase. Why? Because the problem is a lifestyle problem, why is Japan spending 60% of what we are? Because they are healthier, 2 out of 3 Americans are overweight, 1 of which is clinically obese. We spend 4-6 hours a day watching tv and just as much or more in front of a computer monitor. We eat foods high in refined sugars and fats and can't find the energy to exercise for 30 minutes a day!
I am fine with the government putting together yet another health care scheme, I just don't expect it to do anything for me.
And before you ask, Make, I have insurance, the company pays over $500 a month for it. My wife and children are covered through an outside plan that fits our needs better and costs 1/5th of what my work one does, considering how often I go to the doctor, I wish the office would just give me the extra $500 and I would go in with the wife and kids and take the extra $400 a month to the bank.
And I am guessing Scribbles facts come from the CBO, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
Have you considered what happens when you get old in places like the Netherlands? There is essentially a medical cut-off age, where the doctors decide whether or not you deserve to live longer. Under Obama care, circumstances would be similar. The President admitted this on the ABC Obama reality show, where callers get to phone in and ask questions.
One particular caller told a story about her 100 year old mother going to the doctor to request a pacemaker. One specialist said it wasn't worth it, but another saw her joy of life and went for the pacemaker. The woman lived another 5 years! The caller asked Obama "Would you have let my mother live?". Obama's anwer is below.
OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
A painkiller? Are you serious? A fair trade off for 5 years of joyous, prolonged life? Would Obama have suggested that Sen Ted Kennedy take a painkiller to alleviate his pain from cancer?
You have to consider the picture as a whole. You may be better off having children, but should you get cancer at on elderly age, the government may leave you for dead.
I actually never had known he made that promise when I voted for him, but I wouldn't have believed it anyway, and anyone who did is a fool. Of course taxes will go up. They are too low on the rich as it is. But I'd rather pay higher taxes and not have to suddenly be terrified for my health when I lose my job (so you are hit with a double whammy of bad news and shit to deal with), so that's the fundamental difference between you and me. I am ok with paying my government to provide me with things that it is difficult for me to provide myself with. I gain peace of mind from that.
Meanwhile, I agree with lb about paying for random incidentals yourself. That is how it works in France. The big things are covered and the minor things you bear more of the brunt of the cost. It cost me $45 for a walk-in-off-the-street doctor's appointment in France. It cost usually between $3-5 for medications as those are generally highly-subsidized (being that they are on-going requirements). One-time random things you pay more for.
Yes I agree that I really want them to take the time to craft the right plan, rather than racing to tackle it all at once. There's no good way to shortchange the amount of time you give to thinking over a particular problem. The faster you try to push it through, generally the worse it will be (up to a certain point). This is covered in the Contract Documents exam!
yeah... the argument that the US governement is incapable of running a health care system is just really narrow minded... its cherry picking...
ask medicare members what they think of their health care plans... medicare constantly polls at 60+% satisfaction, with medicare advantage plans closer to 70%...
thats significantly higher than the regular populations satisfaction with their health care
Llettdownl,
What about the VA Hospitals? That is the only "health care system' really run by the government, Medicaid and Medicare are just insurance schemes. And you can tell how well they work by how many doctors are flocking to provide services to those insured by Medicaid/care.
scribble, for every doctor that thought a pacemaker in a 100yo woman was a good idea, I'll bet I could find one or more that felt the risk of subjecting her body to the shock of the surgery meant that the possibility of a good outcome was slim to none. She did well, so your anecdote supports your argument. But I'd suggest you need to follow your own advice from your last paragraph: You have to consider the picture as a whole. As a whole, what we have now is a terrible system that pays zillions of dollars for extraordinary care for a few, none for preventative care for the majority or general care for many, and is absolutely NOT a "free market".
But if one of us gets cancer, it's highly likely that we'll fall prey to rescission, which means the insurer will boot me off the contract for a supposed "preexisting condition" - but I sure as hell won't get the $25,000 already paid into that contract back!
I have never understood how this was legal. You sign a contract with someone to provide you a service in exchange for a monthly payment. The time comes due for the service to be provided, and they decide not to give it to you, but they are still entitled to all the money you have already paid them according to the terms of your contract. What?!
Scribble : you are utterly ignoring the fact that INSURANCE COMPANIES ALREADY DENY COVERAGE FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS YOU ARE BRINGING UP. This deserves caps because I keep hearing this over and over again and it betrays an ignorance about current health care coverage. Do you have any relatives who have ever been ill, who have perhaps needed a transplant of their own? There are ALREADY parameters in place, written down and strictly followed by insurance companies, which decide whether or not the person will receive the care he needs. There are ALREADY provisions in your health care insurance that govern which old people will receive which end-of-life care medications. Have you shepherded an elderly relative through this process? It is not fun. You have to weigh how much time they will gain against how much money they have left in their savings to pay for it. If you gamble wrong, they either end up dead with a lot of money left over or alive but broke. It sucks.
You will either bear the cost of these people's healthcare coverage or you will bear the cost of increasing rates of personal bankruptcy. Either way, society is already paying exorbitantly -- and we are currently paying for both of these costs. Paying for a nation-wide health-care safety net will be the cheaper long-term option. The results of personal bankruptcy are devestating, made worse than the numbers suggest due to the emotional and pyschological component of economics.
We simply need to cut down the amount of profit that health insurance companies are syphoning out of the system and redirect that toward providing better health care. This will make the rich less rich, yes, but it will provide a much more stable long-term future for our country. Fewer personal bankruptcies, more incentive for small-business growth, more money in the middle-class pockets each month (as joshcookie mentioned), and more incentive for preventative care all combine to be proven contributors to long-term societal prosperity.
Scribble : if you have already changed healthcare coverage a few times when you changed jobs and not been bothered by it, then why do you care if it changes on you again if your employer switches to the national option? It will be just another health care plan in your list of health care plans. If we all already change plans constantly, then who cares if we get a new one. Unless we own our own business or pay out of pocket (very rare), we've never been able to pick our own plans anyway. I've always had what was given to me either by my employer or my parents' employer. What kind of choice is that?
The thing I simply don't understand is why anyone is ok with giving away a portion of their hard-earned money each month to the profits of some other company, when they could be giving less of this money away. Unless we work for AETNA / BCBS / etc, shouldn't we all be fighting for a cheaper, more equitable system? Why should my money go to profits for somebody else? I'd rather have that money go to provide health care for someone else than a jet-ski for some CEO's teenager.
"What about the VA Hospitals? That is the only "health care system' really run by the government, Medicaid and Medicare are just insurance schemes. And you can tell how well they work by how many doctors are flocking to provide services to those insured by Medicaid/care."
Rather well said. Put another way:
More expensive crap courtesy of the people who brought you the current mess.
... its not particularly well put considering the fact that the public option would more likely than not look like a significant expansion of medicare...
so no, its not well put...
but anyway, manta just made the best argument on healthcare ive seen in any of these discussions.
"Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance"
that really is one of the most shocking statistics ive heard in a long, long time...78%... i knew bankruptcies due to medical bills were the most common, but had NO IDEA that 78% of those bankruptcies were filed by people who had health insurance at the start of their illness... that is completely absurd
"More expensive crap courtesy of the people who brought you the current mess."
Actually many doctors prefer working with one system rather than the umteen different systems with their own paperwork and bureaucratic fiefdoms out there. I guess you didn't look at the data from Health and Human Services above or consider that private health insurance costs are growing at a rate where health insurance costs will be 20% of GDP and effectively make our economy the most uncompetitive in the world?
yes to insurance. gone back and forth between humana and bcbs. it's getting expensive as hell - 950/month for a ppo family plan with a 1k deductible.
also, being an llc owner, all my health insurance (that the company pays for) counts as personal income, not as a deductible expense. got to love how the tax code works...
we pay 100% of individual employees premiums. if they add anyone else, they pay the full amount. we're just too small (and prices are too high) to pay for anything else.
to put it in perspective, our insurance bill is higher than our rent each month. it's approximately 4% of our gross billings (not including consultants)
Many great points, thanks everyone. As I said, I'm not suggesting that the country stay exactly the way it is. I haven't experienced major health problems, which plays a major role in me being happy with the free dental cleanings, eye check ups, etc. Major surgery or a pregnant wife may have me singing a different tune.
For me, this isn't solely about MY health care. I'm simply opposed to pushing through a bill that even the president himself doesn't understand, and that will undoubtedly cause a host of problems down the line.
manta -
Did you not watch any of the debates? Obama wagged his finger at the camera and boldly said taxes for the middle class wouldn't go up one dime. Most of my friends who voted for Obama, voted for him based on how he made them feel, not what they knew about his policy, ideology and character. Funny story: During the campaign, I was headed to a meeting with my boss. She was ranting about how smart and well spoken Obama is, when I asked, "How do you feel about his plan to overhaul health care?". She responded, "Honestly, I know nothing about his agenda...but he went to Harvard and he has good energy!"
Yes, I've experienced the death of elderly family members and know how terrible it can be. You're right, the current system does refuse to cover treatment in many cases. It's by no means a perfect system, but let's wait until we have a PLAN before we spend a trillion dollars on something that MIGHT work.
Obama is all about fear:
1. He told us the stimulus bill had to go through, or the country would enter a depression.
2. Cap and tax must pass or the environment will deplete before our eyes.
3. Health care must pass immediately because we're in a health care crisis.
This is make or break. The bill fails, and he either moves to the center (like Clinton) and hopes for a 2nd term, or settles for being a 1-term Pres. like Bush Sr.
outed -- we pay 100% of individual employees premiums. if they add anyone else, they pay the full amount. we're just too small (and prices are too high) to pay for anything else.
What do you mean by this? Does it cost you more if you pass along costs to your employees? I'm confused and curious.
Scribble, You are clearly speaking about native health care from a fairly uninformed standpoint. I have worked (one summer) and have relatives who live on the Cherokee reservation in NC. They have great health care and don't have to pay for it. It is paid through a federal program and also through casino revenue. However most of the people there are incredibly unhealthy but that doesn't have to do with the access/quality of health care. That is a whole another topic entirely. All reservations can't be addressed equally either. I am quite certain that some have horrible health care but that doesn't mean that the government can't run health care. For example health care for troops is very successful and I wouldn't mind having access to the super cheap car insurance military families have.
no shit, aking. scribbles, dude (or, dudette), please don't try to turn a problem that is fundamentally founded on racism and hate (self-hate and otherwise) as well as a lot of other social ills into an argument for debating obama's plan. it debases the native communities and it does you no honour at all.
sweet jezus but that just pisses me off.
jon stewart made a very good argument. not convinced that it means anything however. the obama plan is not as good, nor as simple, as the military plan.
anyway, i am canadian, lived in UK and now in Japan so have always had proper coverage supported by government. USA is an anomaly, not the norm, in that respect.
i don't know so much about japanese system. payment for coverage is required by law, much as obama wants i suppose. payment is based on income. rich people pay more than poor, but this is country where the people who pay highest axes in country are on tv top 10 shows every year, as aspirational figures (paying high taxes means you are incredibly wealthy, etc etc). so since i am middle calss-ish i pay about 100 dollars a month for care that covers dentist, doctor, optometrist, and whatever specialists i choose to try on. i do have to pay a portion of the fee however, unless i am over 65 or a child. so old and young are free, and everyone else pays 30% of cost. it means it is worth having a bit of extra insurance to cover hospital bed if you get sick, but in general healthcare is affordable. i cannot say for sure but i have always assumed the government is actually subsidising fees even further, but could not say for sure.
i was in lots of accidents as a kid (farm kids break bones a lot) and free hospital was awesome in canada. now my grandparents and parents etc are getting up there they spend more time in hospital than i ever did. there are issues, but it is not life-threatening. i suspect that given their social status (low-ish) in the USA they would be uninsured and probably in very rough shape. perhaps dead even.
my da was in charge of 23 hospitals in rural canada before he passed away a few years back. we often talked about how canada compares to usa. he could talk both sides of the argument and essentially said both systems are wonderful at their best and horrid at their worst. i personally feel the american system has lower lows but that is just me.
funnily he toyed for awhile with moving to states for the bigger bucks running hospitals there but he chose not to because the job was just too messed up with bureacratic nonsense. yeah, free-market usa is more paperwork and politics than socialist canada...or so he seemed to think anyway. ironic isn't it?
Are you covered by health insurance from (or not)? How much does it cost?
Are you covered by health insurance from (or not)? How much does it cost?
Has anyone been laid off? Or had their policy cancelled? How are you affording your insurance?
There are a few people who work for themselves on this board... are you satisfied with your insurance?
nope cause in my my country we all share the costs of a proper healthcare system. smilyface.
agfa8x,
You don't have insurance?
Have you ever gotten sick?
It means that health care is paid for by taxes, so everybody has access to it and not just the lucky few, it's called solidarity.
Fingers crossed, that'll be the case here in the US (although I fear it'll be a political mess, like most things in the US).
I pay about $300/month for my health insurance. It is a good value, compared to some other states I've paid.
I'd also venture to think that this economic mess and unemployment is going to make the health care systems much worse than it is now. All those unemployed that have no insurance now...how will they get it if Obama doesn't succeed?
We'll see. I have little faith that things will work out well, although we so desperately need something to help elevate this country to the standards of the rest of the world.
At our office...
Family coverage is $950 /month and the Individual coverage is $250 / month.
BC/BS PPO $500 deductible. Staff pays 25% to have some "skin in the game" and input on what coverage and deductible we offer.
If you were laid off in the past year, and you were covered then, COBRA can kick in and pay a whopping 65% of your premium for 9 months. Oh wait I got a form in the mail yesterday, for Illinois employees, it is now one year.
So roughly $87.50 / month for Cadillac Insurance taken out of your unemployment benefits.
While it is still money, if you were receiving $350 / week for unemployment that really is not too much to continue coverage.
I've had a HSA for several years now and am quite happy. It's not open enrollment time so I'm not remembering exact numbers but essentially the firm throws in around $1500/year into the HSA. I have the option of adding more to a maximum allowed amount. All preventative care (physicals, eye exam, etc) is 100% covered and not deducted from my balance. Anything I don't spend in a year is rolled over into the next. If I were to get extremely ill the max out of pocket in $3000/year so at most I'd be out $1500 if I needed major surgery, etc. Then again since I've been relatively healthy I have more than $3000 in the account currently. Under family coverage all is the same but the numbers multiply. For single coverage it costs roughly $50/month. Family is around $300 I believe, but the firm contributes more to the HSA as well.
My experience with this plan has been very positive and I think it's a very effective solution for smaller businesses, like architecture, where economies of scale don't play in for the cadillac co-pay plans.
universal healthcare FTW. $13/month for my steroid meds, and when the time comes for surgery, that'll cost me $0.
And I don't pay income tax right now because I'm a student and I don't make enough money to contribute. I also get some dental/vision/meds coverage from my school fees, which I believe are $250/year.
if americans were smart, they'd just cancel their private health insurance policies. this would quickly bankrupt & obliterate those nasty insurance companies that everybody loves to hate...and doctors would be forced to adopt a very primative pay-for-services approach in a competitive market.
of course, that will never happen because they would rather let "obama the great" take care of them...but that will only bankrupt the people, not the companies.
puddles,
Do you have insurance?
Agupura,
What happens if you get sick? Or have an accident and need surgery?
make - if I get sick I pay for it out of the HSA account. Have a debit card for the account and just pay right at the clinic. Had some x-rays recently and paid $150 for the service. Easy as pie. Like I said, after spending $3000 in any year everything is 100% covered and I don't pay anything addn'l, i.e. surgery or major medical.
Dustin - the receiving line for Canadian citizens at the Mayo clinic in Rochester, MN says differently about Universal Care.
With all due respect, being married to a Canadian citizen, having a large family living north of the border and from my own experiences with emergency rooms in Canada, the misconceptions about free and universal coverage north of the border are widespread, especially so for young and healthy Canadian citizens themselves.
First of all each Canadian province has their own gov't healthcare system. They are all similar in design to receive their national funding, but essentially are separate programs, so you have the healthcare your province gives you. Secondly, everyone pays a tax into that system, direct or indirect. There is a price, all be it less than what most American's pay for insurance, I'll give you that.
The cost of that cheaper price is the unintended consequences. Since doctors are paid on a "per visit" basis there is a huge shortage of GP or family practice doctors. Most are fully booked and will simply not accept any new patients while the majority of doctors want to work in emergency clinics where they can see the maximum number of patients in the shortest time. Many Canadian relatives & friends could not believe when we moved cities we were able to find a "family doctor" without trouble or a waiting list.
Secondly, Canada isn't a one-tier system. There are private clinics where people pay out of pocket or with supplemental insurance. My spouse had an employer paid supplemental insurance policy that very much resembled typical American insurance policies. There was a fee deducted on each paycheck for that...and the employees were happy to have it. Doctors like private clinics as they get paid better and patients supposedly get faster and better healthcare, a free market win-win in a utopian univeral system. Explain that.
What really amazes me though is the number of Canadians willing to come to the States and spend their own savings just to get medical care. I wasn't exaggerating about the Mayo clinic. We know several people that have done just that as they were either bogged down in a waiting list or Canadian doctors were simply unable to diagnose a rare condition. These are real people that I know personally and not some article I read in a newspaper.
Essentially I'd warn against saying a national healthcare is free. The costs are there, although not always monetary and not always up front.
Aguapura,
We spent 15.25 of our GDP on healthcare whereas Japan spent 8% (I think it was 2006). The difference is that doctors don't make $300k a year in Japan.
And the Japanese live longer.
Have you read the New Yorker article on health care in Texas?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
Puddles,
Who is bankrupting whom if we are spending almost twice as much as the Japanese to cover 60% of the people whereas everyone in Japan is covered?
The doctors and the insurance companies are seemingly easy targets.
However, they can only be as good as the system they operate within.
The "bad doctors and bad insurance companies" argument reminds me of blaming lawyers for the problems in our legal system.
And, if we look at the majority of waste within the current health care system, isn't it at least a bit interesting that most of the wasteful costs are generated through conformance with the current level of government bureaucracy?
In that light, it seems a bit unlikely that even more government control will reduce costs.
"The "bad doctors and bad insurance companies" argument reminds me of blaming lawyers for the problems in our legal system."
I don't think that is what anyone is saying.
Medicaire costs according to the
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
have risen 1.1% less per year than private health insurance costs. That's 33% less since 1970. So there's data that says the government can control costs better than a for-profit industry.
Do you have insurance?
I went 3 years without health insurance, when I was working for a small firm who couldn't afford a group plan for employees. I was living in MA at the time, and was in my 20s with zero previous health issues, no family history of anything, non-smoker non-drinker non-everything. The cheapest quote I could get for minimal, emergency-only coverage was about $330. I opted not to carry insurance for those 3 years. I paid about $75 a year for a yearly clinic check-up, about $25 for the odd test here and there, and $30 a month for a prescription I take (which isn't covered by most plans anyway -- I've almost always had to pay $30 for it, that's the full price). All of these things would have cost me out of pocket regardless, as none of the individual plans I could afford came anywhere CLOSE to covering those. Although I made out ahead monetarily, I was constantly worried about crossing the street, riding in a friend's car, possibly getting strep and needing antiobiotics and a doctor's visit to get them... I am not a worrywort and yet it was just so continually stressful knowing I had no recourse if anything did happen. Thank god it didn't.
Now, the firm I have been working for most recently had a 100% paid PPO w/ BCBS. (Not too shabby!) I believe it cost the firm about $350-380/mo -- still waiting on exact quote. I have been laid off and am working on my own now. I am around 30 yrs of age, still with no health problems and no bad health history. The cheapest quote I could get with BCBS and still keep my doctors was about $130. That's with $5000 deductible and no prescription coverage (which is fine since the insurance companies, again, don't cover my only prescription anyway.) If I switch to HMO and lose my doctors, I could get away with paying $90/mo for emergency coverage only -- that's the lowest quote I got. Even with the 65% COBRA coverage, I will still pay around $140 or so to continue my pre-existing plan. I am weighing my options.
I can tell you from experience, however, that getting health care in France is an amazing and surreal experience. It is quite the opposite of what I hear from Canadians and very much the opposite of my American experiences. You walk RIGHT IN THE DOOR and I have yet to see a wait for any primary care physician. (Perhaps there is for specialists -- I don't know.) By contrast, when I learned I was getting laid off and would be losing my health coverage, I tried to book an appointment with my PCP for sometime within the month -- and learned that my PCP was booked solid for 3 full months. This is not the first time this has happened to me -- in fact, I have consistently had problems making appointments to see PCPs, in multiple states and under multiple health care plans. Again, this is on a fancy-pants PPO, not HMO.
Tell me again why people don't want health care change in this country? Why do people say "the government will make you switch doctors"? I ALREADY lose my doctors EVERY TIME I SWITCH JOBS! I have yet to hold the same doctor for more than 2 years since about Junior High. That includes the college period. Where are the Americans who are happy with their coverage? Who are they??
This "system" is a clusterfuck of ill-management.
Btw, the first paragraph above is why I completely disagree with Massachusetts' idiotic "we'll just make it a law for people to have health insurance!" rule.
Also btw, I remember when I first got on this fancy PPO plan, I wanted to make appointments for a round of check-ups. So I went through doctor reviews, cross-checked which doctors were on my plan, and started calling to make appointments. I had already filled up 2 pages of names and crossed them off one by one until I found a doctor that could book an appointment within the same month. What the hell? This is in a major US city. What do people do when there's only a few doctors in town? It's absurd how long it takes to get the most basic appointments and check-ups. And then when you get there, they barely even look at you. It's amazing how patient and, frankly, thoughtful the French doctors have been in sitting with me and slowly making their examination. Again, with no wait in the waiting room.
mantaray
A few reasons why many prefer that the Government leave health care alone (I, for one, love my plan)
-Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
-About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
-Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare
-End of life counselling every 5 years for America's over-65 population of 38-million would require hiring/training a gazillion government employed counsellors. How will we pay for that?
-Paying for health care for millions of illegals is a MAJOR ordeal. Not with my tax dollars!
-The US Government has a horrible track record with regards to running public programs.
-Lastly, a fantastic observation found in a health care blog...
"Maybe you, or others who support a 'public option', can answer one question. The United States has already tried its hand at a single-payer system. Based on an agreement in 1787, the government is responsible to provide health care to Native Indians on reservations. This government run single-payer system is an utter, complete failure. American Indians have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease. And, after Haiti, where in the Western hemisphere do men have the lowest life expectancy? It’s on Indian reservations in South Dakota. The government has failed to provide adequate health care for 1.9 million Native Americans (Google Indian Health Service failure). What makes you think they will do any better job with the 47 million uninsured or all 300 million of us? The government does not deserve to be given any additional role in health care at this time. If they can fix medicade, medicare, the VA, and IHS, then they could come back to us and ask for permission to expand their role in our health care."
Make, I think your argument stand on its own, particularly the part citing Medicare as a model for cost-control and efficiency.
About the illegals thing, the American economy is loosely based off the idea that you should be pumping out a minimum of three kids.
The great thing about immigration is that it allows us to keep families small (and cheap) while maintaining our ridiculous demand for growth.
Nationalized healthcare really only makes sense if you wish to move away from a growth economy to economy that maintains itself.
America is slowly finding out that an economy purely based on "growth" is terrible. Not only do we not have the human capital for it, we're finding out that we will very soon find a limit to our water, energy (both fuel and chemical), soil and social productive capacity.
So, why I am not necessarily happy about immigration... I personally do not want to have 8 kids.
"The US Government has a horrible track record with regards to running public programs."
Also, this is pure BS. The government had a wonderful track record with running things before the 1930s. In fact, the New Deal and the early mass privatization is what bankrupted many American cities, was the foundation of organized crime and was one of the primary reasons for the decline of many industrial centers in the U.S.
Also, some of the best things over the last 100 years to happen have been a result of government oversight. Although one could argue that this country might be a better place if we used all of the money we've spent on the space program towards beautifying and maintaining our cities.
Either way, If you want to walk down that road... just remember that defense spending and things like the Space Program are upper-class white collar welfare.
Orochi,
Do you have health insurance?
Have you ever been sick?
Yes, I have some pretty nice insurance. I do not pay for it. Someone takes care of that.
No, other than a bout of rheumatic fever I got as a result of taking cheap expired antibiotics I bought in Juarez and three stab wounds, I have not had any pressing health emergency in over 10 years.
In fact, I've never had a broken bone and I was only hospitalized once when I was five.
I'm one of those people who really does not need health insurance yet.
Honestly, I truthfully think that people who love their plans either a) have held the same job in a steady field of employment for many many years, something that is increasingly rare and thus these are all mostly middle-aged to older folks or b) have never experienced anything better and therefore don't understand how it could be better.
By the way, I actually don't really agree with the revisions currently being proposed -- I agree that they aren't very helpful in many ways. It looks like the "system" is going to become more of a clusterfuck for a time, before it eventually gets better. Frankly a better system in my mind would be to literally start over from scratch, but in our cat-fighting balance of a system, this will never happen. Therefore, the norm is to implement incremental changes that frustrate everyone for a more protracted time period than wholesale change would have.
What makes you say that XX number of people will lose their insurance? Because their employers switch them to the public plan? Wouldn't this only happen in the short term? The idea is that the mass exodus from expensive and crappy private plans will force insurers to provide better plans. This makes sense in theory, I just think it's going to be worse in the short term until the health insurance carriers decide to get over themselves and come around. The idea is that health insurers right now basically are a cartel who hold the market in their court. The only way to break up the cartel is to provide another player who beats them at their own game.
I would think this would appeal to conservatives -- you are providing a positive, market-driven incentive to businesses to improve their product, rather than forcing them to change their product via regulation.
I had a great employer-paid plan at my last firm. It cost me nothing but 415/month to add dental coverage. When I gave birth to my child, I paid about $200 for everything: all my pre-natal appointments, ultrasounds, etc. AND five days recovering from a C-section in the hospital. Also, I had my wisdom teeth out, which cost me about $50. For my coverage, the firm paid about $700/mo, when I had a child and my husband switched jobs we were able to add the two of them to the plan - the firm paid about $1,200/mo for the three of us, and I paid around $75/mo.
So that's a HUGE benefit to someone making $50k/year, no?!
Now, I pay $600/mo for the three of us on a private high deductible plan, but! maternity care isn't covered AT ALL. Neither of course is birth control, though I'll bet Viagra is (haven't looked into it for sure). My son had ear tubes inserted recently: I paid $3,000 for them; the same surgery under my old plan cost me about $100 out of pocket.
I said on another thread recently: I have no problem paying for small things myself. Regular care, vaccinations, OB/GYN, even prescriptions I basically see as my own responsibility. But if one of us gets cancer, it's highly likely that we'll fall prey to rescission, which means the insurer will boot me off the contract for a supposed "preexisting condition" - but I sure as hell won't get the $25,000 already paid into that contract back!
Like manta said above: why this fear of change, when as the industry stands now every time you change jobs you are forced to change your medical situation anyway? Health care should not have anything to do with someone's place of employ.
manta, I agree completely with your post immediately above mine, at 11:37. Right on.
Sorry, I mistyped above: my dental coverage on my old employer-sponsored plan was $15, not 415.
mantaray
I have held 4 jobs and have never been unsatisfied with my insurance. Health/dental/vision packages have been the norm at each employer. Sure, it could be better, but I'm not complaining. To the credit of those who are unhappy, I'm a person who rarely gets sick, has never needed major surgery, does not require regular treatment and does not take prescription drugs. Perhaps my story would change if my situation were different.
I'm definitely not against making changes, but this fly by the seat of the pants, shove a plan down our throats in a matter of weeks is nonsense. Obama has tried time and time again to explain this plan, and even the brightest commentators don't get it. It's not about a feeling, it's about the facts. It's a nice thought/feeling that the US can become the apparent utopia you say France is; however, you must face a ton of facts about what is going to happen should this plan pass in its current form. FYI- my sister lived in Paris for 3 years and came back wondering why we would ever want their form of healthcare. Her experience was much different than yours.
We should learn a valuable lesson from getting hooked on feelings. When Obama said, "I won't increase taxes on the middle class ONE dime", it felt great to hear! 6 months later, he's hitting us with the facts...taxes most likely will increase!
In the case of healthcare, the facts have trumped Obama's ability to arrouse our emotions.
Scribble,
Who are you getting your facts from?
scribble, I actually agree with this, and imagine manta does too, since we are concerned that the next several years/decade of transition are going to be a huge mess. It seems likely that a half-assed change is what is about to happen, but I'm taking the long view that SOME form of change now will enable greater change, for the better, eventually.
aqua, I agree with a lot of what you said - the Canadian system is not perfect. I have waited for HOURS in hospital emergency rooms. The wait to see a specialist can be months. It's difficult for some to find a family practitioner. All true. But these problems also exist in the US, right? What I'm saying is that my Canadian system needs some fixing, just like yours.
But at the end of the day - and this is what really matters - I will go have my surgery and not pay a cent out-of-pocket. I'm not a moron and I realize my healthcare does come out of my taxes, but guess what? The U.S. spends more per-capita on healthcare than us Canucks do, and you have nothing resembling universal healthcare.
If I get cancer and need surgery, I don't pay out of pocket. If my kids need ear tubes (whatever those are), I don't pay. If I get hit by a car on the way home tonight, I'll be fixed up and sent on my way. (Holy shit, I hope I haven't jinxed myself here...) ETC...
A small company I worked for (8 employees?) brought in a health insurance rep to discuss having private insurance. We were all on contract so we'd have to pay for it ourselves. There were different options but basically it was for vision/dental/medication coverage, to varying degrees, with some 'perks' like private hospital rooms, etc. Yes, there are different tiers of healthcare available, but they are optional. If I don't want to pay $150 or $400 or $1000 per month for supplemental insurance, I don't. And even so, I can sleep easy at night knowing that I'll get adequate care without mortgaging my life to pay for it.
Universal or public health insurance isn't going to change anything. It will be the same as now, some doctors will take it others wont. The rich will be able to afford better care than the poor and the costs will continue to increase. Why? Because the problem is a lifestyle problem, why is Japan spending 60% of what we are? Because they are healthier, 2 out of 3 Americans are overweight, 1 of which is clinically obese. We spend 4-6 hours a day watching tv and just as much or more in front of a computer monitor. We eat foods high in refined sugars and fats and can't find the energy to exercise for 30 minutes a day!
I am fine with the government putting together yet another health care scheme, I just don't expect it to do anything for me.
And before you ask, Make, I have insurance, the company pays over $500 a month for it. My wife and children are covered through an outside plan that fits our needs better and costs 1/5th of what my work one does, considering how often I go to the doctor, I wish the office would just give me the extra $500 and I would go in with the wife and kids and take the extra $400 a month to the bank.
And I am guessing Scribbles facts come from the CBO, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
lb
Since you mentioned getting cancer:
Have you considered what happens when you get old in places like the Netherlands? There is essentially a medical cut-off age, where the doctors decide whether or not you deserve to live longer. Under Obama care, circumstances would be similar. The President admitted this on the ABC Obama reality show, where callers get to phone in and ask questions.
One particular caller told a story about her 100 year old mother going to the doctor to request a pacemaker. One specialist said it wasn't worth it, but another saw her joy of life and went for the pacemaker. The woman lived another 5 years! The caller asked Obama "Would you have let my mother live?". Obama's anwer is below.
OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
A painkiller? Are you serious? A fair trade off for 5 years of joyous, prolonged life? Would Obama have suggested that Sen Ted Kennedy take a painkiller to alleviate his pain from cancer?
You have to consider the picture as a whole. You may be better off having children, but should you get cancer at on elderly age, the government may leave you for dead.
I actually never had known he made that promise when I voted for him, but I wouldn't have believed it anyway, and anyone who did is a fool. Of course taxes will go up. They are too low on the rich as it is. But I'd rather pay higher taxes and not have to suddenly be terrified for my health when I lose my job (so you are hit with a double whammy of bad news and shit to deal with), so that's the fundamental difference between you and me. I am ok with paying my government to provide me with things that it is difficult for me to provide myself with. I gain peace of mind from that.
Meanwhile, I agree with lb about paying for random incidentals yourself. That is how it works in France. The big things are covered and the minor things you bear more of the brunt of the cost. It cost me $45 for a walk-in-off-the-street doctor's appointment in France. It cost usually between $3-5 for medications as those are generally highly-subsidized (being that they are on-going requirements). One-time random things you pay more for.
Yes I agree that I really want them to take the time to craft the right plan, rather than racing to tackle it all at once. There's no good way to shortchange the amount of time you give to thinking over a particular problem. The faster you try to push it through, generally the worse it will be (up to a certain point). This is covered in the Contract Documents exam!
yeah... the argument that the US governement is incapable of running a health care system is just really narrow minded... its cherry picking...
ask medicare members what they think of their health care plans... medicare constantly polls at 60+% satisfaction, with medicare advantage plans closer to 70%...
thats significantly higher than the regular populations satisfaction with their health care
Llettdownl,
What about the VA Hospitals? That is the only "health care system' really run by the government, Medicaid and Medicare are just insurance schemes. And you can tell how well they work by how many doctors are flocking to provide services to those insured by Medicaid/care.
scribble, for every doctor that thought a pacemaker in a 100yo woman was a good idea, I'll bet I could find one or more that felt the risk of subjecting her body to the shock of the surgery meant that the possibility of a good outcome was slim to none. She did well, so your anecdote supports your argument. But I'd suggest you need to follow your own advice from your last paragraph: You have to consider the picture as a whole. As a whole, what we have now is a terrible system that pays zillions of dollars for extraordinary care for a few, none for preventative care for the majority or general care for many, and is absolutely NOT a "free market".
I have never understood how this was legal. You sign a contract with someone to provide you a service in exchange for a monthly payment. The time comes due for the service to be provided, and they decide not to give it to you, but they are still entitled to all the money you have already paid them according to the terms of your contract. What?!
Scribble : you are utterly ignoring the fact that INSURANCE COMPANIES ALREADY DENY COVERAGE FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS YOU ARE BRINGING UP. This deserves caps because I keep hearing this over and over again and it betrays an ignorance about current health care coverage. Do you have any relatives who have ever been ill, who have perhaps needed a transplant of their own? There are ALREADY parameters in place, written down and strictly followed by insurance companies, which decide whether or not the person will receive the care he needs. There are ALREADY provisions in your health care insurance that govern which old people will receive which end-of-life care medications. Have you shepherded an elderly relative through this process? It is not fun. You have to weigh how much time they will gain against how much money they have left in their savings to pay for it. If you gamble wrong, they either end up dead with a lot of money left over or alive but broke. It sucks.
People are ALREADY being bankrupted by denial of care, from insurance companies that they have paid thousands of dollars to already over their lives, precisely to attempt to avoid the possibility of being bankrupted by a health catastrophe. "Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance" -- that's from a BusinessWeek article -- nice conservative credentials for you.
You will either bear the cost of these people's healthcare coverage or you will bear the cost of increasing rates of personal bankruptcy. Either way, society is already paying exorbitantly -- and we are currently paying for both of these costs. Paying for a nation-wide health-care safety net will be the cheaper long-term option. The results of personal bankruptcy are devestating, made worse than the numbers suggest due to the emotional and pyschological component of economics.
We simply need to cut down the amount of profit that health insurance companies are syphoning out of the system and redirect that toward providing better health care. This will make the rich less rich, yes, but it will provide a much more stable long-term future for our country. Fewer personal bankruptcies, more incentive for small-business growth, more money in the middle-class pockets each month (as joshcookie mentioned), and more incentive for preventative care all combine to be proven contributors to long-term societal prosperity.
Scribble : if you have already changed healthcare coverage a few times when you changed jobs and not been bothered by it, then why do you care if it changes on you again if your employer switches to the national option? It will be just another health care plan in your list of health care plans. If we all already change plans constantly, then who cares if we get a new one. Unless we own our own business or pay out of pocket (very rare), we've never been able to pick our own plans anyway. I've always had what was given to me either by my employer or my parents' employer. What kind of choice is that?
The thing I simply don't understand is why anyone is ok with giving away a portion of their hard-earned money each month to the profits of some other company, when they could be giving less of this money away. Unless we work for AETNA / BCBS / etc, shouldn't we all be fighting for a cheaper, more equitable system? Why should my money go to profits for somebody else? I'd rather have that money go to provide health care for someone else than a jet-ski for some CEO's teenager.
"What about the VA Hospitals? That is the only "health care system' really run by the government, Medicaid and Medicare are just insurance schemes. And you can tell how well they work by how many doctors are flocking to provide services to those insured by Medicaid/care."
Rather well said. Put another way:
More expensive crap courtesy of the people who brought you the current mess.
... its not particularly well put considering the fact that the public option would more likely than not look like a significant expansion of medicare...
so no, its not well put...
but anyway, manta just made the best argument on healthcare ive seen in any of these discussions.
respond to that, not my off the cuff remark
that really is one of the most shocking statistics ive heard in a long, long time...78%... i knew bankruptcies due to medical bills were the most common, but had NO IDEA that 78% of those bankruptcies were filed by people who had health insurance at the start of their illness... that is completely absurd
"More expensive crap courtesy of the people who brought you the current mess."
Actually many doctors prefer working with one system rather than the umteen different systems with their own paperwork and bureaucratic fiefdoms out there. I guess you didn't look at the data from Health and Human Services above or consider that private health insurance costs are growing at a rate where health insurance costs will be 20% of GDP and effectively make our economy the most uncompetitive in the world?
ok, back to the original programming...
yes to insurance. gone back and forth between humana and bcbs. it's getting expensive as hell - 950/month for a ppo family plan with a 1k deductible.
also, being an llc owner, all my health insurance (that the company pays for) counts as personal income, not as a deductible expense. got to love how the tax code works...
we pay 100% of individual employees premiums. if they add anyone else, they pay the full amount. we're just too small (and prices are too high) to pay for anything else.
to put it in perspective, our insurance bill is higher than our rent each month. it's approximately 4% of our gross billings (not including consultants)
Many great points, thanks everyone. As I said, I'm not suggesting that the country stay exactly the way it is. I haven't experienced major health problems, which plays a major role in me being happy with the free dental cleanings, eye check ups, etc. Major surgery or a pregnant wife may have me singing a different tune.
For me, this isn't solely about MY health care. I'm simply opposed to pushing through a bill that even the president himself doesn't understand, and that will undoubtedly cause a host of problems down the line.
manta -
Did you not watch any of the debates? Obama wagged his finger at the camera and boldly said taxes for the middle class wouldn't go up one dime. Most of my friends who voted for Obama, voted for him based on how he made them feel, not what they knew about his policy, ideology and character. Funny story: During the campaign, I was headed to a meeting with my boss. She was ranting about how smart and well spoken Obama is, when I asked, "How do you feel about his plan to overhaul health care?". She responded, "Honestly, I know nothing about his agenda...but he went to Harvard and he has good energy!"
Yes, I've experienced the death of elderly family members and know how terrible it can be. You're right, the current system does refuse to cover treatment in many cases. It's by no means a perfect system, but let's wait until we have a PLAN before we spend a trillion dollars on something that MIGHT work.
Obama is all about fear:
1. He told us the stimulus bill had to go through, or the country would enter a depression.
2. Cap and tax must pass or the environment will deplete before our eyes.
3. Health care must pass immediately because we're in a health care crisis.
This is make or break. The bill fails, and he either moves to the center (like Clinton) and hopes for a 2nd term, or settles for being a 1-term Pres. like Bush Sr.
outed -- we pay 100% of individual employees premiums. if they add anyone else, they pay the full amount. we're just too small (and prices are too high) to pay for anything else.
What do you mean by this? Does it cost you more if you pass along costs to your employees? I'm confused and curious.
No, it means single people at his or her firm probably gripe less. :)
They don't offer partner/kid benefits.
manta
Since you missed it...a few vids of Obama promising to not raise taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVMWjTQh_Y
What's wrong with paying taxes?
Countries that generally have the highest tax burdens are also the happiest.
Scribble, You are clearly speaking about native health care from a fairly uninformed standpoint. I have worked (one summer) and have relatives who live on the Cherokee reservation in NC. They have great health care and don't have to pay for it. It is paid through a federal program and also through casino revenue. However most of the people there are incredibly unhealthy but that doesn't have to do with the access/quality of health care. That is a whole another topic entirely. All reservations can't be addressed equally either. I am quite certain that some have horrible health care but that doesn't mean that the government can't run health care. For example health care for troops is very successful and I wouldn't mind having access to the super cheap car insurance military families have.
Jon Stewart made a great argument the other night with Bill Kristol, http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/239178/mon-july-27-2009-bill-kristol
no shit, aking. scribbles, dude (or, dudette), please don't try to turn a problem that is fundamentally founded on racism and hate (self-hate and otherwise) as well as a lot of other social ills into an argument for debating obama's plan. it debases the native communities and it does you no honour at all.
sweet jezus but that just pisses me off.
jon stewart made a very good argument. not convinced that it means anything however. the obama plan is not as good, nor as simple, as the military plan.
anyway, i am canadian, lived in UK and now in Japan so have always had proper coverage supported by government. USA is an anomaly, not the norm, in that respect.
i don't know so much about japanese system. payment for coverage is required by law, much as obama wants i suppose. payment is based on income. rich people pay more than poor, but this is country where the people who pay highest axes in country are on tv top 10 shows every year, as aspirational figures (paying high taxes means you are incredibly wealthy, etc etc). so since i am middle calss-ish i pay about 100 dollars a month for care that covers dentist, doctor, optometrist, and whatever specialists i choose to try on. i do have to pay a portion of the fee however, unless i am over 65 or a child. so old and young are free, and everyone else pays 30% of cost. it means it is worth having a bit of extra insurance to cover hospital bed if you get sick, but in general healthcare is affordable. i cannot say for sure but i have always assumed the government is actually subsidising fees even further, but could not say for sure.
i was in lots of accidents as a kid (farm kids break bones a lot) and free hospital was awesome in canada. now my grandparents and parents etc are getting up there they spend more time in hospital than i ever did. there are issues, but it is not life-threatening. i suspect that given their social status (low-ish) in the USA they would be uninsured and probably in very rough shape. perhaps dead even.
my da was in charge of 23 hospitals in rural canada before he passed away a few years back. we often talked about how canada compares to usa. he could talk both sides of the argument and essentially said both systems are wonderful at their best and horrid at their worst. i personally feel the american system has lower lows but that is just me.
funnily he toyed for awhile with moving to states for the bigger bucks running hospitals there but he chose not to because the job was just too messed up with bureacratic nonsense. yeah, free-market usa is more paperwork and politics than socialist canada...or so he seemed to think anyway. ironic isn't it?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.