Anyone here work a job you despise so you can have affordable health insurance?

[mary_bobo]

This is an answer I hear very often, and quite frankly, I think its at best an incomplete answer.

Insurance is all done with computers and telephones. If groups handling, for the sake of argument, radioacive waste or anthrax, can get affordable health insurance coverage, why can’t I get it for my gensing and mushroom gathering business?

It depends a lot on the size of a company and the policy they write with the insurance company. It seems to me to be a good idea for there to be a system whereby small businesses can band together and get better coverage for their employees. Of course, then there would be the arguing over what should be covered.

 

[puzzleannie]

It depends a lot on the size of a company and the policy they write with the insurance company. It seems to me to be a good idea for there to be a system whereby small businesses can band together and get better coverage for their employees. Of course, then there would be the arguing over what should be covered.

there are such cooperatives in many cities, Cleveland has COSE for instance, council on smaller enterprises, which negotiates good group insurance rates for member companies.

yes, to work in my field would mean PT with no insurance or on contract with no insurance, so my current job is primarily for insurance. I cannot buy it on the open market at any price with my health history. I do like my job, but working for the church is notoriously low paid. I could not support a family on this income, that’s for sure.

 

[KathleenElsie]

People did this prior to passage of HIPPA but since then it hasn’t been nearly as much as an issue since you can now change jobs and with proof of prior coverage you can shorten or eliminate pre-existing clauses that the new company’s plan might have.

True

As a rule, Group coverage is cheaper than individual coverage. That is its appeal. There is less risk associated with insuring a group of people than for insuring individuals.

True if the group offers multiple plans.

The real issue is “why are health premiums increasing at an exponential rate” and is it the fault of doctors, hospitals, drug companies, patients themselves or a combination of all.

One of the reasons is that the insurance companies are required to provide every service to everyone. You can no longer cut cost by limiting your benefits: birth control, IVF, transplants, HIV, and any number of things that the average person won’t ever need, but the cost is so high for those that that do that it drives up the costs to everyone. Risk factors are divided among all and not taken into consideration for lower or higher costs.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I have done it, but not at the moment.

I think it’s modern day slavery.

And another thing- why does health insurance cost me 60% more for comparable coverage than it cost when I was covered by my company?

It’s a conspiracy. There ya go. I said it. Anyone care to challenge me?

We get hung up on health care. It is a bit hypocritical for me to say this since I am personally taking drugs I couldn’t afford if I had to pay for them out of my own pocket. However most treatment is largely futile. With the exception of vaccination, healthcare makes almost no contribution to average life expectancy, and almost no contribution to quality of life, though of course the latter is very subjective. Generally if you have something seriously wrong with you and the doctor recommends an expensive treatment, you will still have something seriously wrong with you after receiving treatment. There are individuals for whom this is not true, and some treatments are simple, highly effective, and cheap. The answer is not to sack all doctors, but we in the West spend far too much on healthcare.

 

[mark_a]

I have written to my congressman about the difference in the cost of health insurance and hospital gouging of the uninsured.

Of course, I was ignored. Now I’m mad about that.

No one wants to be sick. Isn’t there an affordable alternative without selling your soul?

 

[mark_a]

We get hung up on health care. It is a bit hypocritical for me to say this since I am personally taking drugs I couldn’t afford if I had to pay for them out of my own pocket. However most treatment is largely futile. With the exception of vaccination, healthcare makes almost no contribution to average life expectancy, and almost no contribution to quality of life, though of course the latter is very subjective. Generally if you have something seriously wrong with you and the doctor recommends an expensive treatment, you will still have something seriously wrong with you after receiving treatment. There are individuals for whom this is not true, and some treatments are simple, highly effective, and cheap. The answer is not to sack all doctors, but we in the West spend far too much on healthcare.

I understand what you are saying, but I still think the bill for an uninsured stay in the hospital should not result in property seizure due to my own lack of negotiating skills.

 

[Sheeniac]

Also, because so many in this country DON’T go to the doctor for regular checkups, problems don’t get caught at their early stages when they are less expensive to treat and handle. However, I wouldn’t want to go to a system like in Canada either, because their doctors aren’t motivated to be the best since they’re paid by the government, and well, those who can afford to get medical help here in the US, usually cross the boarder to do so. Their system must be broken too.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Do you really think that regular check-ups help catch problems?

I would think that for many diseases (considering we don’t have a vaccination for injuries yet … oh to be the person who could invent something like that!), this is not a true statement. There isn’t all that much that occurs in a check-up that would catch all that much. The medical industry is against ‘over testing’ because they consider it to lead to too many false positives and false negatives. In other words, you should only have a test if you have a reason for it.

And, there are many people who wouldn’t go in for a check-up even if it was free.

I suffer from many illnesses (I use the term ‘suffer’ only in a medical sense - while I have several conditions, I control everything with medicine… so much for the poster who thinks that medicine doesn’t help ) and am shocked at how many people won’t go to a doctor for obvious problems.

I think the problem with socialized medicine is the overcrowding of the system with patients. To make that a little more clear - the fact that long waits for treatments are not uncommon… I’m not quite sure what the problem is. So I agree with you that the other systems are broken as well. I would hate to have to fly to Eastern Europe to get inexpensive medical treatment.

 

[gmarie21]

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Do you really think that regular check-ups help catch problems?

I would think that for many diseases (considering we don’t have a vaccination for injuries yet … oh to be the person who could invent something like that!), this is not a true statement. There isn’t all that much that occurs in a check-up that would catch all that much. The medical industry is against ‘over testing’ because they consider it to lead to too many false positives and false negatives. In other words, you should only have a test if you have a reason for it.

And, there are many people who wouldn’t go in for a check-up even if it was free.

I suffer from many illnesses (I use the term ‘suffer’ only in a medical sense - while I have several conditions, I control everything with medicine… so much for the poster who thinks that medicine doesn’t help ) and am shocked at how many people won’t go to a doctor for obvious problems.

I think the problem with socialized medicine is the overcrowding of the system with patients. To make that a little more clear - the fact that long waits for treatments are not uncommon… I’m not quite sure what the problem is. So I agree with you that the other systems are broken as well. I would hate to have to fly to Eastern Europe to get inexpensive medical treatment.

Not every problem could be caught at regular checkups, but many can. I do agree that ther are some who won’t go no matter what. And of those who do go, how many would make the life changes necessary to improve their health (ex. less fast food, less processed food, more exercise, etc.). But, and this is a big “but”, if everyone did as they were suppose to to care for their bodies from the beginning, many less people would suffer from the diseases that are becoming more common place.

 

[bilop]

Individual insurance costs more than group based on a simple fact, known in economics as moral hazard.

The customer knows more about their health than the insurer. So, healthy people tend to not buy insurance, and the sick tend to buy insurance.

When you are insuring a large group, e.g. all the employees of IBM, this is avoided because the individuals are not chosing whether to insure or not.

Therefore, group policies are priced based on “average” health. While individual policies are priced based on “poor” health.

Also, some states prohibit pre-screening for diseases, like HIV, which drives up costs.

 

[mark_a]

Individual insurance costs more than group based on a simple fact, known in economics as moral hazard.

The customer knows more about their health than the insurer. So, healthy people tend to not buy insurance, and the sick tend to buy insurance.

I may agree if we are talking about individuals.

But wouldn’t a large family tend to equalize or equilibrate the moral hazard?

 

[skeffer]

One of the problems I see is that we have become a society that runs to the doctor way too much. With every little sniffle we run we demand antibiotics which the doctor inturn gives just to keep us coming back, and now we have several bugs that are not responding to the antibiotics we have. They are having to develope new meds. The newer the meds the higher the cost for us at the pharmacy.Insurance companies thrive on our insecurities. Awhile back I had a gentleman come to the house to sell me Cancer insurance. It only covered cancer nothing else. I told him no. He began to tell me that everyone sometime in their lives will develope Cancer. Ah! the fear game . My husband bought the Insurance . Which in turn after my husband and I talked about it the next day we called and canceled the insurance.I don’t know but I think that we need to stop about the future or the unknown and place our lives in the hands of God pay attention to our bodies they will tell us when we need a Dr. Only going when we really need too taking medication only when needed. We might just drive down the cost of health care, and we make not have a shortage of Drs to take care of us…

 

[DL82]

What if you just took the money you would otherwise spend on insurance and put it into a high-interest savings account, then paid for your own medical care as and when you needed it? Chances are, you’d be better off in the long-run. Chances are, you’d also have the most money for medical care when you needed it most, i.e. when you are older and retired and have health problems, not while you’re young and in work with a company healthcare plan. It would be a gamble, if you became severely ill and needed expensive long-term treatment, you’d be stuck, but then if you were so severely ill that you had to quit work, you’d get medicaid anyway, so you wouldn’t have to worry.

It’s a no-brainer. Insurance companies need to pay your hospital costs PLUS the cost of their administration PLUS the cost of calculating risk and setting rates PLUS paying a profit to their share-holders. If you pay your own, chances are, you’ll be better off, no?

 

[skeffer]

:yup:

What if you just took the money you would otherwise spend on insurance and put it into a high-interest savings account, then paid for your own medical care as and when you needed it? Chances are, you’d be better off in the long-run. Chances are, you’d also have the most money for medical care when you needed it most, i.e. when you are older and retired and have health problems, not while you’re young and in work with a company healthcare plan. It would be a gamble, if you became severely ill and needed expensive long-term treatment, you’d be stuck, but then if you were so severely ill that you had to quit work, you’d get medicaid anyway, so you wouldn’t have to worry.

It’s a no-brainer. Insurance companies need to pay your hospital costs PLUS the cost of their administration PLUS the cost of calculating risk and setting rates PLUS paying a profit to their share-holders. If you pay your own, chances are, you’ll be better off, no?

Now here is an eye opener If you have insurance the dr or hospital negotiates a price that will be paid for any given service. You on the hand if you have no insurance you will pay top dollar for the same service… Example If you had lab work done say it cost 100.00 dollars. insurance would offer say 20.00 dollars or less, but you’d pay the 100.00 dollars if you had no insurance. Seems to me it should be the other way around. It is just another way for people without the means to pay or have insurance gets the shaft…:yup:

 

[bilop]

I may agree if we are talking about individuals.

But wouldn’t a large family tend to equalize or equilibrate the moral hazard?

Not really. The issue is the knowledge of your health. If insurance were mandatory it would be different. But as long as the family is making the choice to insure, the sick are more likely to buy insurance, and therefore the insurers must price for this.

With corporate plans, the individual doesn’t choose. Healthy, sick, there all in the pool. Therefore, the insurer can price for average health.

If everyone was mandated by law to buy insurance, and the same level of insurance, then Insurers could offer a lower price. A good example is car insurance. Everyone has to buy it, so the cost is pretty fair. If you could choose not to buy car insurance, then the price would be higher.

 

[mark_a]

What if you just took the money you would otherwise spend on insurance and put it into a high-interest savings account, then paid for your own medical care as and when you needed it? Chances are, you’d be better off in the long-run. Chances are, you’d also have the most money for medical care when you needed it most, i.e. when you are older and retired and have health problems, not while you’re young and in work with a company healthcare plan. It would be a gamble, if you became severely ill and needed expensive long-term treatment, you’d be stuck, but then if you were so severely ill that you had to quit work, you’d get medicaid anyway, so you wouldn’t have to worry.

It’s a no-brainer. Insurance companies need to pay your hospital costs PLUS the cost of their administration PLUS the cost of calculating risk and setting rates PLUS paying a profit to their share-holders. If you pay your own, chances are, you’ll be better off, no?

I think I can agree with this except for the fact that a person with limited earning potential, lots of kids, etc. doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in August of making this work.

 

[mark_a]

Not really. The issue is the knowledge of your health. If insurance were mandatory it would be different. But as long as the family is making the choice to insure, the sick are more likely to buy insurance, and therefore the insurers must price for this.

With corporate plans, the individual doesn’t choose. Healthy, sick, there all in the pool. Therefore, the insurer can price for average health.

If everyone was mandated by law to buy insurance, and the same level of insurance, then Insurers could offer a lower price. A good example is car insurance. Everyone has to buy it, so the cost is pretty fair. If you could choose not to buy car insurance, then the price would be higher.

I must admit you’ve made some points I’ve never considered.

You know, you could have just joined me in dragging insurance companies through the mud.

Thanks a lot.