Universal health insurance

[pathia]

Insurance, on all levels, is a complicated thing. Let’s say, a person is considering reassignment surgery, (transgendered patient)…this is rarely covered. Because the insurance company most likely views it as ‘not necessary.’ It is necessary for the patient, in the patient’s eyes. I have watched some documentaries on this, and it would seem that it is not a want, but a true need, to have the surgery. Many people who cannot afford the surgery, become very depressed, etc…

So, not knowing the details of your situation pathia nor am I asking, I would suspect that they are ignoring your current status, which sounds like you need consistent care daily, based strictly on the whole transgenedered category that you’re falling into. Have you taken this up with your employer? Have they discussed this with their broker? Your broker should try to go to bat for you, and its client, in general (your employer) relating to issues like this.

I am not asking them to pay for assignment surgery. I was already assigned once as an infant and all of the care I need down there is due to the botched up mess of it they made then. Without getting too gross, there simply isn’t enough healthy enough ‘material’ left to even consider such a surgery.

I have taken it up with my HR department. It is a work in progress. Has been for 6months, the insurance company won’t budge. My company doesn’t actually get the insurance for me, they give me a ‘voucher’ that I am allowed to spend on insurance. The reasoning behind the voucher is of course, freedom of choice. However, I don’t have a choice. Only BCBS will cover me, so it is my only option. There is only so much my company can do, because I am legally self insured.

 

[whatevergirl]

Pathia, there are many, many people who have collected insurance benefits that far outweigh the amount they paid in. The way that insurance companies make money is by covering large groups that contain a few people like that and a large majority of people who are healthy.

There is a free market solution to the problem you propose-and it happens every day.

The way the free market would work with you is for the group you are in (your company, for example) to step up and say that they would not sign on with that insurance company next year unless it covered your condition. Your role in that is to start talking to the people who run your company and convince them to go to bat for you. If they won’t, then either find another company that will, or start leaking the story to the media and hope that the company will be swayed by the need to protect the public image of “their lack of discrimination against folks like me.”

If your company is large enough, then, based purely on greed, the insurance company would rather lose money covering you than lose all the money they stand to make off of covering your entire company. The bigger the company, the bigger the pull they have with insurance companies.

That is the whole point of subsidiarity-make changes at the smallest level first-don’t turn to national solutions that affect the entire country when the problem can be solved in your own company.

I agree.
My one question is…what happens to people who just lost their jobs, and don’t have COBRA…? What could UHC do for them?

 

[He_Man]

I agree.
My one question is…what happens to people who just lost their jobs, and don’t have COBRA…? What could UHC do for them?

And I am wondering, as was asked a number of times, are we looking for UHC to ensure minimal coverage for everyone, or a single, federal program, that is mandatory for all citizens? Why would anyone even consider the latter, other than jealousy and covetness?

Also, how do the proponents plan on handling the military medical system?

 

[rtconstant]

I agree.
My one question is…what happens to people who just lost their jobs, and don’t have COBRA…? What could UHC do for them?

Well, COBRA really wouldn’t be necessary. Companies that offer insurance in UHC countries offer suplimental insurance. Most UHC countries though offer basic health coverage which would be equivalent to a “rich” plan here with a low deductable.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I am not asking them to pay for assignment surgery. I was already assigned once as an infant and all of the care I need down there is due to the botched up mess of it they made then. Without getting too gross, there simply isn’t enough healthy enough ‘material’ left to even consider such a surgery.

I have taken it up with my HR department. It is a work in progress. Has been for 6months, the insurance company won’t budge. My company doesn’t actually get the insurance for me, they give me a ‘voucher’ that I am allowed to spend on insurance. The reasoning behind the voucher is of course, freedom of choice. However, I don’t have a choice. Only BCBS will cover me, so it is my only option. There is only so much my company can do, because I am legally self insured.

That sounds like a very unique program-most companies are able to choose what they will or will not pay for- I have had the displeasure of helping design insurance offerings when I worked with a different company, the insurance company came to the table with their list of riders, and we were also able to choose to allow or disallow certain conditions or treatment. In my experience, the insurance agency’s riders were negotiable when we pushed hard enough.

I suspect that, at some level, the insurance offerings available at your company were negotiated at some point. If you’re being told that there was never any kind of policy negotiation, then you might not be talking to the right people.

In any event, why not shop around and see if there is a company in your area that does carry insurance that covers your condition.

My whole point has been, and still is, that UHC is not the best or only answer to your problem. Again, if UHC was your only choice and it didn’t cover your problems, then it wouldn’t matter if you talked to HR, went to a different company, or went to a different state.

 

[whatevergirl]

And I am wondering, as was asked a number of times, are we looking for UHC to ensure minimal coverage for everyone, or a single, federal program, that is mandatory for all citizens? Why would anyone even consider the latter, other than jealousy and covetness?

Also, how do the proponents plan on handling the military medical system?

Agreed. However, let’s say you work at Walmart–for barely over min. wage, taking insurance out of your check for a family would really send you home with nothing. So, when I think of UHC, I think of families who are barely making ends meet.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well, COBRA really wouldn’t be necessary. Companies that offer insurance in UHC countries offer suplimental insurance. Most UHC countries though offer basic health coverage which would be equivalent to a “rich” plan here with a low deductable.

So, with UHC I would still have to carry supplemental insurance in addition to the tax burden of the “universal” plan?

Why should I have to supplement my universal coverage? That doesn’t sound very universal to me…

How soon before those countries start to decry the high cost of supplemental insurance and demand that their governments provide supplemental insurance too?

 

[rtconstant]

And I am wondering, as was asked a number of times, are we looking for UHC to ensure minimal coverage for everyone, or a single, federal program, that is mandatory for all citizens? Why would anyone even consider the latter, other than jealousy and covetness?

Also, how do the proponents plan on handling the military medical system?

Well, I personally like the French model. Single payer coverage from the government which covers 85% of all health costs with the option of supplimenting this with additional insurance provided either for one’s self or by one’s company.

Also one could equally ask: why would anyone even consider not helping to provide health coverage for all citizens other than jealousy and coventness? What exactly do you envision when you think “mandatory for all citizens?” I’m really asking because your language suggests something very dark and sinister and so maybe I’m not getting what you’re actually speaking about here.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I agree.
My one question is…what happens to people who just lost their jobs, and don’t have COBRA…? What could UHC do for them?

UHC is a very different animal than short term and emergency coverage. It is one thing to commit to covering all people at all times, and another thing entirely to propose plans for emergency COBRA assistance during periods of unemployment-

 

[He_Man]

Agreed. However, let’s say you work at Walmart–for barely over min. wage, taking insurance out of your check for a family would really send you home with nothing. So, when I think of UHC, I think of families who are barely making ends meet.

But the thing is, according to some posters in this thread, having different levels of coverage creates haves and have not. That’s the point. There are A LOT of people who want to mandate putting everyone on the same, low level coverage…

Why, I don’t know, since we aren’t a communist nation.

Of course, this doesn’t apparently apply to flying first class, private education, and attending sporting events, all which cost money some people don’t have. We should probably then get rid of them.

If you support mandating the same coverage for everyone, you HAVE TO support getting rid of all Catholic Education.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I personally like the French model. Single payer coverage from the government which covers 85% of all health costs with the option of supplimenting this with additional insurance provided either for one’s self or by one’s company.

Also one could equally ask: why would anyone even consider not helping to provide health coverage for all citizens other than jealousy and coventness? What exactly do you envision when you think “mandatory for all citizens?” I’m really asking because your language suggests something very dark and sinister and so maybe I’m not getting what you’re actually speaking about here.

What we oppose is the “one size fits nobody” approach. When we look at other government program, we see the truth of the adage that a government-run healthcare system will have all the efficiency of the Post Office and all the compassion of the IRS.

 

[He_Man]

Well, I personally like the French model. Single payer coverage from the government which covers 85% of all health costs with the option of supplimenting this with additional insurance provided either for one’s self or by one’s company.

Also one could equally ask: why would anyone even consider not helping to provide health coverage for all citizens other than jealousy and coventness? What exactly do you envision when you think “mandatory for all citizens?” I’m really asking because your language suggests something very dark and sinister and so maybe I’m not getting what you’re actually speaking about here.

I am referring to the creation of a UHC system, run by the government, and the dissolution of all private insurance companies. Subsequently, every citizen is forced to use the UHC, no options.

That is what has been proposed as a good solution by some in here, which reaks of jealously and covetness. “If I can’t have it, no one can!”

This is very different from providing affordable coverage for all who can’t afford it, and a separate argument.

We don’t mandate for everyone to use food stamps, welfare, or medicare, so why would we mandate everyone to use a UHC system designed for those in need?

 

[pathia]

That sounds like a very unique program-most companies are able to choose what they will or will not pay for- I have had the displeasure of helping design insurance offerings when I worked with a different company, the insurance company came to the table with their list of riders, and we were also able to choose to allow or disallow certain conditions or treatment. In my experience, the insurance agency’s riders were negotiable when we pushed hard enough.

I suspect that, at some level, the insurance offerings available at your company were negotiated at some point. If you’re being told that there was never any kind of policy negotiation, then you might not be talking to the right people. .

My condition is so unique as to not even have a name, just that is categorized under a more broad and larger scoped term. Since it does not have a name, and cannot be specified easily, the terminology falls back the more broad definition, which is not covered by any insurance agency in the entire country that I know of, except a scant few in CA provided by the county governments.

There is no guarantee I will get coverage even if I move to CA, WA or MA, it is just a guess. The only way to ensure that I get coverage is to move to CA and work for the city government of Sacramento. That’s a pretty narrow option and job market if you ask me.

 

[rtconstant]

So, with UHC I would still have to carry supplemental insurance in addition to the tax burden of the “universal” plan?

Why should I have to supplement my universal coverage? That doesn’t sound very universal to me…

How soon before those countries start to decry the high cost of supplemental insurance and demand that their governments provide supplemental insurance too?

Now there’s some irony. First people complain because they’re afraid that UHC doesn’t allow options then when options are presented they’re mad about that to.

Let me give back one of the overly simplified answers that those opposed to UHC like to dole out. “Then don’t get it. That’s your choice.”

The deal is that you don’t have to have the supplimentary if you don’t want it. The French governement offers better coverage on its own than most insurance policies that we enjoy here plus it usually covers more types of sickness.

Also the insurance rates in those countries are usually lower than ours simply because they don’t have cover as much. That’s why companies like GM save money in UHC countries. Its doubtful that anyone is going to decry the costs of their supplimental insurance when it is litterally a luxury not a necessesity.

 

[whatevergirl]

But the thing is, according to some posters in this thread, having different levels of coverage creates haves and have not. That’s the point. There are A LOT of people who want to mandate putting everyone on the same, low level coverage…

Why, I don’t know, since we aren’t a communist nation.

Of course, this doesn’t apparently apply to flying first class, private education, and attending sporting events, all which cost money some people don’t have. We should probably then get rid of them.

If you support mandating the same coverage for everyone, you HAVE TO support getting rid of all Catholic Education.

I hadn’t looked at it that way. Hmmm…I guess I thought that people wanted everything covered, for a low price. That is what I’m saying, the government will not be able to please everyone, because there isn’t enough money to cover every illness/disease/treatment, to the fullest limit, without breaking the bank. (so insurance companies make choices on what they select to cover–I suspect the gov’t would have to do the same) I didn’t know that people were thinking of UHC as low coverage, low cost.

They could somehow make it that every insurer gets an incentive, tax break, whatever, for making it possible for everyone to have minimal coverage. Like auto insurance. For those who can afford more, they have a richer policy–that would be fair. I could see us going towards something like that.

 

[Oscarthecat]

But the thing is, according to some posters in this thread, having different levels of coverage creates haves and have not. That’s the point. There are A LOT of people who want to mandate putting everyone on the same, low level coverage…

Why, I don’t know, since we aren’t a communist nation.

Of course, this doesn’t apparently apply to flying first class, private education, and attending sporting events, all which cost money some people don’t have. We should probably then get rid of them.

If you support mandating the same coverage for everyone, you HAVE TO support getting rid of all Catholic Education.

Agreed. You would also have to support the elimination of grading systems too, because it is unfair that some children are recognized for working harder or being smarther- those children who don’t work hard or just aren’t very smart shouldn’t have to suffer the humiliation of letting smart kids tutor them.

 

[whatevergirl]

Agreed. You would also have to support the elimination of grading systems too, because it is unfair that some children are recognized for working harder or being smarther- those children who don’t work hard or just aren’t very smart shouldn’t have to suffer the humiliation of letting smart kids tutor them.

That was a quick save, Oscar. lol

 

[Oscarthecat]

They could somehow make it that every insurer gets an incentive, tax break, whatever, for making it possible for everyone to have minimal coverage. Like auto insurance. For those who can afford more, they have a richer policy–that would be fair. I could see us going towards something like that.

Hey, that respects the free market and helps people in need without giving the government even more control over our lives!!!

That’s so crazy it just might work!!

 

[Oscarthecat]

That was a quick save, Oscar. lol

yeah, I think my unedited version might have slipped by for a second

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agreed. You would also have to support the elimination of grading systems too, because it is unfair that some children are recognized for working harder or being smarther- those children who don’t work hard or just aren’t very smart shouldn’t have to suffer the humiliation of letting smart kids tutor them.

I have a grand daughter who goes to a nursery school where the kids are taught there is no such thing as winning or losing. When the play a game, “everybody wins.”

I shudder to think what will happen to these kids when they have to go into the real world, and I’m reminded of what Elbert Hubbard said, “For such people, Destiny awaits around the corner with a shoed club.”