Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's get real, all we are talking about here is money! Simply and completely money. Healthcare is a service, insurance is a spreading of risk to pay for perils such as injuries, unexpected disease, etc. We buy insurance only to protect our assets or pay for unexpected loss.
I am in favor of two systems. A person may choose to go to the Canadian version of healthcare. They may pay for that through taxation. The other choice is for each person to purchase from the free market an insurance plan that will allow them to continue their current American healthcare services.
In the time following the depression, companies provided health insurance benefits to attract and retain employees, somehow, people came to consider that a right and "expected" and they abused the benefits by having no-cost or very low cost trips to the Dr. HMO's & co-pays caused people to run to a Dr. even though the trip was not life or death. Dr's bought into labs, scanners, and ancilliary service providers. A simple trip to the Dr now results in at least two or three prescriptions for drugs, therapy, or surgery. Part of this was caused by the lawyers representing people hoping for the grossly unreasonable jury "rewards". So Dr. must CYA and pass the risk to others.
We as Americans also are afraid of dying, even in a natural death. We pay something like 80% of our medical expenditures in the first and last 18-24 months of life.
I agree with you, and think we have made the national debate too complicated.
In my view we have a few legitimate problems to resolve:
- Folks shouldn't go bankrupt to take care of serious health problems
- Businesses need to stay internationally competitive, and employee cost needs to be competitive to retain work in the US
- Folks shouldn't be allowed to burden others with cost due to their hypochondria
That is why I favor a national "catastrophic" health insurance plan, which would only kick in after a fairly high annual deductible is met, something on the order of $3,000 per individual and $5,000 per family (just pulled those out of the air, it is subject to critical analysis). If you want coverage below this high deductible, then you could purchase it through private insurance, with the markets setting the prices. Employers could offer this too, as part of their employment incentive packages.
You are asking for two systems, BOTH of which are voluntary and that is fine with me. Keep in mind that those who opt into the government-controlled care do not use ANY other funds except from those who pay into it (like Social Security). That is fine with me, you want to put your tax dollars into is fine as long as you are not stealing my tax dollars for it, which is what others have been saying. The idea sounds fine with me, one "socialized" care funded ONLY by those who opt into it and the other option is traditional healthcare insurance bought privately. Make it mandatory that you have to choose one or the other, that way nobody is left uninsured. I am fine with this, the problem I had was MOST people who want socialized medicine didn't want to give me a choice to opt-out or force me to pay for their premiums and care.
Nea1, while your view of $5000 deduct and 20% is not good insurance, in fact, if you were to have that policy from age 21 to death, there are huge odds that you would have much more money in your pocket as a senior citizen.
Here is a fact that few people understand. Insurance theory and practice bases paying 65% of premiums earned out in claims and claim costs. That means that for every $ 1.00 you, your employer, or government pays in, they plan to pay 65 cents. If they pay more, they have taken too much risk for their premium collected. If they pay out less they haven't taken enough risk. So where does the other 35% go? Well, it pays the company expenses such as agent commissions, building rents, taxes, etc plus a profit to its owners who generally are either stockholders or the policy holders of a mutual company.
I say all this because it does not matter how much the health care costs, the insurance industry will react and raise or lower rates. The same process works for a governmental insurance such as Medicare or Medicaide. 65% loss ratio is key....
Nea1, while your view of $5000 deduct and 20% is not good insurance, in fact, if you were to have that policy from age 21 to death, there are huge odds that you would have much more money in your pocket as a senior citizen.
Here is a fact that few people understand. Insurance theory and practice bases paying 65% of premiums earned out in claims and claim costs. That means that for every $ 1.00 you, your employer, or government pays in, they plan to pay 65 cents. If they pay more, they have taken too much risk for their premium collected. If they pay out less they haven't taken enough risk. So where does the other 35% go? Well, it pays the company expenses such as agent commissions, building rents, taxes, etc plus a profit to its owners who generally are either stockholders or the policy holders of a mutual company.
I say all this because it does not matter how much the health care costs, the insurance industry will react and raise or lower rates. The same process works for a governmental insurance such as Medicare or Medicaide. 65% loss ratio is key....
So, would you be in favor of a national catastrophic insurance? If not, what do you feel would be a better proposal?
Nea1, while your view of $5000 deduct and 20% is not good insurance, in fact, if you were to have that policy from age 21 to death, there are huge odds that you would have much more money in your pocket as a senior citizen.
Here is a fact that few people understand. Insurance theory and practice bases paying 65% of premiums earned out in claims and claim costs. That means that for every $ 1.00 you, your employer, or government pays in, they plan to pay 65 cents. If they pay more, they have taken too much risk for their premium collected. If they pay out less they haven't taken enough risk. So where does the other 35% go? Well, it pays the company expenses such as agent commissions, building rents, taxes, etc plus a profit to its owners who generally are either stockholders or the policy holders of a mutual company.
I say all this because it does not matter how much the health care costs, the insurance industry will react and raise or lower rates. The same process works for a governmental insurance such as Medicare or Medicaide. 65% loss ratio is key....
Considering I haven't had it since I was 21 that does me no good. I do know I would have to pay almost $ 12000 a year in health insurance. Now plus that $ 5000 deductable as well as, lets say the $75000 dollar bill we got from my sons surgeries, 20% is what about $15000 so that year I would have paid. $32000 in costs. Not as much as the $75,000, but still half of what we bring home after taxes..
Considering I haven't had it since I was 21 that does me no good. I do know I would have to pay almost $ 12000 a year in health insurance. Now plus that $ 5000 deductable as well as, lets say the $75000 dollar bill we got from my sons surgeries, 20% is what about $15000 so that year I would have paid. $32000 in costs. Not as much as the $75,000, but still half of what we bring home after taxes..
Woah... hold on now. You can get catastrophic heath insurance with a 5k deductible and 0% copay after the deductible for a family for a few hundred a month... depending on your age and pre-existing conditions.
Price out some catastropic plans with an FSA and come back and tell us the actual cost. I bet you'd save a ton of money in the long run.
Woah... hold on now. You can get catastrophic heath insurance with a 5k deductible and 0% copay after the deductible for a family for a few hundred a month... depending on your age and pre-existing conditions.
Price out some catastropic plans with an FSA and come back and tell us the actual cost. I bet you'd save a ton of money in the long run.
Ok my range was $478 for 5500 deductable and 30% to $1100 for really good coverage, 500 deducatable. and no %
But question is, how do I cover my MS and Thyroid disorder and my sons chronic Migraines that require meds? Thats what kills my health insurance premiums.
Nea1, I have some very hard and possibly cruel sounding questions, but failure to do so has led to your anger or at best frustration. When did you contract MS/Thyroid?
Is your income greater than S-chip allows for your child?
Now, for the harsh part, would you purchase a house that is already on fire? The compassionate side of me hurts deeply for your pain, but you don't need insurance, you need healthcare. Unfortunately, you didn't, for whatever reason, budget for risks in your life. I bet you have car insurance, home insurance, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
