RE: health insurance

RE: health insurance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

fluffypet61 -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 10:25:05 AM)
1) hospitals overcharge because they are used to insurance companies paying big bucks. 2) there seem to be a lot of unnecessary tests and procedures being done. 3) tell me what i can cut out of my budget (remember it's a fixed income) to pay $6000 in premiums and deductable each year - for which i get NOTHING.

rulemylife -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 10:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffypet61 1) hospitals overcharge because they are used to insurance companies paying big bucks. 2) there seem to be a lot of unnecessary tests and procedures being done. Most likely, but you do realize you are in charge? Just say no, that you don't feel that particular test or procedure is necessary. quote: 3) tell me what i can cut out of my budget (remember it's a fixed income) to pay $6000 in premiums and deductable each year - for which i get NOTHING. Well, I don't know what your health conditions are, but $6k a year seems pretty excessive for a single individual. You might want to shop around.

housesub4you -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 10:41:41 AM)
Well lets see, we pay 1200 per month for 2 people So its the same amount, though this was a thru employer rate, singles only pay $85 per month, its the new family is 2 people plan So yea shop around, if you are looking into non employer HC. BUT is what everyone is bitching about!!!! The high price and no coverage!~!!! So you just quit and now bitch because others are fighting to lower the prices you yourself have paid and decided not to?????? Still, last year we paid over $12,000 for health care, now we had a baby and the bills can to over $22,000 The problem is alot of employers can't afford to offer health care to their employees anymore because the cost is going thought the roof, and insurance says it's because of medical costs keep rising; who then says its because of the un-insuranced; and the cycle continues and nothing changes, except more and more people do not have health care, which costs the entire system more when they need health care

aravain -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 1:25:30 PM)
the problem with saying no is that hospitals can (and often do) refuse to treat if you do not go through every test that they want to run.

aravain -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 1:31:58 PM)
They're usually people who are still under their parents' coverage, actually (I am pretty young comparable to other forum-goers, remember, and these are usually peers from college that I'm talking about)... they haven't ever had to conceive of healthcare without their parents to help... either that, or they're under school insurance (which at my OLD school, was actually fairly amazing for everything but preventative medicine). It distresses me. Whereas they don't think about it because they don't know they should... I try not to think about it because I'll be lucky if I can get coverage right out of college... or, get coverage that will cover pre-existing conditions... which I pretty much have a ton of.

Maya2001 -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 8:09:08 PM)
quote: and the conservatives who oppose health care reform have done a good job of frightening them into thinking that health care reform might mean that they would wind up with even less coverage than they already have, and is there any basis to that fear mongering????? I am Canadian ...on Nov 4th I was told by a doctor that I have lung cancer which appears to have been caught early and that my best chance for survival is surgery....it is now nearly 5 months later and I am still waiting for a surgery date. and I have had no other treatment had I been in the US with same type of job I would have had a good employee plan through GM and I likely would have on the operating table within 2 to 4 weeks of diagnosis and receiving chemo even if at stage 1 as a preventative...which I cannot have unless the cancer has already spread....I cannot get preventative chemo for lung cancer.. Try having breast , cervical , esophagus cancers here and try to get a PET scan,,,even though the machines are sitting in the hospitals onocolgists cannot get their patients access to them... for 10 years now only lung or prostate cancer trials are allowed access to those machinesothers are told go to the US for and pay out of pocket... the same machines can be used in brain imaging it is the best image device for heart arrythmias..an can pick out cancerous cells all over the body so extremely useful for cancers that mestasis, but instead of using they are basically not much more than dust collectors. the problem here is we are not aware of the shortages or lack of until you need it And you have Canadians going to mexico and elsewhere for treatment once they are denied further treatment care here

MrRodgers -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 9:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Possible. Many insurance companies don't want to kill the goose...just take all the eggs. If the gov't gets involved, they lose the goose and the eggs. If the govt. mandates what I have heard so far i.e., insurance for everybody but purchased from the private medical insurance industry...we are all fucked. We'll get insurance with little or no coverage...profits will roll in and we will continue to die younger. (insurance cos. have an anti-trust exemption, to fix prices) This bill will be written by the business lobbyists that stand to gain the most and likely...the medical insurance industry. In short, we are the goose AND the eggs and will probably have a heart attack.

MrRodgers -> RE: health insurance (3/25/2009 9:45:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maya2001 quote: and the conservatives who oppose health care reform have done a good job of frightening them into thinking that health care reform might mean that they would wind up with even less coverage than they already have, and is there any basis to that fear mongering????? I am Canadian ...on Nov 4th I was told by a doctor that I have lung cancer which appears to have been caught early and that my best chance for survival is surgery....it is now nearly 5 months later and I am still waiting for a surgery date. and I have had no other treatment had I been in the US with same type of job I would have had a good employee plan through GM and I likely would have on the operating table within 2 to 4 weeks of diagnosis and receiving chemo even if at stage 1 as a preventative...which I cannot have unless the cancer has already spread....I cannot get preventative chemo for lung cancer.. Try having breast , cervical , esophagus cancers here and try to get a PET scan,,,even though the machines are sitting in the hospitals onocolgists cannot get their patients access to them... for 10 years now only lung or prostate cancer trials are allowed access to those machinesothers are told go to the US for and pay out of pocket... the same machines can be used in brain imaging it is the best image device for heart arrythmias..an can pick out cancerous cells all over the body so extremely useful for cancers that mestasis, but instead of using they are basically not much more than dust collectors. the problem here is we are not aware of the shortages or lack of until you need it And you have Canadians going to mexico and elsewhere for treatment once they are denied further treatment care here Yes, and most of the insurance that would cover a US patient would be paid for by the employer and employee or that patient would similarly not get the surgery or it's paid for by medicare. (govt.) Facilities/machines are up and available because of the big money available from medicare (govt.) My grandmother saw 9 doctors for a few minutes each...everyone said, "Yep, a broken hip." Then every Dr. proceeded to bill medicare $250. The US could, if it wasn't stuck in such an untaxed 'for-profit' culture, could afford medicare...for everybody. America currently has a very successful and very expensive govt. medical care program...for the poor and the elderly.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: health insurance (3/26/2009 6:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNooki I missed something here Rule....what is your argument here? ("Argument"...legal debate/conversation on opposing sides....argument). My argument is that health insurance companies have not raised premiums just for those with long-term health issues but have raised rates for all. Because these companies do not make the majority of their money from the premiums they charge but from re-investing those premiums in the market, which is doing rather poorly. And we're making up the difference. (edited to add: I wasn't arguing with Philosophy, just the topics in the article that I mentioned) Hmmmmmmm...... I'm afraid I'm probably missing the intended topic here (and unfairly {hopefully not} misrepresenting a rebuttal on Rules point) but..... A few years back....6 or 8 if I recall....Washington State (my state) had a legislative mandate that...for 180 days, anyone wanting health insurance could come here and get same. (If anyone has a better recollection of the facts, please feel free)....but the essences was....all bets were off...if you had AIDS, if you were dying of some odd disease that was caused by trees, if you had 3 legs and needed one of them amputated by Tuesday....you could get insurance within that 180 days...and no questions were asked. None. No waiting period. If you bought insurance on Tuesday...you could have an operation on Wednesday. Of course, the legislators insisted this wouldn't cause rates to rise in the slightest...naturally the insurance companies insisted it would cause rates to rise exponentially. The obvious occurred. Everyone from San Francisco that couldn't previously get insurance raced to Seattle and rented homes...and bought insurance. Literally weeks later our hospitals were flooded with new AIDS patients, heart patients, rates in our state exploded....and we were buried in critical care patients. Rule: "My argument is that health insurance companies have not raised premiums, just for those with long-term health issues but have raised rates for all." Health insurance companies have to pay bills...based on risk. If they charged only for those whose risk is high....those who had debilitating diseases couldn't afford health care. Those whose risk is low, could probably afford health care with simply a drive through job at McDonalds. The purpose of insurance is to spread risk. Washington states example was a poor one...it exemplified the risks involved with specializing risk in isolated cases wherein which risk was defined...assigned....and even acclimated towards those with the highest probability of poor health. The proper assignation of risk as pertains to health care is to do exactly as is most often done with health insurance.....charge those with low risk, the same price as those with high risk, but charge those with low risk a slightly higher premium than their inherent risk would justify (while charging those with higher risk a slightly lower premium)....because they're (those with low risk of bad health) the majority...to buffer those who (have taken more risk in life....as well as those who simply got dealt a bad hand)...solely because.... The next one might be you.

rulemylife -> RE: health insurance (3/26/2009 7:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aravain the problem with saying no is that hospitals can (and often do) refuse to treat if you do not go through every test that they want to run. No, they will still treat you but it will be considered "against medical advice" which is a clever little euphemism designed to shield the health care professionals from malpractice suits.

rulemylife -> RE: health insurance (3/26/2009 8:13:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie Rule: "My argument is that health insurance companies have not raised premiums, just for those with long-term health issues but have raised rates for all." Health insurance companies have to pay bills...based on risk. If they charged only for those whose risk is high....those who had debilitating diseases couldn't afford health care. Those whose risk is low, could probably afford health care with simply a drive through job at McDonalds. The purpose of insurance is to spread risk. Washington states example was a poor one...it exemplified the risks involved with specializing risk in isolated cases wherein which risk was defined...assigned....and even acclimated towards those with the highest probability of poor health. The proper assignation of risk as pertains to health care is to do exactly as is most often done with health insurance.....charge those with low risk, the same price as those with high risk, but charge those with low risk a slightly higher premium than their inherent risk would justify (while charging those with higher risk a slightly lower premium)....because they're (those with low risk of bad health) the majority...to buffer those who (have taken more risk in life....as well as those who simply got dealt a bad hand)...solely because.... The next one might be you. Yes, thank you for the lesson in spreading the risk, but I'm well aware of how insurance companies operate. Which does not address the point I made that these companies reinvest our premiums into the market so that what we pay is not dependent on our health or even on the health of other customers, but on how well the company does on their investments. And I'm not just talking health insurance, my home insurance policy nearly doubled this year, with no legitimate reason. When I asked my agent why he pretty much told me what I just said here.

aravain -> RE: health insurance (3/27/2009 4:36:04 AM)
Er, I've been in a situation where they refused to run ANY tests unless I got one (for STIs... well, they were called STDs then. It was when I was still a virgin and tested negative for all of them in the past) that cost excess money that my family didn't want to charge to health insurance or pay for (our health insurance rates would rise because they would assume that I was sexually active, thereby increasing my risks of health problems... and yes, we checked beforehand to make sure that was the truth). We ended up getting the test run so that we could get the other, actually important tests done. My health insurance costs increased as a direct result of that blood test, which was specific to STDs, and not checking for anything else (none of the others which similarly came up negative).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125