temporary health insurance for a recent graduate

 I have just graduated, am 24 yrs old with a Body Mass Index of 20, no
health issues. I have started looking for full time jobs, but until I get
coverage through my employer I want to have some sort of coverage for
catastrophic matters. I cannot come under my parent's coverage(as they are
self-employed so have to get their own). I can work for some place(WalMart,
McDonald) full time to get coverage, but I would rather spend all my time
searching for jobs than working at those places just for the sake of health
insurance. Working full time at one job will reduce the available time to
job searching.

I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but the more agents I
talk to the more confused I become as to which plan to choose. Some offer a
premium of 100/month and some as low as 30/month(which have a high
deductible of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage) if I
get a position(as told by the plan agent).  

Is it better to get a premium of 100/month or the one with 30/month would
be fine? I generally visit the doctor once a year, don't have glasses.

I would appreciate any advice and I am presently in Florida, U.S.

 

As a young man (or woman, you didn't say) in good health you are
probably not going to have any health problems that will need
critical care. I would almost argue that you don't need health
insurance.

What you need to do is figure out what you want your insurance
to cover.  Comprehensive coverage (that pays for everything)
will come with a high price tag.  On the other hand, if you
are willing to pay for some of the basics, you can get catastophic
coverage (major medical) that pays for only the realy big bad
expensive stuff.

 wrote:


That covers the basics, Gordon.  I have to add a few things, based on
the system the way it is now.  

Number one, I would be only looking for catastrophic coverage with the
possibility of adding features later.  As you point out, the chances
are that nothing (short of a traffic accident which would be covered
under auto insurance) will happen in the short term.

Number two, at that age especially, I would ONLY be looking at plans
that are valid in a number of states, meaning truly transportable.
BC/BS plans can be state specific, small insurers may only be licensed
in one or two states and have minimal reserves.  With the possibility
of having to move because of job opportunities, it is important that
the insurance can follow.  That leads into #3-

Number three, I would KEEP MY OWN insurance, no matter how much the
cost or trivial the payouts, EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER OFFERED INSURANCE.
Why?  At age 24 a person can find a policy that is multi-state,
non-cancellable, and has a low rate.  Once the first year of payments
have been made, there is generally no exclusion for "pre-existing"
conditions.  Why is this important?  Let's say the OP develops
diabetes or a heart condition is detected at age 26 and he or she is
only covered by the employer's insurance.  Now lets say the OP quits,
gets fired, or the company goes out of business within five years (the
chances of one of these happening is well over 50% IME).  The OP is
now shit outta luck.  There is no COBRA if the company goes out of
business, and finding a new insurance company that will cover the
biggies like diabetes, heart ailments, and depression will be
***IMPOSSIBLE*** at that time except at greatly inflated rates.
Insurers only want to insure well people.

The whole concept of employer supplied insurance is totally flawed
from the point of view of a worker.  First, the savings vs having your
own policy, if in good health, are minimal.  Employers know that
offering insurance allows them to offer less as a salary and, if their
hiring choice of employees is right, keep their contributory costs at
a minimum.  Secondly, and because of this, use of the employer's
policy raises flags in most companies and in some small companies can
lead to termination (often for some trumped-up other reason).  Third,
the insurance becomes a club that the employer can hold over the head
of the employee to keep them from asking for a raise or even quitting.
Fourth, it allows at least the gatekeeper (usually human resources) at
the company to pry into personal medical history.  Fifth, companies
can and do eliminate insurance plans as dictated by their own
financial needs.  Sixth, a single sick worker in a small company can
create a rate hike for all workers.  Seventh, fighting with the
insurance company for fair payments of expenses becomes tantamount to
fighting with the employer.

What the OP needs to find is an insurer that is solid and has been
around for a while, has a policy that covers a large group and is
NON_CANCELLABLE, and is transportable across state lines. The OP
should then plan on keeping that policy until retirement.  

Mark my words, there are thousands and thousands of people who have
depended on insurance from employers, found themselves out on the
street, had financial disaster, and lost a lifetime of savings, all
because they couldn't afford healthcare.

The final caveat is that the OP must be brutally honest in the
original application and list every doctor visited, every prescription
filled, and make absolutely sure that there are no problems not listed
on the application.  It is a lot more profitable for an insurance
company to accept an application that lies, and then only do the due
diligence once a disease or event has occured, denying coverage, and
cancelling the policy at the worst possible time.  It can even pay the
applicant to get an independent physical from a doctor (including
x-rays and full blood work), certifying that there are no apparent
problems as of the date of application.

 On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:22:45 -0500, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:


The whole concept of health insurance at all is totally flawed. There
must be universal health COVERAGE not INSURANCE in this country. If
socialized medicine is good enough for the Republicrats, Shrub and his
ilk, then it is good enough for all Americans.



But that is the American way. See, you must have a job to have health
"care" and then when you get sick and have to stop working, you lose
your job and then your health "care." God, it makes so much sense to
me! Why would anyone want to change the current setup? Sounds like a
win-win situation for everyone involved.

Health insurance has absolutely nothing to do with health care. Health
insurance is the most UNFRUGAL way to manage one's health. Better to
go without insurance than waste your money on that scam. An insurance
company WILL ALWAYS find a way to not pay out on ANY health claim.
That's the job of insurance.

You want good health coverage? The only way to get it is UNIVERSAL
COVERAGE provided by the goverment. That's it.

-N

 Napoleon wrote:


And how will you then explain to Granny that her universal coverage
won't provide her with dialysis because she's too old after 60 or so
years (as happens in countries with nationalized medicine) and what
about those long waits for joint replacements? How do we handle that?
What incentive does nationalized medicine give to doctors to excell
beyond the bare minimum? Will we pay for that gender reassignment
surgery because the man (who wants to be a woman) says they must have it
for pyschological reasons? Do we want to pay for self destructive
behaviors and how far should that go?  Do I want to be assigned a doctor
who then acts as gatekeeper to my access to specialists? That's what
happens with universal coverage, of course.
It is very easy to spout off the universal coverage is the answer, yet I
don't see many suggestions or ideas on how to make it work.