Posted by Logan Shaw on January 15, 2008, 8:33 pm
Goomba38 wrote:
> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> Goomba38 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
>>>> suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
>>>> it's a scam. That's a fact.
>>>
>>> I think you meant it is a "business" rather than "scam"
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't call it a business. I would call it a gamble, and
>> some gambles are closer to a scam than a business.
>>
>> As much as I detest the notion of government-sponsored health care, I
>> have to concede that if health care was treated as a not-for-profit
>> business, the cost of health care would certainly plummet.
> I doubt it would plummet in reality, perhaps just your immediate
> recognition of what you previously paid directly to the care provider?
> Your taxes would increase, and services often decrease as it becomes
> more rationed. Many in nationalized care countries pay extra for the
> care they want.
You're speaking as if you have an implicit assumption that "not-for-profit"
equals nationalized and government-run. I am not offering any particular
point of view here, but I don't think those two things are equivalent.
- Logan
Posted by P on January 14, 2008, 11:38 pm
Thanks for your detailed suggestions.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:22:45 -0500, hchickpea@hotmail.com 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.
Yes, but there are some caveats in those as I mentioned above.
> 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.
Which plans are truly transportable and affordable? Plans which allow you
flexibility have more premium or higher deductibles.
>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.
I agree, but it is expensive also if you later on decide to get married and
have children. Most people depend on their employer for health insurance.
> 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.
Agreed, but mergers between insurance companies can also lead to this.
>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.
Would you recommend any?
> 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.
Amen, your words are very correct. I will remember that.
Thanks again.
Posted by Too_Many_Tools on January 15, 2008, 1:46 pm
On Jan 13, 5:22 pm, hchick...@hotmail.com wrote:
> wrote:
> >> 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.
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Damn good posting...it should be given to every employee.
TMT
Posted by P on January 14, 2008, 11:31 pm
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:09:46 GMT, Gordon wrote:
>>
>
> 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.
Thanks for the suggestions.
The problem is there are some like http://tinyurl.com/323u9k
whose premium is 18/per month but the agent mentioned if I get these, and
get some ailment, then try to get under my employer's insurance(when I get
a job) my ailment will not be covered by employer's insurance as this
coverage is not credible coverage as it is temp coverage. So, it will be a
pre-existing condition(in case i get an ailment). So, the agent suggested
me to get something like http://tinyurl.com/2skdkg
which has a premium of 109 per month, but which is considered credible
coverage.
Posted by Rod Speed on January 13, 2008, 5:16 pm
> I have just graduated, am 24 yrs old with a
> Body Mass Index of 20, no health issues.
What matters more is whether you smoke and do drugs or not.
> 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)
Wrong at that age and you only want catestrophy coverage.
> if I get a position (as told by the plan agent).
Not clear what this is about.
> Is it better to get a premium of 100/month
> or the one with 30/month would be fine?
The cheap one would be fine if you just want catastrophe
cover and arent into high injury rate sports etc.
> I generally visit the doctor once a year,
Why do you even visit the doctor that often at that age ?
And it makes no sense to cover that with insurance anyway.
> don't have glasses.
> I would appreciate any advice and I am presently in Florida, U.S.
XML site map
>> Goomba38 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
>>>> suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
>>>> it's a scam. That's a fact.
>>>
>>> I think you meant it is a "business" rather than "scam"
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't call it a business. I would call it a gamble, and
>> some gambles are closer to a scam than a business.
>>
>> As much as I detest the notion of government-sponsored health care, I
>> have to concede that if health care was treated as a not-for-profit
>> business, the cost of health care would certainly plummet.
> I doubt it would plummet in reality, perhaps just your immediate
> recognition of what you previously paid directly to the care provider?
> Your taxes would increase, and services often decrease as it becomes
> more rationed. Many in nationalized care countries pay extra for the
> care they want.