health insurance

Question:

Maybe I should feel lucky then — I pay the same amount for my individual COBRA plan that my employer paid and my benefits are exactly the same as current employees. Since this is my second COBRA plan, it must be the way the law works here in Virginia. steve preferred e-mail address: without the "SPAM," of course! My life goes on in endless song above Earth’s lamentations, I hear the real, though far off, hymn, that hails a new creation. Through all the tumult and the strife I hear its music ringing, It sounds an echo in my soul. How can I keep from singing? — from the song How Can I Keep from Singing – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->As I understand it …. it is supposed to be the same coverage as you had >with your >employer. >> Also, IIRC, the benefits on a COBRA plan are pretty watered down. >OH, your are right Robin…I apologize. I was thinking of conversion of a >group policy to an individual policy. The coverage on those are watered down, >not the coverage on COBRA. Sorry about the brain fart….. >Roseanne Roseannadanna >AGC Visually Impaired Item Maintenance Technician >Alternatively, Keeper Intact of Blind Bits Listed Entirely Separately and Blind >Items Together for Searches (KIBBLES & BITS) AND Keeper of Daniel Day-Lewis!

Response:

>As I understand it …. it is supposed to be the same coverage as you had >with your >employer. > Also, IIRC, the benefits on a COBRA plan are pretty watered down.

OH, your are right Robin…I apologize. I was thinking of conversion of a group policy to an individual policy. The coverage on those are watered down, not the coverage on COBRA. Sorry about the brain fart….. Roseanne Roseannadanna AGC Visually Impaired Item Maintenance Technician Alternatively, Keeper Intact of Blind Bits Listed Entirely Separately and Blind Items Together for Searches (KIBBLES & BITS) AND Keeper of Daniel Day-Lewis!

Response:

When we had Kaiser here in California, and I turned 23, I could continue under Cobra for $182 a month, and there coverage was the same, except no prescription coverage. This was 5 years ago though, and it might have changed. — HappyJoy http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5168

>As I understand it …. it is supposed to be the same coverage as you had >with your >employer. > Also, IIRC, the benefits on a COBRA plan are pretty watered down.

Response:

The K-K law sets no national cap on fees–just says you can’t be turned down if you have (I think) a minimum of 1 yr covered already. Some states may differ. Also–COBRA does indeed require you to pay the entire amount plus a fee, but it is still based on the original group rate and will be lower than totally individual coverage. My COBRA for one (no family) was $612 per month. John

Response:

>why do you think individual insurance will be cheaper than COBRA, which >after all, is based on a group rate, even though you pay it yourself? Private >pay is always more $, for the same amount of coverage. >John

From what I understand about COBRA, is that often, especially with a large company, the company pays part of the premium for the employee. If you go on COBRA, you are responsible for the entire premium. For example, I pay $40.65 per month for my Aetna HMO coverage, for the entire family. Pretty good huh? Well, Aetna (my employer, life division, not health division) is actually kicking in a little over $400.00 per month for me. They add the $400.00 per month to my pay, and then deduct the whole cost of insurance from my check. If I went on COBRA, I would have to pay the whole premium. Also, IIRC, the benefits on a COBRA plan are pretty watered down. As far as excessive premiums when changing jobs…I believe that the insurance company cannot turn you down, but can rate the premium up as high as 66%. This applies to group coverage, not to individual coverage. (Or at least this is the case in Texas). Roseanne Roseannadanna AGC Visually Impaired Item Maintenance Technician Alternatively, Keeper Intact of Blind Bits Listed Entirely Separately and Blind Items Together for Searches (KIBBLES & BITS) AND Keeper of Daniel Day-Lewis!

Response:

That is why they have to offer you Cobra and it is only offered for a short period of time … because you try and go and get private health care you are going to pay more for it then you do with the Cobra …. that is the reason for COBRA. > From what I understand about COBRA, is that often, especially with a large > company, the company pays part of the premium for the employee.

But COBRA is cheaper than trying to get health insurance privately. > If you go on COBRA, you are responsible for the entire premium. For example, I > pay $40.65 per month for my Aetna HMO coverage, for the entire family. Pretty > good huh? Well, Aetna (my employer, life division, not health division) is > actually kicking in a little over $400.00 per month for me. They add the $400.00 > per month to my pay, and then deduct the whole cost of insurance from my check. > If I went on COBRA, I would have to pay the whole premium.

As I understand it …. it is supposed to be the same coverage as you had with your employer. > Also, IIRC, the benefits on a COBRA plan are pretty watered down. > As far as excessive premiums when changing jobs…I believe that the insurance > company cannot turn you down, but can rate the premium up as high as 66%. This > applies to group coverage, not to individual coverage. (Or at least this is the > case in Texas). > Roseanne Roseannadanna > AGC Visually Impaired Item Maintenance Technician > Alternatively, Keeper Intact of Blind Bits Listed Entirely Separately and Blind > Items Together for Searches (KIBBLES & BITS) AND Keeper of Daniel Day-Lewis!

Cheers Robin & her band of merry mischief makers http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/7945

Response:

Pllaces >have offered to cover us with exclusions on the UC and asthma, but for >heaven’s sake, those are the things we need the insurance for! >What state are you in?

The K&K law is federal–applies in all states. Unless there is some detail I don’t understand about your experience, your family is exactly who the law was meant to help! As I wrot4e before, there IS the problem of potential excessive premiums, but a pre-existing condition no longer can be used to exclude you. Is it possible that you started on COBRA too soon according to the rules? Any insuranxce co. is supposedly covered–not just your current one. One thing, tho–why do you think individual insurance will be cheaper than COBRA, which after all, is based on a group rate, even though you pay it yourself? Private pay is always more $, for the same amount of coverage. John

Response:

Wow, this is way different from my experience. The distinctions I have come across are between individual/family insurance plans versus group plans (like those provided by workplaces). We have been paying COBRA for close to a year, and it’s really expensive. I’ve tried to get individual/family insurance which is usually less and have been denied and denied and denied. Besides my UC my daughter has asthma so I don’t know if we’d be more insurable with just one chronic illness?! Places have offered to cover us with exclusions on the UC and asthma, but for heaven’s sake, those are the things we need the insurance for! What state are you in? I wonder if this stuff differs from state to state? Linda – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I just found out last week that there is a new low on previous conditions. If > you are switching directly from cobra or regular insurance get your employer to > write a condition of certifiable coverage letter. Once received by your new > insurance company they must cover the prior condition from day one. This only > works if you have been covered by the first insurance plan for one full year or > more (or whatever the waiting period for prior conditions at the new plan is). > This is vital infomation for us! I have been paying for Cobra from my job and > for coverage on my husband’s policy since January. We were doing this because > I couldn’t afford to have a lapse in coverage (as I am sure you know about!). > A big thank you to whoever got this law pushed through. Now we just need to > tell people about it!

Response:

I just found out last week that there is a new low on previous conditions. If you are switching directly from cobra or regular insurance get your employer to write a condition of certifiable coverage letter. Once received by your new insurance company they must cover the prior condition from day one. This only works if you have been covered by the first insurance plan for one full year or more (or whatever the waiting period for prior conditions at the new plan is). This is vital infomation for us! I have been paying for Cobra from my job and for coverage on my husband’s policy since January. We were doing this because I couldn’t afford to have a lapse in coverage (as I am sure you know about!). A big thank you to whoever got this law pushed through. Now we just need to tell people about it!

Response:

>A big thank you to whoever got this law pushed through. Now we just need to >tell people about it!

Sens. Kennedy & Kassenbaum. The only catch is that there is no cap on the premium they can charge, and they can apparently change the terms drastically–adding lifetime caps, adding copayments, etc. John

Response:

Regarding employer sponsored health insurance. If the employer has an "open" plan – one in which employees are allowed to enroll at specific times (usually twice a year) – the insurance must accept you and cover you as any other on the insurance. they cannot exclude pre-existing conditions, unless that condition is not covered for anyone on the policy. However, they can still employ a one year "pre-existing condition clause". In essence, the ins. co. does not have to cover pre-existing conditions for one year from the date of coverage. It matters not whether you saw a physician or not. What matters is if you had the condition and a reasonable person would have sought medical care for the condition. If you have not needed medical intervention for one year prior to your acceptance into the plan, some companies will not enforce the pre-existing condition clause. COBRA is the conversion of benefits reconcilliation plan. Basically, if you had coverage, and are not longer employed, you can elect to pay all the premium (employee plus employer part) and will have the same coverage with the same deductibles, etc. for the 18 months following your termination of employment. Hope this helps. — Sheryl Doggett, M.S. (216) 672-2672 KENT STATE UNIVERSITY A104 Music and Speech Building Kent, OH 44242

Response:

>In California there is a $250,000 limit on >medical malpractice. So, does that mean that >if it will cost the HMO more than that to save >a life–they (HMO) will let them die because >the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? >Is this correct?

Wow! I think I’d rather shoot myself than live with such a view of life and people. ANTI-SPAM measures in place. Remove ANTI-SPAM to e-mail. Jason Dulnev For great Long Distance rates visit http://ld.net/?dulnev

Response:

>HMOs are in business to make money, they are not charities. >Haven’t you ever heard of the free market? If you don’t like it, >you can always take your money (and ailments) elsewhere. >Its sick people that make insurance so dam expensive.

Amen.

Response:

> In California there is a $250,000 limit on > medical malpractice. So, does that mean that > if it will cost the HMO more than that to save > a life–they (HMO) will let them die because > the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? > Is this correct?

I suppose you would have them spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments for someone who may die anyway. HMOs are losing money hand over fist these days because of people who think they should get second opinions and every kind of expensive life saving treatment available just because they paid some piddly premiums. HMOs are in business to make money, they are not charities. Haven’t you ever heard of the free market? If you don’t like it, you can always take your money (and ailments) elsewhere. Its sick people that make insurance so dam expensive.

Response:

: Okay, but if all the people who aren’t sick–i.e. pay premiums but don’t : use them–are in the first group, how is the second group going to : support itself by insuring people who cost way more than their premiums? It would be like starting out with basic cable. You get your basic service, then if you wished, you could go on to get the premium service. When someone was very young and didn’t have a lot of cash, they could get the stripped down service. Yes, maybe that they will be gambling that they won’t get cancer, or pregnant, or AIDS, or whatever. : Or will the premiums go up so high that people can’t afford when they get : seriously sick (again, we’ve got that now with several companies)? Would : the idea be that people can transfer to the high-risk insurance after : they get sick, in which case you’d probably have to legally require : companies to carry such insureds? It’s up to the individual. Obviously, one must pick and choose the plan that is best for them. You can’t decide to insure against something after that event has already occured. That’s the core of how INSURANCE works. That’s why they call it insurance. You’re hedging your bets in case you get sick. The insurance company is betting you won’t get sick. In the most literal sense, they are just the betting booth at the big "race track" of life. They take your bets. It’s not actually the job of insurance companies to deal with sick people. — Elaine Gallegos

Response:

writes: > > In California there is a $250,000 limit on > > medical malpractice. So, does that mean that > > if it will cost the HMO more than that to save > > a life–they (HMO) will let them die because > > the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? > > Is this correct? > I suppose you would have them spend hundreds of thousands > of dollars in treatments for someone who may die anyway. >Chemo… radiation…all those things cost serious money. However, they >also save lives. When did we start placing a monitary value on human >life?

When we couldn’t afford to pay for everybody’s health care. I think the poster you’re following up to is either a troll or somebody with whom I disagree violently, and I think the original poster needs to examine the criminal statutes about manslaughter, not just the civil ones regarding medical malpractice. But if you think there’s no monetary value on human life, you see just how much medical treatment you can get if you’re not insured (especially if you’re in either Washington or Oregon, I forget which), and you check out what your insurance company refuses to cover. There’s been a monetary value on our lives for quite awhile, but we mostly tend to notice it when the scale slides. Deborah Stevenson

Response:

: On the day we invented money. There always has been "a monitary[sic] : value on human life", and there always will be. It’s simply a question of : what that value is. Gee, you’re smart. You certainly have a good grasp of reality and economics. Everything you state below is quite true, and some very good food for thought. My idea was that there could be different types of coverage, or different insurance companies that covered different kinds of things. For in stance, you could go with a company that provided basic care, but didn’t deal with… say, AIDS treatment, or obstetrics, or maybe didn’t have oncology. A big part of the expense of health care are the fantasically expensive treatments. You could buy the level of care that was right for you and your family, but wouldn’t have to foot the bill for fields of treatment known to be both fabulously expensive, and notoriously difficult to fix. Then there could be other companies that did cover everything, or even specialized in the different expensive fields. : If you don’t believe me, let’s run a little thought experiment. Suppose : I invented a new treatment, one that can cure _anything_ short of death. : Cancer, heart disease, AIDS, cooties–you name it. There’s just one problem. : It requires fabulous amounts of manpower and supercomputer time to figure out : how to make it work for a particular case, and fabulous amounts of rare : equipment to perform it–so, even if I sell the treatment at my cost, it’s : going to cost about a hundred million dollars per patient. : Should everyone who wants this treatment be allowed to have it? And if : so, how? : We simply _could not_ tell the insurance companies and HMOs, "You must : provide this treatment to all your patients who need it"; they would go out : of business overnight–they simply could not afford to provide that treatment, : and still charge a premium that any normal human being could afford. So the : treatment would have to be provided by the government, or at least it would : have to be massively taxpayer-subsidized. But the money that the government : uses to provide that treatment doesn’t come from nowhere; it comes from the : pockets of taxpayers, through some combination of direct taxation (which : hurts particular taxpayers directly) and printing new money (which lessons : the value of the existing money, which effectively taxes everyone in the : economy indirectly). How many man-hours of other people’s lives will go into : extra work, to generate the money, to pay the taxes, that go into that : treatment? What’s the value of those lives? : Or, to give a nonmedical example, suppose I ran an airline. Suppose : there were some revolutionary new piece of safety equipment I could add to : my planes; if a plane with that new system crashed, the fatalities would be : reduced by 50%. But that system would raise the price of the planes by 100%. : Should I use that system? Should I be required to? If I don’t, I’m "putting : a monetary value on human life", right? But if I do use it, then I’m going : to have to raise the price of tickets drastically. And if all airlines are : required to use it, then all airlines will have to raise prices drastically. : And if all the airlines do that, then the passengers we’re trying to protect– : particularly the lower-income ones–will stop flying, and start driving. : But driving a certain distance is much _more_ likely to kill you than flying : that same distance on a commercial flight–even before we add this new : safety system. So, now, in the interests of "promoting safety", we’ve steered : people away from using a relatively safe form of transportation, and towards : a relatively dangerous one. Deaths in airplane crashes will certainly plummet, : but overall transportation-related deaths will probably increase. What’s : wrong with this picture? : : Now, I’m not trying to argue that the whole concept of safety : requirements, and minimum treatment standards, is bad; clearly, it’s not. : If that treatment that could cure anything cost no more (or little more) than : conventional treatments used now, then clearly it would make sense. If that : safety improvement only raised the cost of the plane by 1% instead of 100%, : then we’d be insane not to insist on it. But there’s clearly a line somewhere : in between, a point at which mandating these sorts of standards stops being : productive and starts being counterproductive; deciding exactly where to draw : that line is a very difficult problem. But "You’re placing a monetary value : on human life" is not a productive attitude to take in finding that line; : anyone who advocates that–who says that we absolutely must take any step : necessary to save one life, regardless of cost–is placing a monetary value : on _other people’s_ lives, and a pretty low one at that. : — : o If you’re interested in books/stories with transformation themes, o : /o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/ : o New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ o : /o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p– sm# /o/ — Elaine Gallegos

Response:

> The only reason people got so upset at the Ford Motor Company over >the Pinto was not that they put a value on human life when they poorly >designed the gas tank, but that the price was so low, I think $147,000 >each.

Low? Most people aren’t worth 147 grand.

Response:

(Doobie) writes: >People should learn that cheeseburgers are ok in moderation, but not as a >lifestyle. People should be fully informed about the dangers of smoking. >Yeah, tell the cow that cheeseburgers are okay in moderation.

Presumably being eaten, like getting cancer, is a creature’s own fault . Deborah Stevenson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And based on what research do you conclude that the Canadian Health care > system a failure? > Up until the rounds of budget cuts in the 90s, it delivered services up to > the standards anywhere, and did so at a reasonable cost. There was fat in > the system, but the cuts went beyond the fat. You might be interested that > prior to 1988, we actually paid premiums, which paid for most of the system > (Gov’t pays for capital items, offset by capital funds raised by the > lotterie). What was my premium in 1988? About $35 CDN per month, if I > recall correctly. > Just out of curiosity, if you don’t mind my asking, what do you pay in > taxes currently? (as a percentage of income).

I’m going to answer this one because I happen to have a couple of tax returns sitting on my desk as I read this. These returns are for 1994 and 1995. The tax rates did not change significantly in 1996 or 1997, so you assume that the results would be similar for more recent years. I live in Ontario. In 1994, I had a taxable income of $34,800 (my gross income was higher, but I had deductions for things like retirement plan contributions and professional fees). My total personal income tax payable was $8,164. That’s 23.46%. In 1995, my taxable income was $27,600. My taxes were $5,619. Tax rate: 20.36%. My income in 1996 and 1997 has been significantly higher, and I expect that my tax rate this year will be about 28%. These tax dollars don’t only pay for health care. Education in Canada is partly subsidized by the government, as well. College tuition is currently ~$3,000 per year, and I believe the tuition at the better universities runs to around $6,000. (Someone please correct me if I’m way off on these numbers – I’m guessing a bit.) I personally think this is a Good Thing, as it allows _everyone_, not just the silver spoon crowd, to get an education if they want one. And more people with an education means more people with good jobs paying more taxes… Jo Anne | _,,,–,,___ /,`.-’`’ -. ;–;;,__ |,4- ) )-,_..; ( `’–’ Jo Anne, Mike, Jeff, Trish, Fluffy and Dusty

Response:

: : There is a conflict here which has been analyzed over and over. The only : : reasonable solution : If you think that there is only one solution to a problem, you do not : really understand the question. : The cusp of the healthcare debate is that people want all the state of : the art treatments, but they don’t want to have to pay for it. : We are enamored of the myth if "free stuff". Clue: nothing is really : free. The Canadian experiment is a failure, because everyone is willing to : suspend disbelief, and call their system "free" health care. Is that the reason we have problems? You’re surprising me, a Canadian, because I thought I and my parents had been paying for health care for years. I read about the US system out of interest in the big system next door. You do it your way, we do it ours. Cheryl

Response:

Unfortunately, people are pretty well-educated about the dangers of smoking, how one gets HIV, how unplanned pregnancies happen, etc. The problem is changing behavior. Ask anyone in healthcare/public health. A lack of knowledge is only part of it, and in my experience, a very small part. A lack of using that knowledge rationally is a whole ‘nother problem. Ilene B – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > People should learn that cheeseburgers are ok in moderation, but not as a > lifestyle. People should be fully informed about the dangers of smoking. > Education in these areas is truly frugal, as it costs much less than the > treatments for the ailments these things might cause. > James Linn

Response:

>Its sick people that make insurance so dam expensive.

I read everything following up on this post and boy am I glad that I do not live in the United States…. I can’t imagine gambling on my health care every day of my life… and then having statements like the above made when I get sick…… sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! jb

Response:

> : There is a conflict here which has been analyzed over and over. The only > : reasonable solution > If you think that there is only one solution to a problem, you do not > really understand the question. > The cusp of the healthcare debate is that people want all the state of > the art treatments, but they don’t want to have to pay for it. > We are enamored of the myth if "free stuff". Clue: nothing is really > free. The Canadian experiment is a failure, because everyone is willing to > suspend disbelief, and call their system "free" health care.

And based on what research do you conclude that the Canadian Health care system a failure? Up until the rounds of budget cuts in the 90s, it delivered services up to the standards anywhere, and did so at a reasonable cost. There was fat in the system, but the cuts went beyond the fat. You might be interested that prior to 1988, we actually paid premiums, which paid for most of the system (Gov’t pays for capital items, offset by capital funds raised by the lotterie). What was my premium in 1988? About $35 CDN per month, if I recall correctly. The budget cuts have meant that some of the latest technologies like MRI, are not as available as they should be, and some waiting lists are getting long. But I’ve had many years of experience in the system, and have had some truly excellent care. Waits in the emergency take longer, but much of that could be eliminated if we had better "triage" so that those with the flu were dealt with on a different track than those with a broken arm. Recent analysis has shown that over half of the visits to the ER could have been treated by a family doctor. We have some world class institutions doing world class research. We have the same problems servicing rural areas that the US has. Our system isn’t perfect, but it does work reasonably well. I think the average rich person gets less care than he might in the states(if he is willing to pay), but the average person in an HMO gets less care. Budget cuts again have some admins here mimic some of the things that HMOs have done, like the 24 hour turnaround delivery. But at least we have an elected official we can harass about these issues and it might have some influence. Friends of mine in the US tell me horror stories all the time about bashing heads with their HMOs. One thought for "frugality" in medicine – seeing your doctor early and often is less expensive than putting off a problem until it becomes very serious. Tests are cheaper than hospital beds. James Linn My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!

Response:

: There is a conflict here which has been analyzed over and over. The only : reasonable solution If you think that there is only one solution to a problem, you do not really understand the question. The cusp of the healthcare debate is that people want all the state of the art treatments, but they don’t want to have to pay for it. We are enamored of the myth if "free stuff". Clue: nothing is really free. The Canadian experiment is a failure, because everyone is willing to suspend disbelief, and call their system "free" health care. is some form of national health insurance. Whether : the Clinton plan or the Canadian plan, the only simple way to achieve health : insurance ofr all is to go this way. : The market however used its money to fund Republican candidates in ‘94 and that : was : the end of that, for now. The market has shown resilience, in that the double : digit increases of health care cost have been greatly reduced in recent years. : HMO’s have gone out of business or merged. Large networks like Columbia HCA : who apparently were doing well have been exposed as accused large scale frauds. : So life goes on and there is hope that the multitudes of problems can be addressed, : though not perfectly. : If you’re looking for justice in this world, you might as well pass on out. : Quote from an old lady from Georgia. : Roger Alexander — Elaine Gallegos

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > : Okay, but if all the people who aren’t sick–i.e. pay premiums but don’t > : use them–are in the first group, how is the second group going to > : support itself by insuring people who cost way more than their premiums? > It would be like starting out with basic cable. You get your basic > service, then if you wished, you could go on to get the premium service. > When someone was very young and didn’t have a lot of cash, they could get > the stripped down service. Yes, maybe that they will be gambling that they > won’t get cancer, or pregnant, or AIDS, or whatever. > : Or will the premiums go up so high that people can’t afford when they get > : seriously sick (again, we’ve got that now with several companies)? Would > : the idea be that people can transfer to the high-risk insurance after > : they get sick, in which case you’d probably have to legally require > : companies to carry such insureds? > It’s up to the individual. Obviously, one must pick and choose the plan > that is best for them. You can’t decide to insure against something after > that event has already occured. > That’s the core of how INSURANCE works. That’s why they call it > insurance. You’re hedging your bets in case you get sick. The insurance > company is betting you won’t get sick. In the most literal sense, they are > just the betting booth at the big "race track" of life. They take your > bets. It’s not actually the job of insurance companies to deal with sick > people.

Actually, the problem with health insurance is that it is not just single person rated risk insurance, but has other purposes stated and unstated. When Blue Cross started many years ago, the thought was innocent enough. All the employers in a community would join with their employees, and the community rate for insurance would be low enough that every one could be covered without rating individuals. Then some large companies realized that their costs were much lower than the Blue Cross rates and faced the Blues with the choice of giving them a break or going elsewhere. This was the beginning of the end of that notion. There is a conflict here which has been analyzed over and over. The only reasonable solution is some form of national health insurance. Whether the Clinton plan or the Canadian plan, the only simple way to achieve health insurance ofr all is to go this way. The market however used its money to fund Republican candidates in ‘94 and that was the end of that, for now. The market has shown resilience, in that the double digit increases of health care cost have been greatly reduced in recent years. HMO’s have gone out of business or merged. Large networks like Columbia HCA who apparently were doing well have been exposed as accused large scale frauds. So life goes on and there is hope that the multitudes of problems can be addressed, though not perfectly. If you’re looking for justice in this world, you might as well pass on out. Quote from an old lady from Georgia. Roger Alexander

Response:

>The concern here is young people using their money for more >needed things, like maybe house payments. Young people >are at very low risk of cancer.

More remarks of ignorance. And , if perchance, the young person gets cancer? Who pays? Where does the money come from now? Since this unfortunate person chose not to buy complete coverage, what do they do when they can’t afford treatments? Curl up and die?

Response:

>: And if you can’t afford the premiums for the high level stuff and a drunk >: driver hits you, or you get appendicitis? Or if you’re a 20-year-old >: diabetic, who could expect another 40 years of useful working life but who >: hasn’t managed to get the earning power to pay for the higher level that >: covers insulin? > What would be the point in paying an unsurance company that wouldn’t >cover you in case of accident, or an easily managed condition? That would >be mondo stupid.

Shoot, Elaine, I can’t even figure out the point of paying an insurance company that wouldn’t cover me in the case of cancer. This is your hypothetical arrangement, not mine. Go ahead, switch the disease/disability to whatever you’re imagining your theoretical company wouldn’t cover. What do you want to do with the people who can’t afford the coverage and who get sick with whatever disease you’re deciding the company doesn’t cover? Deborah Stevenson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> > In California there is a $250,000 limit on >> > medical malpractice. So, does that mean that >> > if it will cost the HMO more than that to save >> > a life–they (HMO) will let them die because >> > the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? >> > Is this correct? >> I suppose you would have them spend hundreds of thousands >> of dollars in treatments for someone who may die anyway. >Chemo… radiation…all those things cost serious money. However, they >also save lives. When did we start placing a monitary value on human >life? > On the day we invented money. There always has been "a monitary[sic] > value on human life", and there always will be. It’s simply a question of > what that value is.

Very nice post. The only reason people got so upset at the Ford Motor Company over the Pinto was not that they put a value on human life when they poorly designed the gas tank, but that the price was so low, I think $147,000 each. Regarding the duty imposed by negligence law, the standard was nicely put and (for many cases, anyway) laid down by Judge (later Mr. Justice) Cardozo. He said: " The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed." He BTW was not dealing with product design liability where explicit decisions have to made in so many difficult and complex ways that it is often hard to sort them out. Roger alexander

Response:

>>> It would be like starting out with basic cable. You get your basic >>service, then if you wished, you could go on to get the premium service. >> When someone was very young and didn’t have a lot of cash, they could >>get the stripped down service. Yes, maybe that they will be gambling that >>theywon’t get cancer, or pregnant, or AIDS, or whatever. >Aids wasn’t avoidable by those who got infected by a tainted blood supply. >They trusted the doctors, who never mentioned the risks, because they >didn’t realise the red cross was distributing tainted blood.

There was a short period of time where there was a signficant risk from blood products. But, now blood is screened and in non-emergancy situations, one can get blood from onself or a known safe person. And, there is always a risk of getting something from donated blood. This isn’t new with HIV. >Some cancers are avoidable, many are not.

The concern here is young people using their money for more needed things, like maybe house payments. Young people are at very low risk of cancer. >Many diseases (Cancer, Heart disease) are attributable to genetic factors, >and since you can’t pick your parents, these too are unavoidable.

Lifestyle can be a major contributing factor to cancer and hear disease. And, again, these aren’t things young people need to worry about. >Think about the consequences. If we lived in a totally free market society, >I’d sue you if you smoked near me and I got lung cancer,

There’s no signficant risk of cancer from second hand smoke (except maybe for people forced to endure years close to smokers). And, if you disagree, you can choose to be someplace away from me. >since I’m a >non-smoker and you are the most likely suspect. You’d sue me because you >got heart disease because I forgot to tell you that those bacon >cheeseburgers that I sold you by the dozen were harmful to your health.

It’s a good thing for me that I don’t like bacon cheeseburgers. >Perhaps we can strive to educate people about the risks (and lower our >collective health costs) and provide for those, who through no fault of >their own, get a serious disease.

I’m all for education. People shouldn’t make habbits out of smoking and cheeseburgers.

Response:

: The individual might be gambling, but the insurance companies : don’t gamble. Their rates are based on reliable population : statistics. Of course the HOUSE doesn’t gamble. The house, like a casino, is a business. In addition to operating expenses and salaries, they can only stay in business if they make a profit. — Elaine Gallegos

Response:

> And, cancer is also very avoidable for young and >middle-aged people. So, why should I pay for other people >when they could have avoided their need for medical claims?

What an ignorant remark! I personally know quite a few folks who were stricken with what you claim to be ‘very avoidable’ cancer. Not one of them did anything to get the disease. All of those people would be considered young or middle aged. Including my wife and mother of 7 children, who was 38 at diagnosis.

Response:

: And if you can’t afford the premiums for the high level stuff and a drunk : driver hits you, or you get appendicitis? Or if you’re a 20-year-old : diabetic, who could expect another 40 years of useful working life but who : hasn’t managed to get the earning power to pay for the higher level that : covers insulin? What would be the point in paying an unsurance company that wouldn’t cover you in case of accident, or an easily managed condition? That would be mondo stupid. — Elaine Gallegos

Response:

writes: >: Okay, but if all the people who aren’t sick–i.e. pay premiums but don’t >: use them–are in the first group, how is the second group going to >: support itself by insuring people who cost way more than their premiums? > It would be like starting out with basic cable. You get your basic >service, then if you wished, you could go on to get the premium service. > When someone was very young and didn’t have a lot of cash, they could get >the stripped down service. Yes, maybe that they will be gambling that they >won’t get cancer, or pregnant, or AIDS, or whatever.

…or their workplace would. >: Or will the premiums go up so high that people can’t afford when they get >: seriously sick (again, we’ve got that now with several companies)? Would >: the idea be that people can transfer to the high-risk insurance after >: they get sick, in which case you’d probably have to legally require >: companies to carry such insureds? > It’s up to the individual. Obviously, one must pick and choose the plan >that is best for them. You can’t decide to insure against something after >that event has already occured.

And if you can’t afford the premiums for the high level stuff and a drunk driver hits you, or you get appendicitis? Or if you’re a 20-year-old diabetic, who could expect another 40 years of useful working life but who hasn’t managed to get the earning power to pay for the higher level that covers insulin? While I can see there’s a certain attraction to the financial benefit from not paying for these people, I think there are greater non-financial detriments. > That’s the core of how INSURANCE works. That’s why they call it >insurance. You’re hedging your bets in case you get sick. The insurance >company is betting you won’t get sick. In the most literal sense, they are >just the betting booth at the big "race track" of life. They take your >bets. It’s not actually the job of insurance companies to deal with sick >people.

Sure it is. It’s just not their job to keep them healthy–subtle difference. Look, I don’t have any illusions about risk assessment, I am a former employee of an insurance company, and I understand the dispassionate calculation of acceptable losses involved in modern technology, health care, and a variety of other areas. But I think an "I’m all right, Jack" setup that makes it impossible for people without jobs or independent finances to pay for serious but common medical treatments and procedures– whether they bring it on themselves or not–isn’t acceptable. Deborah Stevenson

Response:

> It would be like starting out with basic cable. You get your basic >service, then if you wished, you could go on to get the premium service. > When someone was very young and didn’t have a lot of cash, they could get >the stripped down service. Yes, maybe that they will be gambling that they >won’t get cancer, or pregnant, or AIDS, or whatever.

Pregnancy is absolutly avoidable. AIDS is almost completely avoidable. And, cancer is also very avoidable for young and middle-aged people. So, why should I pay for other people when they could have avoided their need for medical claims? > That’s the core of how INSURANCE works. That’s why they call it >insurance. You’re hedging your bets in case you get sick. The insurance >company is betting you won’t get sick. In the most literal sense, they are >just the betting booth at the big "race track" of life. They take your >bets. It’s not actually the job of insurance companies to deal with sick >people.

The individual might be gambling, but the insurance companies don’t gamble. Their rates are based on reliable population statistics.

Response:

In California there is a $250,000 limit on medical malpractice. So, does that mean that if it will cost the HMO more than that to save a life–they (HMO) will let them die because the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? Is this correct?

Response:

Amen.

Response:

> In California there is a $250,000 limit on > medical malpractice. So, does that mean that > if it will cost the HMO more than that to save > a life–they (HMO) will let them die because > the most they can lose in $250,000 judgement? > Is this correct?

Response:

Low? Most people aren’t worth 147 grand.

Response:

Presumably being eaten, like getting cancer, is a creature’s own fault . Deborah Stevenson

Response:

>Its sick people that make insurance so dam expensive.

Response:

>The concern here is young people using their money for more >needed things, like maybe house payments. Young people >are at very low risk of cancer.

Response:

I’m all for education. People shouldn’t make habbits out of smoking and cheeseburgers.

Response:

> And, cancer is also very avoidable for young and >middle-aged people. So, why should I pay for other people >when they could have avoided their need for medical claims?

Response:

The individual might be gambling, but the insurance companies don’t gamble. Their rates are based on reliable population statistics.

Response:

> I am thinking of retiring early soon and one of my concerns is the ability > to find health insurance at a reasonable price. Can anyone suggest possible > group plans that are available or give me some ideas? > I enjoyed your comments on early retirement.

Have you tried AARP? They have several good insurance plans for every contingency.

Response:

> I was part of a research project on the birth control pill for 20 years. > Actually, I was part of the control group since I didn’t take the pill.

So how many children did you have in twenty years, before you figured out that you were in the control group?? Jim Md.

Response:

>Jim > I was part of a research project on the birth control pill for 20 years. > Actually, I was part of the control group since I didn’t take the pill. >So how many children did you have in twenty years, before you figured >out that you were in the control group??

LOL. Actually, I had four children before I became part of the control group, and I was told that I was part of the control group. My husband had already taken care of birth control by then. But, for a while I had a baby every time we moved and thought that was what caused it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->jpack >I am thinking of retiring early soon and one of my concerns is the ability >to find health insurance at a reasonable price. Can anyone suggest possible >group plans that are available or give me some ideas? >I enjoyed your comments on early retirement. >I don’t know where you live, but I am very happy with Kaiser Permanente. I >have belonged to this HMO for 30 years and consider that my family and I have >had excellent care. They emphasize and pay for preventive care of all kinds. >Because they have so many patients, they are doing a great deal of research as >well. I was part of a research project on the birth control pill for 20 years. > Actually, I was part of the control group since I didn’t take the pill.<

Doncha mean the "no control" group? — Irwin t.i.n.s.t.a.a.f.l. (Helping victims of conventional wisdom)

Response:

> > I am thinking of retiring early soon and one of my concerns is the ability > to find health insurance at a reasonable price. Can anyone suggest possible > group plans that are available or give me some ideas? > I enjoyed your comments on early retirement. > Have you tried AARP? They have several good insurance plans for every > contingency.

The last time I looked they had very poor offerings for the under 65 agegroup. Have they changed the offerings recently? Ray

Response:

I am thinking of retiring early soon and one of my concerns is the ability to find health insurance at a reasonable price. Can anyone suggest possible group plans that are available or give me some ideas? I enjoyed your comments on early retirement.

Response:

>jpack >I am thinking of retiring early soon and one of my concerns is the ability >to find health insurance at a reasonable price. Can anyone suggest possible >group plans that are available or give me some ideas? >I enjoyed your comments on early retirement.

I don’t know where you live, but I am very happy with Kaiser Permanente. I have belonged to this HMO for 30 years and consider that my family and I have had excellent care. They emphasize and pay for preventive care of all kinds. Because they have so many patients, they are doing a great deal of research as well. I was part of a research project on the birth control pill for 20 years. Actually, I was part of the control group since I didn’t take the pill.

Response:

Hello listers, I was just informed by my healthinsurance, that the rates are being hiked. I am single and disabled.The insurance rate is going to be $300.– a month and a deductable of $750.–, without any dental benefits, but with a drug card(co-pay going up from $15.– to $30.00).In addition I had also to participate in medicare, for which I have to pay also.Does someone have some good suggestions what I can do, to solve the problem of expense,i.e. new insurance or drugcards?Thanks for listening to me. Kwiebus

Response:

I hear very little any more about major medical health insurance policies. These were those with a deductible such as $500. This meant the individual picked up the first $500, but for anything major, the policy kicked in. -Connie

Response:

> I hear very little any more about major medical health insurance policies. > These were those with a deductible such as $500. This meant the individual > picked up the first $500, but for anything major, the policy kicked in. > -Connie

Hi Connie, I had a $500.– deductable, but they are ging to change it to $750.–.No dental, eye- or psychatric benefits, and the increase is from $168.– to $300.00.Social security expects for me to also take and pay for medicare.I can see why people drop their insurances.I like to go to the docter of my choice and I don’t like to be seen by a clinician or nurse-practitioner. Kwiebus

Response:

Filed under: Retirement Plan

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Retirement Party

A Simple Guide To Your Retirement