 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008Possible Solution to Health Insurance
The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health insurance premiums. And then prohibit health plans from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. This way everyone will be insured on at least some minimum plan. For instance, you would receive $60 a month or some amount in some way, that you could use only towards the payment of a health insurance premium. If you wanted a higher priced plan you would pay more out of your own pocket. Healthcare costs money and there is no way for it to be free. The government does not make money out of thin air. Either the consumers pay or the taxpayers pay, or we suffer with inferior service, which is not what we want either. The above plan insures everyone while maintaining the free market. See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. Health is more important than wealth. The very least the rich can do is pay for the poor's healthcare. > The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give > money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Health is more important than wealth. The very least the rich can do > is pay for the poor's healthcare. $60 a month?? would buy you NO health coverage at all regardless of pre existing conditions etc get real >> The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give >> money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > get real As long as we pay medical professionals twice what they do in Europe, our health care will cost twice as much. Period. > <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > As long as we pay medical professionals twice what they do in Europe, our > health care will cost twice as much. Period. In some countries like Sweden they have socialized health care for everyone. One problem with this is that people sometimes have to wait for months to get certain types of treatment or surgeries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden My plan attempts to preserve the free market, while still insuring everyone. You would pay higher taxes, but you would get that money back in the form of health insurance premiums. As is the case already there would be some transfer of money from the rich to the poor as the rich pay higher taxes. The rich would pay somewhat more taxes than the money they got back, the very poor would pay less. On Jul 21, 6:24 pm, "george conklin" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > As long as we pay medical professionals twice what they do in Europe, our > health care will cost twice as much. Period. In some countries like Sweden they have socialized health care for everyone. One problem with this is that people sometimes have to wait for months to get certain types of treatment or surgeries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden ------- Non-emergency health care with no money in the USA means you wait FOREVER. Have cancer? No insurance? Ok, no treatment at all. Zilch. Maybe charity, if you can find it. Hospitals only have to stabilize you, meaning they put you back out on the street in a day or two. > > The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give > > money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > get real He is being real. $60 a month would buy some insurance. There are (or at least could be) medial savings account plans in that basic area.  Signature"It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes." -+Alex Cox, "Repo Man" >> > The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give >> > money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >(or at least could be) medial savings account plans in that basic >area. $60 a month for me individually would be a nearly 60% of my premium. I pay around $27 a week for individual coverage. That much of a subsidy would allow most folks that currently can't afford it to be able to. If it were $60 per individual and not per family it would allow a family of three to get basic health coverage for around the same cost to them as a single individual, possibly a family of four depending upon the provider. Libs would never go for that though since it wouldn't cover 100% of the premium. You know it's that all or nothing thing they got going. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." >> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>> $60 a month?? would buy you NO health coverage at all >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That much of a subsidy would allow most folks that currently can't > afford it to be able to. You did actually go to the cite above didn't you? Just how old are you? If you're young, in your 20's then health insurance isn't too expensive. However, if you're middle-aged then insurance is very expensive. For instance, the cheapest & poorest policy for a 55 year old man would be $230 a month which has no prescription benefits, 20% co-pay, and pays for nothing until you've met the minimum of $3500.00 out-of-pocket expensive. That $60 would provide little help. If you have a pre-existing condition, even if now cured, it's unlikely that you can get insurance at ANY price. >>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That $60 would provide little help. If you have a pre-existing condition, > even if now cured, it's unlikely that you can get insurance at ANY price. my point exactly $60 a month would buy me less than 10% of my $762 a month premiums...I am 64 >>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > $60 a month would buy me less than 10% of my $762 a month premiums...I am > 64 Move to NJ!!!! >>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >would provide little help. If you have a pre-existing condition, even if >now cured, it's unlikely that you can get insurance at ANY price. I'm 50. Don't know how it is where you are but my employer pays 40% of the premium and we pay the balance. Typical for the majority of companies. It's been along that line every where I've worked for the past 32 years. Mine is just a basic healthcare policy with a $2 a week rider for short term disability. Prescription plan is $10, $25, $50 copays. Total out of pocket expenses is $2000. Hospital deductible is $750. Office visits $35 co pay. It is through Blue Cross Blue Shield. The only companies I've ran across that offer no inurance plan at all have been very small very cheap operations. They usually don't hold on to employees very long as well. Folks that don't have a job or are indigent qualify for Tenncare, the state Medicaid plan. If you qualify for food stamps, you qualify for Tenncare. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." > >>> > Seehttp://www.ehealthinsurance.com/for all the different plans. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > have been very small very cheap operations. They usually don't hold > on to employees very long as well. I think that is typical for fewer and fewer companies. What you have is what once was for a lot of people 10 or 15 years ago. Things have changed for a lot of people. There are a lot of group plans at big companies where YOU pay the total cost of the premium. For a single about $350/mo. or more and on top of that there is a high deductiable ~$1500/mo. For families multiply times 2. Then top it off the provider either doesn't know how to bill the insurance or the insurnance finds a reason not to allow. The patient ends up paying more than their share. That is something I think scrupulous members of both parties would want to fix. >>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I'm 50. Don't know how it is where you are but my employer pays 40% > of the premium and we pay the balance. I'm 56, retired and pay 100% of my insurance out of my own pocket. It's VERY expensive and if I were not literally in perfect health it would be even worse! > Typical for the majority of > companies. It's been along that line every where I've worked for the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > state Medicaid plan. If you qualify for food stamps, you qualify for > Tenncare. And if you're not poor? You're retired? Your employer doesn't offer any kind of insurance? Or have pre-existing condition? You're out-of-luck! >>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >And if you're not poor? You're retired? Your employer doesn't offer any >kind of insurance? Or have pre-existing condition? You're out-of-luck! Don't know many folks that have retired before they were able to qualify for SSI and Medicaire myself. The ones that I do know retired because they had enough of a retirement account to cover their expenses or they got a piddly cushy little job that paid them enough to have some extra change as well as specifically pay their insurance premiums. Technically I could retire today but the $900 a month difference between what I earn and what I would receive from my retirement right now wouldn't cut it. Even though I qualify for retirement I have enough sense not to "choose" to do so as it would be economically illogical. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." >>>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > enough sense not to "choose" to do so as it would be economically > illogical. Many people of all ages are trapped in current jobs by the medical system. You are not unique there. Medicine needs to be 100% divorced from any employment. It used to be, before the AMA got the laws changed, even a fraternal organization could hire a doctor 100%. He could then serve for "free" any member of that organization. That got changed int he 1920s in favor of fee-for-service. Now it is still illegal. > >>>>>> > Seehttp://www.ehealthinsurance.com/for all the different plans. > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > system. You are not unique there. Medicine needs to be 100% divorced from > any employment. I agree George, Starkiller is basically trapped in that job and without it they would lose their health insurance unless they could find another equivalent. Notice they say that they don't know many people that retire before receiving SS and Medicare, I wonder why that would be? And I am sure that is a big reason keeping Starkiller from retiring before then. What happens with most people content with the status quo is that they have always had it good so they don't think about what it would be like to not have it. Of course there are many many self employed people out there not all by choice that don't have health insurance at all or any chance of getting anything substantial. >> >>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear >> >>>>> down [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > people out there not all by choice that don't have health > insurance at all or any chance of getting anything substantial. I guess the only thing you can hope for is to have good health until you are 65. Before that, it is a coin toss. >> >>>>>> > Seehttp://www.ehealthinsurance.com/for all the different plans. >> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >people out there not all by choice that don't have health >insurance at all or any chance of getting anything substantial. Would you like to explain as to where you get the idea that you are somehow entitled to just retire and everything be affordable that you want? And no dumbshit, insurance is not why I don't retire now. This house that I have been paying on for around 20 odd years will be paid off in 7. I'll still be under 60 and I won't have the burden of a mortgage to worry with. Then I'll be able to pay for my insurance 100% as well as a lot of other stuff that I can't now. It's called sound financial planning. As far as going somewhere else is concerned I'm not locked into anything. I chose to work where I do and have only been there 7 years. I work there because it's closer to home than the other dozen or so companies in the area that do the same thing. All of which have insurance plans. Last conference I attended I got 4 offers from competitive firms which I respectfully declined. So learn your facts before making some stupid assed declaration regarding why I do what I do hotshot. I know one damned thing. If I were forced to retire today I wouldn't sit on my a.s bitching about how the retirement check ain't enough or how big bad insurance companies won't give me cheap insurance. If I had to be a security guard or a burger flipper or even had to go around picking up scrap metal and soda cans or even mowing lawns I would get by. I've done it before. I paid my bills for 2 years working for temporary services once. But then I never was one to think that I was "too good" for any job. You a.sholes want your holy universal healthcare then get your little democratic congress to vote everyone a huge f.cking tax increase and pay for it then. Then when folks start bitching about something else that they can't afford because they suddenly find themselves with a lot less cash to buy other necessities ya'll can raise hell for yet another increase to pay for yet another program for the bureaucrats to bog down. I'll figure out a way to cope with it, always have. But ya'll will continue to bitch. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." >>> >>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear >>> >>>>> down [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > somehow entitled to just retire and everything be affordable that you > want? Sure: I paid into Medicare all my working life. SS too. It sure beats having to ask your children for money. > >> "Starkiller" <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > somehow entitled to just retire and everything be affordable that you > want? LOL. Sure I think we are on different tracks. My point was that now most companies don't offer health insurance as a retirement benefit. Whereas 20 years ago it wasn't uncommon for people to retire before 65 on company benefits. That is no more unless you work for the government. Apparently that is either something you didn't know about or you were not thinking about. > And no dumbshit, insurance is not why I don't retire now. This house > that I have been paying on for around 20 odd years will be paid off in > 7. I'll still be under 60 and I won't have the burden of a mortgage > to worry with. Then I'll be able to pay for my insurance 100% as well > as a lot of other stuff that I can't now. It's called sound financial > planning. Ouch! The name calling LOL. We will see if you are in the same situation as you are now in 7 years when the cost of that health care is double what it is now and inflation has hiked everything else. Make sure you vote for McCain and ignore anyone that says you didn't plan when you find you can't retire. > As far as going somewhere else is concerned I'm not locked into > anything. I chose to work where I do and have only been there 7 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > before making some stupid assed declaration regarding why I do what I > do hotshot. LOL. More name calling. Yes you should give me all the facts first. > I know one damned thing. If I were forced to retire > today I wouldn't sit on my a.s bitching about how the retirement check [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for 2 years working for temporary services once. But then I never was > one to think that I was "too good" for any job. That is fine I am the same way. I am not doing too bad myself but I know that other peoples lives are important because eventually they will effect me in one way or another. And pray you don't have any health problem when you are mowing lawns or picking up cans, because the only doctor you are going to find will be in the ER. > You a.sholes want your holy universal healthcare then get your little > democratic congress to vote everyone a huge f.cking tax increase and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bog down. I'll figure out a way to cope with it, always have. But > ya'll will continue to bitch. LOL But that premium going to the a non-profit government plan will also mean there isn't one going to pay for a for profit insurance plan. Shouldn't you at least be allowed to choose between the two? Now you can't and the same people that are scaring you into believing the government is going to take all your money are the same people that don't want any of us to be able to choose. I apologize for not seeing you and your finances the way you want to be seen. But I also have to say the drama was a bit funny. Sincerely LOL. >>>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Don't know many folks that have retired before they were able to > qualify for SSI and Medicaire myself. Not everyone is given a choice, nor is it relevant to this conversation concerning the affordability of private health insurance. >The ones that I do know retired > because they had enough of a retirement account to cover their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." >>>>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >Not everyone is given a choice, nor is it relevant to this conversation >concerning the affordability of private health insurance. If you retire with no disability and you're only in your 50s and your retirement isn't going to be enough to cover your living expense and you chose to sit at home and do nothing then affordability is not the issue. As far as this picture of doom where no one can afford to live except the very rich that you all want to paint is concerned, I have family memebers that make a lot less than I do that still have kids at home that have found health coverage. My own sister has a household income of around $36K a year for her, my brother-in-law and her two kids. They pay for their own health coverage out of their own pockets and they aren't starving or going naked or bankrupt. Hell they have two vehicles that are both a lot newer than my own. If they can find affordable health coverage and still live a decent lifestyle then just about anyone can. 'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' "You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich." >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear >>>>>>> down [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > affordable health coverage and still live a decent lifestyle then just > about anyone can. Individual health insurance is available only if you are in excellent health and fairly young. If you get sick, you get dropped. >>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear >>>>>>> down [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > you chose to sit at home and do nothing then affordability is not the > issue. I never said I could not afford the insurance, only that it was very expensive and that few can afford it. Also, not everyone has choice as to when they retire, or become unemployed and lose what inurance coverage they may have had. However, it's completely irrelevant to the cost of health insurance. > As far as this picture of doom where no one can afford to live except > the very rich that you all want to paint is concerned, I have family [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > affordable health coverage and still live a decent lifestyle then just > about anyone can. Please cite exactly what health insurance they have, the coverage, deductable, their ages, etc. Again, using the ehealthinsurance.com cited previously, 2 adults, 2 children has the cheapest insurance rate of of $540 a month with a whopping $5,000 deductable and 30% co-pay, no prescriptions, no vision, no dental. It's crap and works out to 18% of the above gross pay, or about 26% of their take home pay and that insurance pays nothing until they've met that $5,000 deductable! In a bad year they could easily pay more than 50% of their income in medical expenses. > I never said I could not afford the insurance, only that it was very > expensive and that few can afford it. Also, not everyone has choice as to > when they retire, or become unemployed and lose what inurance coverage > they may have had. However, it's completely irrelevant to the cost of > health insurance. Medical expenses are, for the individual, highly irregular. That is why we need the largest pool possible to even out the expenses. But by spending twice what other indusrial nations spend on medical care, we are not doing ourselves any favors. Too much medical "care" is probably just as bad as too little. >>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That $60 would provide little help. If you have a pre-existing condition, > even if now cured, it's unlikely that you can get insurance at ANY price. Some states have community rating, so you could get insurance. NJ is one. A friend of mine who retired without health insurance moved to NJ so he and his wife could get some coverage. Otherwise, it is totally out-of-pocket. >>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > he and his wife could get some coverage. Otherwise, it is totally > out-of-pocket. what do you mean by "community rating??"...just curious in states such as Mass and Oregon..where health insurance is "mandatory" (like car insurance)....it is still the responsibility of the people (except for the very poor..and those on Medicare)..to pay the premium... thus..that is not "universal..ie gov't paid health insurance"...and btw....Mass is having a terrible time "enforcing" the mandatory law..ie cuz so many middle income earners still cannot afford it... as for "all employers" giving totally paid coverage...we wish..I don't know the stats...but the majority of employers tho they "offer" a group plan (which is good)...require the employee to contribute a significant portion of the premium (more for PPO than HMO...more if children and wife on the plan) the advantage of employer coverage (I think ) is the lack of pre existing conditions clause my point was $60 a month won't buy you much if any coverage...even for a healthy single person >>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> one. A friend of mine who retired without health insurance moved to NJ so >> he and his wife could get some coverage. Otherwise, it is totally from the cited source..."community rating" merely gives you the rates that an employer would pay...again...age 25 and healthy..your rate would be in the $136 range...age 55 or so..and your rates are over $500 a month not a bargain..and $60 wouldn't give you much help another clue tho..for all ages...is the coverage called "guaranteed issue"...Calif has it as well...the caveats are...you must sign up about 60 days prior to a group policy ends ..ie if you stop working and had employer coverage...the good news is...no preexisting limits...can choose and pay for PPO coverage (which allows you full choice)...yes there is still copays etc...as I said...mine is $762 a month just for me.. without this guaranteed issue..I would not be insuransable...ie pre existing..and btw...doesn't take much to be called pre existing either >> out-of-pocket. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > my point was $60 a month won't buy you much if any coverage...even for a > healthy single person > another clue tho..for all ages...is the coverage called "guaranteed > issue"...Calif has it as well...the caveats are...you must sign up about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without this guaranteed issue..I would not be insuransable...ie pre > existing..and btw...doesn't take much to be called pre existing either Even taking antacids is enough to get you denied coverge by Blue Cross and Blue Shield in some jursisdictions. Women cannot be insured if they have had a caesarian birth. >>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > what do you mean by "community rating??"...just curious That is an insurance term. I am surprised you don't know it. Everyone gets the same rate and no one can be denied. >>>>>> > See http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ for all the different plans. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > That is an insurance term. I am surprised you don't know it. Everyone > gets the same rate and no one can be denied. well that would be ideal... when I googled the term and New Jersey I only found charts from various health insurers..all broken down by age and gender...and no...the rates were not the same... not sure about not being denied >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0100, "Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear >>>>>> down [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > not sure about not being denied You will get the rate that applies to your demographic status, not based on health conditions, and you cannot be refused. >> > The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give >> > money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (or at least could be) medial savings account plans in that basic > area. again you need to look up the facts a MSA is oNLY a catastrophic coverage and for $60 a month...one better be single..no dependents..and about 25 years old On Jul 21, 3:51 pm, "g...@rock.com" <good...@rock.com> wrote: > The state should raise taxes to pay for health insurance, and give > money back to the people that can only be used to pay for health [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Health is more important than wealth. The very least the rich can do > is pay for the poor's healthcare. For a 20 year old in California there are 17 plans for less than $60, and 27 plans for less than $70. As people get older the amount paid by the government would increase so they could buy a minimum plan. If they want a better plan they pay out of their own pocket, but for instance a 20 year old would receive approximately $60 in some way that could be used only towards the purchase of health insurance. If he wants a better plan he would pay out of his own pocket. Older people would get more money so they could buy the minimum plan. For a 60 year old $60 corresponds to $300. For a 60 year old there are 14 plans for $300 or less, and 27 plans for less than $350 in California. At the very least having some coverage would get people into seeing a doctor before their condition worsened and they ended up in an emergency room. As with corporate plans, just about everyone would be insured, and the government would prohibit discrimination against pre-existing conditions. My plan attempts to preserve the free market, while still insuring everyone. You would pay higher taxes, but you would get that money back in the form of health insurance premiums. As is the case already there would be some transfer of money from the rich to the poor as the rich pay higher taxes. The rich would pay somewhat more taxes than the money they got back, the very poor would pay less. On Jul 21, 3:51 pm, "g...@rock.com" <good...@rock.com> wrote: > For a > 60 year old $60 corresponds to $300. For a 60 year old there are 14 > plans for $300 or less, and 27 plans for less than $350 in California. > At the very least having some coverage would get people into seeing a > doctor before their condition worsened and they ended up in an > emergency room. With $3500 deductable why do you think they would? Basically these plans are "catastrophic" plans that only help with a serious illness or injury. OK, as long as people who eat junk food and/or take drugs should not be included since those are the ones who will use most of the medical care that we have to pay for. But if I have insurance from any source, it must pay for my own choice of what to do about it, never any government or medical professional - NEVER! Marvin Using Virtual Access Windows 2000 build 2600 > OK, as long as people who eat junk food and/or take drugs should not be > included since those are the ones who will use most of the medical care > that > we have to pay for. This is not true. Most expensive diseases have no easily identified origin, like cancer, for example. >> OK, as long as people who eat junk food and/or take drugs should not be >> included since those are the ones who will use most of the medical care [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is not true. Most expensive diseases have no easily identified >origin, like cancer, for example. "The Majority of Cancers Are Linked to the Environment" http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/benchmarks-vol4-issue3/page1 Major polluters can create superfund-type sites and poison people rampantly, then expect their victims to pay for the results. The lack of nutrients in even appropriate dietary constituents can also contribute to toxicities, addiction and other problems. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.