Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[richlevy]

Well, here's a heartwarming story to add to the debate. So the company's explanation is that they're doing him a favor by firing him and putting him on the path to SSDI, except that he would probably be bankrupt paying for his healthcare waiting for SSDI and I don't believe it would help his family.

I'm also not sure if COBRA would pick up the continuing care for his gunshot wound, a pre-existing condition.

If we had national health care, this wouldn't be an issue.

BTW, with tort reform, there's a chance that he wouldn't even be able to sue his employer.

Cary, N.C. — An employee at The HoneyBaked Ham Co. store in Cary who was shot while on the job is now without a job.

An employee for three years and general manager for 16 months, the husband and father was shot in the stomach – about four inches from his heart.
Several surgeries later, he's still unable to go back to work. Doctors tell him that the earliest he could return to work would be in December.
Huether has been on worker's compensation since April. When the benefits expired, he received an official notice that HoneyBaked Ham terminated his employment and canceled health benefits for him and his family.
Out-of-pocket, he said, those benefits would cost about $1,200 a month.

Maggie DeCan, vice president of human resources, said the decision to terminate his employment had to do with following workers' compensation rules and that his release could make him eligible for Social Security disability benefits.
"We are a value-serving company," DeCan said in a statement. "We do the right thing and serve others. We couldn't feel any worse for Rich, and we would do anything we could for him."
The company, she also said, hasn't ruled out rehiring Huether once he is able to work again. Executives also plan to revisit the case next week to see if there is anything further the company can do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From the Philly paper.

[DanaC]

Within the 'under 25k' bracket you'd presumably also get low paid single people.

[Pico and ME]

You cant just say it...you must show it in a graph.

Haggis!

[Pico and ME]

My stepson just had an emergency appendectomy and he has no insurance. He is saddled with a good sized bill now.

[Clodfobble]

But then you should support the part of the bill that says he will be required to carry health insurance of some kind.

[Pico and ME]

Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.

So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Im ambivalent about a lot of this. My SIL is French, so I am quite aware how it works in France. In fact, early in their marriage, when they didnt have health insurance, she was able to get a cyst removed in her breast when she visited home...no cost to her. Too bad Doug didnt have the same opportunity.

So this bill is going to require or mandate health insurance coverage, like it does auto insurance?

Possibly. We won't know what's in it until it's done. But yea, that is one of things under consideration. The problem remains though, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It's friggin' ridiculous. And the way the Baucus bill is written, it is one giant giveaway to the insurance industry (or as Bill Maher said, a giant blow job... ), according to Wendell Potter, and ex-VP for Cigna. He also said the Baucus bill would put more of the middle class in bankruptcy due to coverage being dropped and denied.

I think insurance should cost the same amount for everyone. There should be no "pools" for some people to get lower prices while it remains outrageously priced for individuals or people with pre-sxisting conditions. THAT is part of the problem. That and the fact that insurance companies make WAY too much profit. Health care should not be about profit. yea, yea capitalism and all of that. But some things should just not be for sale like that, and LIFE and HEALTH should be two things that are not about profit.

This is why we need a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, and for those who think the government can't run anything right, fine, let it be run by a private company, and PAID FOR by the government. Get rid of all the insurance companies. A single payor system would automatically reduce costs, because there is no advertising, and it would cut down dramatically on adminstrative costs.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

As to the question of choosing to purchase insurance, many factors affect that choice, including the cost.

Consider the fact that the average cost for health insurance for a family of four is now over $12K.

I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.

I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.

Originally Posted by classicman

I have insurance on my entire family, very good insurance relatively speaking, and it less than $6K a year GROSS. I contribute about 1/2 to that cost.

I find it very difficult to believe that the average cost is more than twice what I pay.

I can only rely on independent studies and not anecdotal examples;

The Commonwealth Fund
The rapid rise in health insurance premiums has severely strained U.S. families and employers in recent years. This analysis of federal data finds that if premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grow in each state at the projected national rate of increase, then the average premium for family coverage would rise from $12,298 (the 2008 average)to $23,842 by 2020...
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...s-Incomes.aspx

Kaiser Family Foundation
Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $13,375 annually for family coverage this year—with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the benchmark 2009 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET).
http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm

Of course, there are many variables that would lead to some families paying much less, including not only factors related to the level of coverage, but also external factors like location, cost of living, level of competition in the state, etc.

For example, in 1/4 of the states, a handful of insurance carriers control 90% of the business. It is a closed market with virtually no competition, thus little or no incentive to control premium costs.

[Clodfobble]

I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I think that average cost is the quote for an individual trying to purchase insurance on their own. Group coverage through an employer (like I'm assuming you have, classic, but correct me if your plan is something different) is inherently cheaper than an individual plan, because your employer is negotiating a group rate. Plus, group coverage isn't allowed to charge one person more just because they have pre-existing conditions or are genetically at risk for disease. The rates for individual plans are sky-high, if they are willing to offer them at all--my best friend shopped around extensively to get the best rate she could, which is $1,000 a month (i.e., the 12K/year average that Redux quoted,) for their "family," which is to say everyone except the daughter with diabetes. No insurance company will cover her.

The cost of a family plan on the open market would absolutely be higher than the average cost of employer-base plan (cited above) for the reasons you noted.

The only "advantage" of an open market, non-employer based plan is the ability to pick and choose from more levels of coverage with more/less benefits at various prices...but then you lose the significant employer contribution.

And in any case, more and more employers are limiting those choices and lowering benefits or raising the employee share.

[classicman]

Beancounter mentality! - Where the hell is Tommy when you actually Want him to post something? The Economist had an article on this a few weeks - months ago - Dammit - I wish I had 1/2 the memory I smoked back.

Originally Posted by classicman

Beancounter mentality!

The fact that there is little or no competition in the health insurance industry and little or no built-in incentives to lower administrative costs and /or premiums is not, IMO, beancounting.

It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is econ 101, competition stimulates lower pricing and greater innovation (thus lowering administrative costs).

I couldn't agree more - Keep as many competitors as possible. The last thing we want is monopoly and control by a bloated inefficient giant. Long live Capitalism!