Actual Health Care bill.....

[tpaschal30]

As opposed to multi-millionaire CEOs who are currently rationing care? The reason we're even having this discussion is because greedy corporate types are making healthcare availability less ands less to even those who have insurance.

I heard that half of the bankruptcy claims due to medical expense come from people who HAVE health insurance. I was shocked to find that my 12,000/year policy excludes many types of cancer treatment!! Who's rationing that? It ain't the gov't!

Private companies you can sue. The government must grant you permission to sue it.
You have the opportunity to get another policy. With single payer(which is the left's goal) you will not have that opportunity.
The health care debate is not about health care. If it were there would be discussion of increasing the amount of hospitals and providers. Instead we are discussing giving even more access to health care which will increase demand further while supply remains the same or could decrease. The only option is to ration with that scenario.

[ErinsEdge]

Jeff,

Do you have existing health issues? What is your age etc?

I have my own health care insurance policy.

I pay $160 for one person and have a "break point" (that is what they used to call out of pocket expenses) total of $2600/yr.

My policy includes prescriptions.

Why is your policy so expensive?

A $550 cost per month would be a HUGE increase for me along with a out of pocket expense of $5000/yearly.

WRL

Lee, it's the age and I suppose region. My insurance (self-employed) I hardly ever used, went once a year to the gyn, paid the few other expenses like eye care, but once you get past 55, the insurance goes up $60 a month every year, and in the last 2 years $100 a month so now I just increase the deductible. Mine is close to his with a $2500 out of pocket. And just wait until they start bugging you to get that colonoscopy, if your state doesn't cover it, and your out of pocket doesn't cover it because it is not "done for a reason." You just make sure you HAVE a reason. I'm not complaining, it covers more than my old plan which covered nothing. But I can choose the Dr I want to go to and not have someone tell me who I have to go to-that is important to me.

[JDogger]

Private companies you can sue. Can you say malpractice insurance=$$$=increased costs? The government must grant you permission to sue it. Maybe civilian review boards would be a better way to go. Keep the lawyers and juries out of it
You have the opportunity to get another policy. Maybe, maybe not. With single payer(which is the left's goal) You might be correct, and what pray tell is the goal of the right? Does the right have any plan at all? you will not have that opportunity.
The health care debate is not about health care. Oviously, we have some of the best health care if you can afford it. If you can't you're SOL. The debate is about costs and coverageIf it were there would be discussion of increasing the amount of hospitals and providers. Instead we are discussing giving even more access to health care which will increase demand further while supply remains the same or could decrease. That is a part of the problem with for-profit healthcare. The only option is to ration with that scenario. It is already rationed with the current scenario.

Regards, JDogger

[dnf777]

Private companies you can sue. The government must grant you permission to sue it.
You have the opportunity to get another policy. With single payer(which is the left's goal) you will not have that opportunity.
The health care debate is not about health care. If it were there would be discussion of increasing the amount of hospitals and providers. Instead we are discussing giving even more access to health care which will increase demand further while supply remains the same or could decrease. The only option is to ration with that scenario.

Okay, let's debunk that nice sounding reply.

1) you cannot sue most health insurance companies, because they made sure they manage their own pension plans, and are therefore unable to be sued for monetary reward. Do you not recall the case in TN where a HMO was being sued for denial of care? The judge threw it out. I believe it was Bill Frist's company who walked away from that one, but correct me if I'm wrong.

2) ask anyone on this list if once diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc...you can simple find another company to write you a policy!! Most of those "high risk, low profit" people end up being dumped into...you guessed it....medicare/medicade.

3) "ration" is the new scary word. Got a news flash, health care is rationed right now, or people like RoadKill and millions of others would not have discovered they don't have "enough" insurance. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources, and by scarce, that means not enough for everyone who wants some. That has been, and always will be the case with health care. If a 99 year old is turned down for a heart transplant, that is rationing. In that case, makes good sense. Its a matter of where you draw the line.

In my experience as both a patient and physician, I find medicare easier to get approval from. When they deny, there's a mound of paperwork to go through, but you usually get what you ask for in the end. With the Blues, its a flat out denial, with no recourse.

I stand to lose big with national care. I'm not all happy with it. But anyone who's dealt with our current system, knows its broke. At least we have a dialouge now, and not continuing to bury our heads in the sand.

[tpaschal30]

Malpractice is a factor ,but not the major factor in prices. Lack of competition and restriction of trade by the AMA.
Me being nearly as right wing as you can get would like to see the end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.
How much would your groceries be if you had an 80/20 plan paying for them and what would you eat?
Allocation of resources is best done by a free and open market. Health care has few market forces. The problem with for profit health care is not the profit. Boob jobs, Lasix, and other elective procedures have gone down in price. Why? Because the patient is paying the bill. He find info on the procedure, provider, and price. Price is never in the conversation with third party payers except between the ins company and doctor.

[dnf777]

Had great insurance (so we thought), lost everything.
401K, savings and our home.
Paid every single cent to every one and am doing very well now, thank God, but it was brutal!!
But we did get all the care we asked for.
I would do it exactly the same again, I pray none of you ever have to face that.
But as hard as it was, imagine dealing with a Gov't. run operation........

And that's the system we want to keep???

Our family dealt with two elderly cancers. My Great-Uncle had private insurance. By the time he died, they lost their house, their substantial life savings, and most everything, much like your situation. They then raised HER premiums to unaffordable levels, and she went uninsured with chronic lung disease, home 02, nebulizers, and lost the rest of what she managed to hold onto.

My Grandmother, as I mentioned already, is going through her third round of chemo. She is medicare with coal-miners insurance to cover 100% of the gap. (a union benefit, but not to start another thread ) The gov't has paid well over 100k in her case.

Given the two cases above, I'd be more paranoid and disruptive at lobbyist-sponsored meetings about the current system!