login
Is your health coverage good? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-07-28 4:34 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
Regular  194   Ruckersville |  Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good?monroeduck - 2009-07-28 12:05 PM I must be the minority in this country based on what I read. I have myself, wife and 3 boys (10, 8 and under one year old) on my health insurance policy. I pay less than $100 a month for this including dental. co-pay is $20 for in network. Prescription drug is $10/25/40. Now my employer covers more than most I know but I am completely satisfied with my coverage. You're not in the minority as far as being satisfied with your coverage, though what you pay is surprisingly low! I'm 30, pretty healthy, self-employed and I pay $162/month for my individual health insurance. That's slightly more than my cell phone bill, slightly more than my cable bill and less than my car payment. The health care in this country is certainly not perfect, but it's far from as bad as it's being portrayed. Getting the government involved would only make it worse. I wanted to select multiple options in the poll, as I've also had military health care when I was in the AF! |
| 2009-07-28 4:43 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
Master 3127  Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? When I was self-employed and purchasing individual policies for my family, it was expensive and the coverage was really not very good. I shopped around a couple times, but the companies always end up jacking you around on claims. And insurance companies are notorious for screwing their policy holders whenever anything serious comes up -- typically voiding policies by finding some seemingly irrelevant omission on the application from long ago in the insured's history. If you are an employee and are covered by group coverage, you probably are more satisfied with your coverage. Still, now that I am in this group, I find my employer has really cut the amount of coverage back so that the benefit isn't even nearly what it was three years ago. It's not a worry as long as none of my family members has a serious medical need. If one of us does, then I can kiss several thousand dollars goodbye. |
| 2009-07-28 4:47 PM in reply to: #2313584 |
| Veteran 309 Salisbury NC | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? travljini - 2009-07-28 4:30 PM monroeduck - 2009-07-28 5:19 PM travljini - 2009-07-28 2:57 PM />>>>Hijack: btw, the feds also stopped doling out those fancy schmancy pensions in 1986, the ones, where they pay you 70 or 80% of your highest three years just for living and breathing for 30 years. Yup, that's right. Why the rest of the country (read: auto companies) never figured this out too is beyond me. My Father in Law is under that system and still with the post office. He has not retired yet. He went to the post office in 1972 at age 20-21ish. So while they stopped offering those plans to new hires there are still some folks in the system that have not retired and started to draw this income. There is no employer 401K for him, just his own IRA stuff he has set up. His income will be the average of his last 5 years I think and the % he gets is determined by the number of years. It is a % of his base pay, and it is nothing close to what he brings home, due to the overtime he puts in. I guess my point was that the feds started to see the futility in this system -- fully funding a pension with increased years of life, fewer hires, blah blah blah. I'm surprised that it's "base pay." I do know when I get the bennies package each year for "open season" the Post Office is a whole 'nother animal for health care, etc. *Caveat-I am offered a very small what they call annuity, based on yrs of service +age but anyone expecting to retire on that would be eating dog food... That is the way it was explained to me by him, but there is always the possibility he is confused. That is another topic.  |
 2009-07-28 4:49 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-07-28 4:57 PM in reply to: #2313630 |
| Regular 194 Ruckersville | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? AcesFull - 2009-07-28 4:49 PM monroeduck - 2009-07-28 12:05 PM I must be the minority in this country based on what I read. I have myself, wife and 3 boys (10, 8 and under one year old) on my health insurance policy. I pay less than $100 a month for this including dental. co-pay is $20 for in network. Prescription drug is $10/25/40. Now my employer covers more than most I know but I am completely satisfied with my coverage. Majority of people have good healthcare. That there are 50 million Americans who cannot afford healthcare because we have a poorly designed and implemented system of employer-based healthcare is an outrage. That number is not really accurate. It's based on a census report from 2006, which is just a snapshot of one moment in time. But of that approximately 50 million (46.6): - ~9.5 were illegal immigrants - ~17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50K - ~18 million were between the ages of 18-34 (the majority of these two groups presumably elected not to purchase healthcare) - only 30% of the non-elderly who became uninsured remained that way for more than 12 months - Almost 50% of those folks regained coverage within 4 months That leaves somewhere between 5-10 million people who genuinely could not obtain coverage. That ever increasing 50 million number is frequently tossed around, but is greatly exaggerated. We may have a system that is employer based, but who caused that? |
| 2009-07-28 5:33 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Pro 4189 Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? - ~18 million were between the ages of 18-34 (the majority of these two groups presumably elected not to purchase healthcare) I'd be interested to know how many of that age group have some form of "pre-existing condition" that makes them "uninsurable" or how many of those are in college w/o coverage from their parents or how many of them are working low paying (wage work or entry leveled salary work probably w/o benefits). I fall into this age gap right now, as do most of my friends. The ones who have managed to find jobs have to work 2+ jobs to make their student loans and rent every month, and because they're working just below full time and therefore just below benefits level...because ya know you never get sick if you work part time... they're tight pressed to find the extra cash for insurance, if they can even get it (assuming they're perfectly healthy). Yeah, some have been supremely stupid in the last year since graduating, one who HAD insurance offered at his work opted not to take it, found out he has a heart defect the hard way, and is now well over 100k in debt for it, plus whatever his student loan burden is (and he was a super senior...). Sucks to be him, it seems like he's in for a world of hurt in the future, if he can manage to get coverage again. |
| 2009-07-28 5:39 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? Free for me and my family. $20 co-pay. Of course this is because I work for the government. My major worry is that if the new Universal health care passes, the government isn't going to not be in their own program. So my guess is that the extent and quality of my coverage will actually decrease. |
| 2009-07-28 6:14 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Extreme Veteran 557 Glendora, CA | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? i pay $50 a month for myself and family. prescriptions $3 for generic, $5 for name brand. no need to select a primary care physician-i can go straight to a specialist. i just had a partial knee replacement in february, and with all of the tests, mri's, surgery and stay it was over 65K. it only cost my $10 copay for a doctors visit. plus free dental and vision. my prior job i was paying over $400 a month for medial dental and vision. prescriptions were $25 for generic and $50 for name brand meds. |
| 2009-07-28 7:43 PM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Expert 1288 Hatboro, PA | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? I have a PPO plan that costs me $90/month, which includes dental and vision. I pay $10 copay for the family doctor and $20 for a specialist. Prescriptions cost $5 for generics and $20 for name brand and those prescriptions can be written for 90 days. I also have an option of choosing an HMO plan that would not have any monthly cost; however, I am not a fan of HMO's. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have good health insurance. |
| 2009-07-29 6:39 AM in reply to: #2312791 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? I'd just like to point out that these "good" to "very good" benefits that most of you have (which is great) are so good becuase your employers are carrying the lions share of the costs. See above how much I'm paying as small business owner...(answer: $1,000 a month for family of 4, for those who don't want to look) My question is then... do you really think they are going to stay so "good" when the new health care bill is passed? Now the cost of covering EVERYONE has to be spread around. Companies are not going to eat (all) the extra costs. Therefore your coverage will decrease or your premiums will increase. Furthermore dragging back the several "tax the rich" threads we have discussed here: When the rich (that's your employer BTW) get taxed more they pass on these taxes to their employees in the form of less coverage, layoffs etc... Just something to think about. If the cap and trade and/or this health bill passes you guys will be joining me in the $1k/month club soon enough... actually that's wrong... I'll probably be in the $4k/month club by that point. |
| 2009-07-29 6:46 AM in reply to: #2313648 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-07-29 8:00 AM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Expert 1158 A Husker stuck in VA | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? I always feel like I am bragging and people will get butt hurt when I say, mine is 100% free with no copays, to include medical and dental. I am a rare case in the military that has received probably more than my fair shre considering I had my broken kneck fixed, 4 knee surgeries, and a shoulder surgery, my wife went through 9 months of Chemo then 3 months of Radiation therapy, we lsot a set of twins during a high risk pregnancy, and another high risk pregnancy resulted in the birth of my youngest that had to spend 4 months in the NICU. All of this with a total of around, umm.... about $0.00 out of pocket. Pretty good I would say. |
| 2009-07-29 9:06 AM in reply to: #2314395 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-07-29 9:31 AM in reply to: #2314515 |
| Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? NavyTRIChief - 2009-07-29 9:00 AM I always feel like I am bragging and people will get butt hurt when I say, mine is 100% free with no copays, to include medical and dental. I am a rare case in the military that has received probably more than my fair shre considering I had my broken kneck fixed, 4 knee surgeries, and a shoulder surgery, my wife went through 9 months of Chemo then 3 months of Radiation therapy, we lsot a set of twins during a high risk pregnancy, and another high risk pregnancy resulted in the birth of my youngest that had to spend 4 months in the NICU. All of this with a total of around, umm.... about $0.00 out of pocket. Pretty good I would say. you make a HUGE sacrifice that many aren't willing to do...i think its perfectly fair you get "free" medical care. |
| 2009-07-29 9:57 AM in reply to: #2314728 |
| Veteran 309 Salisbury NC | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? meherczeg - 2009-07-29 9:31 AM NavyTRIChief - 2009-07-29 9:00 AM I always feel like I am bragging and people will get butt hurt when I say, mine is 100% free with no copays, to include medical and dental. I am a rare case in the military that has received probably more than my fair shre considering I had my broken kneck fixed, 4 knee surgeries, and a shoulder surgery, my wife went through 9 months of Chemo then 3 months of Radiation therapy, we lsot a set of twins during a high risk pregnancy, and another high risk pregnancy resulted in the birth of my youngest that had to spend 4 months in the NICU. All of this with a total of around, umm.... about $0.00 out of pocket. Pretty good I would say. you make a HUGE sacrifice that many aren't willing to do...i think its perfectly fair you get "free" medical care. Agreed +10000000000000000000000000000 Edited by monroeduck 2009-07-29 9:57 AM |
| 2009-07-29 9:57 AM in reply to: #2312791 |
| Master 1790 Tyler, TX | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian |
| 2009-07-29 10:22 AM in reply to: #2314810 |
| Regular 194 Ruckersville | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? famelec - 2009-07-29 9:57 AM I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian Who should decide when it's appropriate to kill an elderly person for budgetary reasons? |
| 2009-07-29 10:36 AM in reply to: #2314875 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by SweetK 2009-07-29 10:42 AM |
| 2009-07-29 10:39 AM in reply to: #2314875 |
| Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? mattierocks - 2009-07-29 10:22 AM famelec - 2009-07-29 9:57 AM I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian Who should decide when it's appropriate to kill an elderly person for budgetary reasons? Ok, let's tone down the rhetoric just a tad. Allowing a terminal illness to run its course is not "killing a patient". Let's keep the discourse civil no matter what our views. |
| 2009-07-29 10:41 AM in reply to: #2314918 |
| Regular 194 Ruckersville | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? SweetK - 2009-07-29 10:36 AM mattierocks - 2009-07-29 11:22 AM How is that killing for budget reasons? Consumers have protections as is shown in this case here - she chose to be treated even though it will cost a lot of money. But there are also many who will chose not to get the treatments but are denied that choice in old age. famelec - 2009-07-29 9:57 AM I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian Who should decide when it's appropriate to kill an elderly person for budgetary reasons? See the highlight. Presumably referring to denying the 91 year old woman's cancer treatments. |
| 2009-07-29 10:42 AM in reply to: #2314927 |
| Regular 194 Ruckersville | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? DerekL - 2009-07-29 10:39 AM mattierocks - 2009-07-29 10:22 AM famelec - 2009-07-29 9:57 AM I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian Who should decide when it's appropriate to kill an elderly person for budgetary reasons? Ok, let's tone down the rhetoric just a tad. Allowing a terminal illness to run its course is not "killing a patient". Let's keep the discourse civil no matter what our views. This is true, but my (possibly too harshly stated!) question is, what category does denying treatment to save costs fall under? Edited by mattierocks 2009-07-29 10:46 AM |
| 2009-07-29 10:53 AM in reply to: #2314936 |
| Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: Is your health coverage good? mattierocks - 2009-07-29 10:42 AM DerekL - 2009-07-29 10:39 AM mattierocks - 2009-07-29 10:22 AM famelec - 2009-07-29 9:57 AM I've always had relatively good health care. At times I paid nothing, right now I pay $350 a month (includes dental and vision) for a full family plan that I consider OK. Most of us don't realize how much health insurance actually costs because our employers pay a huge chunk of it. I used to get health insurance quotes for our company, and family coverage costing anywhere between $700 and $1,200 was fairly normal. One serious illness of an employee and the rates would increase. If all employees paid their full amount there would be a lot more complaining about the expense of health care! The screwy thing with health care in the US is that companies will offer it to their employees, but a lot of lower income employees just can't afford to pay the $350 a month ($4,200 a year) that I can. They're hoping they stay healthy and won't need doctors. They don't get annual checkups. They use the emergency room if they need medical care. The other screwy thing is that those with health insurance expect the best care, regardless. A doctor friend of mine said that a huge percentage of health care expenses come in the last year of one's life because we try to extend people's lives through medicine, even if it costs a lot and likely will not help much. He mentioned that he recently diagnosed cancer in a 91 year old woman. The treatment, which she is undergoing and is hugely expensive, might extend her life just a few months. Is that a good use of health care money? I'm not against rationing care in certain cases to reduce costs. Brian Who should decide when it's appropriate to kill an elderly person for budgetary reasons? Ok, let's tone down the rhetoric just a tad. Allowing a terminal illness to run its course is not "killing a patient". Let's keep the discourse civil no matter what our views. This is true, but my (possibly too harshly stated!) question is, what category does denying treatment to save costs fall under? That's a much better question. I'm on the clinical end of things, so I have the same question. I do believe we spend an inordinate amount of money on people at the end of their lives with no improvement in quality of life. We would slash our health care expenditures if that weren't the case. I just don't know where the line is to be drawn and who makes that decision in the proposed plans. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK