Just got my new Healthcare premiums!

[Tyler Durden]

The tab will be $116.00 PER PAYCHECK (that is, TWICE A MONTH), WITH A $1500.00 family deductable PER YEAR and I have to drop vision and dental for the rest of the calendar year.

SO…with the $980.00 out of pocket for the wife's surgery (with another $500.00 this fall for the foot) plus the premium, I'll pay $3016 + $980 + $500 + $180 for vision plan (to date) + $300 out of pocket vision (new glasses/lenses times 6) just to keep it SIMPLE = $4976.00 or…

15% OF MY GROSS PAY BEFORE OTHER DEDUCTIONS OR TAXES.

Now, just for laughs, let's say that the US population is 300,000,000. Divide by 4 (average kids/family is more than 2, but let's make this easy):

75,000,000.

Now let's give them a payout per year of $5000.00 just to skew the costs up (you'll see where I'm going):

75,000,000 * 5000 = $37.5 billion per year for a spitball estimate for single payer heathcare paid for by TAXES instead of premiums to the WESCREWU HMO.

That's 7.5% of the Defense Budget.

Dunno, sounds doable to me.

We can afford Single Payer Healthcare. I DARE anyone to dispute me.

[ugarte]

1. This is the Democrats wedge issue

Millions are in the same boat and millions more unable to get coverage at all. The system is broken.

[fencesitter]

2. I won't dispute you,

Mine went up Jan 1st to near 320.00/mo. That's just me, single no family members. What state are you in, health are cost vary state to state.

[Tyler Durden]

8. Michigan...

...and if they don't nail you on the premium, they'll get you on the deductable.

[Speed8098]

3. Yep

My new employer(since 9/03) expects me to come out of my pocket to the tune of $490.00 per month.

I live on Long Island and am at less than $50K per year.

Yeah, right, I'll be able to survive......NOT

[JayS]

16. What the heck kind of plan do you have? n/t

n/t

[Speed8098]

43. LOL, None, at the moment

I turned him down. I can't even begin to afford $490.00 per month on top of all my other bills.
My daughter is covered under Affinity, but my wife and I are without coverage. I have to choose between eating or health coverage.

I'm eating.

The worst part is that my new employer lied about almost everything during the interview process. He lied about how much I could make with commissions & Salary. He lied about health coverage, and just about everything else

He told me benefits would be available after 3 months, it was six. He said his top sales person made over $150K per year in salary & commission. Wrongo, she doesn't even earn commissions.

In my last job, I sold $15-16 Million in product per year, this freaking company couldn't produce a million a year.

To top all this off, they're freakin fundies

[JayS]

44. Your employer sounds....different. I have a lot of employees...

...whose insurance cost for them would be in the $500 range if I did not cover 80% of the total bill. I have a few employees whose total cost of insurance is in the $1000 to $1500 range but they are up in age or have serious health issues. Very few carry their dependents on the company plan so I don't have any good figures on how much it costs.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

49. Um wow

you need to be looking for another employer. I know, I know, easier said than done, but I don't see one damn thing about that job that's good at all!

That SUCKS!

[Speed8098]

74. Believe me, I'm looking

I fax my resume' 3 or 4 times per week.

Since I started here, my savings are all but gone. I'm deep in credit card debt, just from living expenses, and I am having to refinance my house just to keep my head above water.

There should be a law against misrepresenting the amount of money one can potentially make on commissions. Had he been honest from the beginning, I would've went elsewhere, or I would have requested a higher base salary.

As I said earlier, these are your typical right wing zealots. They only care about themselves.

[RebelOne]

4. I guess I can consider myself fortunate.

My premiums are only $96 a month, which includes dental and eye care. My co-pay is only $15 and prescriptions are $30 and $15 if generic. I recently had a foot operation and I only had to pay $63. And I have all kinds of prescriptions, which I would not be able to afford otherwise. The antibiotic alone would cost $104 if I didn't have insurance.

[Frodo]

5. That's actually $375 Billion / year

Or about 90% of the Defense budget.


You dropped a decimal place.


You also left out whatever your employer pays for their portion of the insurance. My family coverage runs close to yours and the company pays more in premiums than I do. Running the same math you did puts the total well past $600 Billion/year.

[jtb33]

7. Correct.

tagged

[Bandit]

14. Yes but way less than interest paid on National Debt.

If we were fiscally responsible and paid off our debt it would be more than doable also the costs would be considerably less as most of that care would not be emergency room care and when the Government buys health care it buys in a huge lot which will mean lower premiums. You could conceivably figure half of that estimate and be much closer to the truth plus it would have the added effect of making a larger portion of Americans more able to be productive as they would be in better health. It would be a win win situation and Defense wouldn't have to come down. I wish it would come down by at least half but the necessity would not be there even with universal single payer health care.

[Tyler Durden]

17. Yep, you're right. But try this then:

Damned Decimal points. assume 375 billion would cover it. (I don't buy for one second the "Empolyers are paying a ton." If they are, they should fire their HR departments for bad negotiation).

$375 billion * 70% = $262.5 billion (3 cents out of every dollar is the current accepted rate at which HMO's operate)

* 50% (my fudge factor: assume a profit of 15%, reduce malpractice insurance costs as the Canadians do, STOP paying ER nurses +$50/hour) =$131.25 billion (Starts to get reasonable: don't build 2 subs and one aircraft carrier),

You could even assume say, 40% to be paid by the consumer = $78.75 billion (/75,000,000 = $1050/month = <$44/every 2 weeks. Still not free, but now we're down to not buying about 10 F-22 fighters per year.

Still doable.

[Frodo]

23. Sorry, no.

First of all, your HR department is doing just fine. Try pricing similar coverage outside the organization. Most companies are paying at least half of the premiums. Some pay quite a bit more.

You can usually tell by how hard they try to up your copays and co-insurance and deductibles, since these changes are born entirely by the employee. Premium increases are shared by the employer.

The rest of your dollars are equally far off. Two subs and a carrier don't come CLOSE to $131 Billion, you're off by more than a factor of ten there. And ten F-22s now cost almost $8 Billion each? That's off by more like 100:1 or more.

And if the consumer is paying 40% of the bill?

1) How is that "single payer"?
2) How is that any different from today?


Sorry, I'm not saying single payer doesn't have merits, but you have to accept that it will be WAY WAY WAAAY more expensive than you are calculating it to be.


BTW - My MIL is an ER nurse and would love to hear where she needs to move to pull in six figures?



On edit - One place you could get a bit of it is requiring the employers to continue paying the amount the are paying - but in taxes instead of premiums. We're trying to replace personal insurance costs, not give corporations big tax cuts.

[Tyler Durden]

25. Port Huron, Michigan.

They're paying one HELL of a signing bonus too. That is for an experienced ER nurse with documented speciality.

I don't mean to pick on nurses. I'm just an ol' Socialist, figuring that if we tended more that way, we wouldn't have to pay some of these folks like this.

For example, I worked as a Med Tech and never made more than $15.50/hour.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

50. I LOVE your screen name

and I LOVE LOVE LOVE that movie. I shall not name it. LOL.

[Kanary]

45. What you're leaving out of the raw figures......

You're going on the assumption that ALL medical costs would be as much with a Single Payer Universal Health Care Plan as with private insurance. That is NOT correct, and a big part of the reason why it's important to get away from insurance *Companies*.

There are big bucks going to pay for CEOs with hugely inflated salaries, not to mention all their perks. All that would be gone.

Then, there is all the redundant paperwork (and the staff to do it) which wouldn't be necessary in a well-run single payer system.

The US pays *much* more for health care than any other nation in the world.

Let that fact sink in for a moment. NO other country pays nearly as much for health care as the US does.

Couple that with the fact that the World Health Organization ranks the US at 37th in health indices, and you can see that we have a huge problem in this country with a *lot* of $$$ going in the wrong direction.

We're simply not getting the health care that we're paying for.

When you factor in all that, the cost is actually quite a bit less.

Kanary

[Frodo]

55. A reply

There are big bucks going to pay for CEOs with hugely inflated salaries, not to mention all their perks. All that would be gone.

And replaced with equally inflated senior positions at the "Department of Health Insurance"

And we lay off or make government employees out of all the people working at the insuance companies.

The US pays *much* more for health care than any other nation in the world.

That's because of the high cost of some of the procedures that other nations don't provide.

Do you have a link for how much we spend per-capita? And can you compare that to our relative cost per-capita for other programs? (e.g. if we also spend more on Social Security or Medicare on a per capita basis it would be evidence that we don't run things as cheaply as governments that are better designed for social welfare)

[prolesunited]

57. Just don't buy this argument

"That's because of the high cost of some of the procedures that other nations don't provide."

What procedures and what countries?

Even if this was true, would you argue that millions of people should be denied health care just so that a few select people can benefit from highly specialized treatment?

And guess what? If these people don't have money or insurance, they aren't getting these fancy procedures. They're patched up and stabilized in the ER and sent home to die.

[Kanary]

59. I had a feeling that you are against Universal

but I gave it a go anyway.

I learned a long time ago that it's not worth the effort on DU to argue with someone who is entrenched in their ideas. There's jut too much flaming here, and I'm not into that.

I will say that you are completely wrong about the same CEO salaries, but I know you will just argue with that. I suggest you actually READ some of the proposals, and do some reading at the websites of Universal proponents.

As I said, the info about how the US ranks is from the WHO, and you can google that and get all that info there, including the list of countries that rank AHEAD of the US. And, no, we don't pay more because we have better care....... we rank 37th. WE just enjoy feeding the fat cat corporations, then complaining that we can't afford their brand of health care. :shrug:

There's plenty of info around, including doing a search here at DU for previous conversations -- including some where some Europeans took part.

So, you can be as defeatist as you wish........ I hope you also keep in mind those who are suffering from lack of care, and the deaths -- 18,000 yearly!-- of those who were not able to get medical care.

Compassion, Frodo, compassion.

Kanary

[Frodo]

64. I'm not against universal health care

I'm just not going to buy into the idea that it will SAVE money.

Not that it needs to. "Cost" is not the sole decider of right and wrong.

There are very few programs that end up costing what we initially estimate they will. And the estimates (here) in this case were WAY too low.

[FlaGranny]

6. How about if you

were in your 60's. I've worked full time since high school, a total of 47 years. I've worked with a typewriter and a keyboard all those years. I cut back on work to part time because I have arthritis and tendinitis in my fingers and hands. I'm also developing circulation problems in my legs from sitting all day for so many years. I took Cobra which will soon expire. To continue my insurance for ME ALONE there are two policies available, one for $800 per month, the other for $1000 a month. I was just turned down for BC & BS. So now, I'll probably have to go back to work full time. I'm reasonably healthy and it's been a year since I got any medical care. But, I don't want to lose our home if a problem should come up, so I'll have to punish my body for another year until I'm eligible for Medicare and hope I don't damage my hands and legs beyond repair. Sigh!!!

AND DON'T ASK ME ABOUT DENTISTS!! I would never be able to control my language if I start on THEM!

[Tyler Durden]

21. one of the big reasons for me and the family moving to Canada.

We don't want to get rid of a mortgage just to start paying Blue Cross.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. What are prescriptions?

I'm getting wiped out on these. The co-pays can be as high as $25.

[RebelOne]

11. Don't complain. Mine are $30 if not generic.

If they are generic, they are $15.

[Tyler Durden]

18. Got ya beat.

Non-formuary drugs (write: NOT GENERIC-BRAND NAMES) my plan pays 25%.

[Frodo]

24. You're talking about two different things.

non-generic-name drugs are not necessarily non-formulary drugs. That's a third category. And some companies don't cover those at all if a comparable drug is available on the formulary.

[Tyler Durden]

26. Tell that to my plan.

EVERYTHING non-generic on my plan is non-formulary.

I need to get my lazy ass into a position to get my prescriptions filled in Canada.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

51. Mine are as high as $50 EACH

They are either $25 or $50 each, no shit. And my daughter is on four medications daily. It sucks.

[Warpy]

10. people are dropping company health plans when they can

Most folks can't afford that kind of an increase in out of pocket expenses, expenses which are largely NOT DEDUCTIBLE from taxes, thank you Ronald fucking Reagan, may you rot in the hell you made for us.

I think the number of uninsured is being Enronned like all those new jobs and that marvelous lack of inflation. I don't think they've bothered to count since Clinton left office, since they love to pretend unflattering numbers just don't exist.

We have GOT to get these bastards out of power, and KEEP THEM OUT~

[Frodo]

12. Sure they are

Thanks to Medial FSAs (Flexible Spending Accounts)

Not only are they tax deductible (effectively), but they are PAYROLL tax (Social Security) deductible as well.

[Warpy]

13. Nobody of modest means can afford those

...and certainly nobody with a chronic illness can afford them. They are for the young, the healthy, and the upper wage earner.

Sorry, but Ronald Fucking Reagan screwed all of us who have been thrown off insurance rolls due to chronic illness. The savings accounts for the few able to use them aren't doing the majority a damned bit of good.

The number of uninsured will continue to climb until popular demand finally overcomes the incredible power of the insurance giants.

Let them suck blood out of somebody else.

[Frodo]

19. Don't be silly. They're for everyone who expects medical expenses.

We may be talking past each other.

If you were talking about health insurance premiums - those ARE deductible (unless you're self employed - and I think they've fixed that as well).

FSA are not the "MSAs" people have been talking about. An FSA (medical or child care) is for EVERYONE who knows they are going to have these kinds of expenses (assuming your employer offers one). You set money aside pre-tax (including SS) from each paycheck and withdraw the money tax free when you incur the expense.

The only way to lose is if you have more witheld than you actually spend - or leave the company before spending what you had paid into it.

In some situations you can make a profit since they wil "advance" you the entire year's witholding up front for a medical expense (say a kid born in January) and you DON'T have to reimburse them if you leave in February.

[FlaGranny]

33. Easy for YOU to say.

My son and his family have one of those. They know they are going to spend because they have 3 kids. But, if they don't spend every penny they've put in, they lose it. The doctors hardly have time to fit everyone into the schedule who are unnecessarily getting in to see the doctor so that the insurer doesn't get the money at the end of the year. This is a win/win for insurance companies. They can't lose, but YOU can.

Edit: correct typo

[Frodo]

36. That isn't how it works.

First, the insurance companies don't get a penny of that remainder (assuming there is any). The money - by law - must stay in the plan to cover the shortages (people who leave the company before paying back money that is advanced to them). In practice this is almost always a complete wash.

Second, it's easy to spend that money at year-end if you have any left over. Tons of companies bust a gut advertising at year-end reminding people that it's lost if they don't spend it. My left-over last year went to an eye-care place with big signs reminding people to "use it or lose it".

But that hardly matters. It's soley a question of planning. You only schedule money to go in there that you KNOW you are going to need. In practice there is usually a maximum amount that you can put in, for a family of five this is almost guranteed to be less than you will need. If you have a really healthy family? don't put as much in.

[FlaGranny]

42. I'm glad if the insurance companies do not get it,

but it is still a crap shoot. It's still either lost or spent on medical care at the end of the year that you could have done without. That is a MAJOR (untrue) argument against single payer - that people will go to the doctor whether they need to or not. These plans, while not a bad thing if you know in advance how sick you and your family might be in the coming year, and making you sure you know when all immunizations are coming up, etc., absolutely guarantee you that many will seek medical care in December that they would would not have, otherwise. That helps increase costs, insurance reimbursements, etc.

Besides, as helpful as it can be for some YOUNG families, this is a nothing more than a band-aid for the real problem - affordable health care for everyone. A medical savings account is not available to everyone. It is good if you have kids and know you have well-child exams and immunizations; if you wear glasses and know you will need at least one visit to the ophthalmologist. It is not very good for surprises, though.

Many years I spend NOTHING on medical care because I can't afford paying for it and paying my insurance premiums at the same time. I absolutely KNOW I am not going to spend money for medical care unless I really need it. But what if I do need it? What does medical savings do for people like that - i.e., many, if not most of us?

----

http://www.msahealthplans.com/7things.html

snip - - -
"President Bush strongly supports the HSA and in fact supports more legislation aimed at beefing up the HSA as part of the solution to the national health care crisis.
The insurance industry and the employee benefit industry strongly support the use of health savings accounts."
- - -

The above two paragraphs alone give me reservations. When did Bush or insurance companies ever like something unless it promoted corporate profit?

The above is from a site "selling" these plans. If you read down the page, it is obvious that these plans LEAVE OUT a great many of us. We are still on our own.

[Eurobabe]

15. so if people drop out of health care plans

because they can't afford it -- doesn't this negatively affect the number of people who are contributing, in other words, the pool gets smaller, so the premiums actually go up? Help me out here, trying to understand.

My hubby pays $360 a month just for me on his plan. It's nuts, but at least I HAVE insurance.

[JayS]

48. It depends.

If older or sicker workers leave the plan, the cost can go down. If the plan size gets too small, the plan gets too risky and the cost will go up. It sounds like you are paying at the dependent rate on your husband's plan. From what I understand, this costs more than what an employee of the company would pay but less than what you could buy it for on your own...generally.

Our insurance company wants to pay out no more than 89% of what it takes in from us. If we cross that 89% we will see a rate increase. Since we subsidize the cost so heavily, our older employees don't switch to Medicare at 65 and this raises costs on even the younger employees and they often leave the plan for more of a catastrophic coverage type plan. This scenario is being played out on a large scale. You can think of the insurance plan like one is peeling an onion. As the cost goes up, the younger and healthier leave for plans that better meet their needs, the plan cost goes up and the next layer leaves, and the plan cost goes up...

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. the problem with univeral health care

And I get this feeling from my mom, who's a nurse, is that UHC will be low-grade health care. The type you'd receive at some ghetto hospital in the city or something.

Plus, you're talking about convincing the middle class to go along with this. Which is difficult because the middle class tends to associate themselves more with the upper class, than lower class - even when both the lower and middle classes would benefit from UHC.

[Tyler Durden]

27. Denmark's got a pretty good plan...

And they sure don't have our population tax base to support it like we could.

Trivia: Who set up the current plan in Denmark? The NAZIs under occupation. They have only tinkered with it slightly since then.

Hey, we've got NAZIs running our country RIGHT NOW! Does that mean they're going to fix HEALTHCARE????

[StopThief]

28. On a similar note. . . .

where are the Canadiens that want quality health care going to go then?

[Tyler Durden]

29. Ho, Ho, very funny, it is to laugh.

Seriously, all of my Canadian relatives (most of my relatives are Canadians) LOVE their healthcare system, don't trust ours, and if they have to wait on the Hip replacement for a few weeks, they don't seem to have a problem with it, and it doesn't seem to happen very often.

They say it's US Insurance Company Propaganda, though they would love it if we quit mining their system for Doctors and Nurses.

[gpandas]

30. thanks for debunking that myth n/t

[FlaGranny]

38. Magic,

I don't know how every physician and medical facility in the country would suddenly start dispensing ghetto quality health care. I would expect it would improve for almost everyone, except for the wealthy - but they are wealthy and can pay if they want "instant mashed potatoes." Universal health care, for one thing, would eliminate write-offs for indigent care and increase income for doctors and hospitals. Take away insurance company profits and put it into taking care of people and we can all have the same care for no more than what it costs us now, keeping in mind that most of this cost is hidden to us in the taxes and insurance premiums we pay.

I'm old enough to remember nonprofit health care and health insurance. Nearly everyone got the care they needed then.

[progressivebydesign]

39. My friends in other countries get great care..

Medical care is medical care. The difference between having no insurance and having medical care is the difference between life and death for many people. I wouldn't disparage it...

[moondust]

41. UHC may be comparable to military health care.

I have personally been treated in military hospitals, clinics, and dental clinics and currently receive routine care at a VA Hospital. There is/was nothing "low grade" about it. Of course they use generic drugs whenever possible. And you may not get your own room with kitchen and sleeping accomodations for your family. Just don't expect the excesses of private health care.

[sandnsea]

46. France has both

The WHO rates it the best in the world. A public/private partnership. Everybody has single payer, then there's private hospitals for surgeries, cancer treatments, etc. Some people have insurance to cover that and go there when they need treatment. Leaving the public facilities for the single payer people. 50% of surgeries and cancer treatment is in private hospitals. It works very well. I don't see any reason not to move towards that here, if somebody would just be bold enough to do it. Nobody is, nobody. It's frustrating.

[JayS]

66. Does it work something like this?

I posted this earlier.

********
I've always felt that you can have both private and public health insurance and free (or subsidized) health insurance for people with a lower income. An employer can offer as slick of a private plan as they want. For people working in companies that do not offer insurance, a public plan is available. For those with a lower income, a sliding scale plan is available. A mix of co-pays and deductables can be offered to keep cost down.

[sandnsea]

73. You get BOTH

Everybody gets the public plan. Employers offer the private plan. I read that 80% of the people have some sort of private supplemental plan, I don't know if they're all the same. But I'd bet they'd be a hell of alot cheaper since they seem to only cover catastrophic stuff. Kind of like what they're trying to shuffle off now, medical savings accounts and catastrophic insurance. Except the medical savings account is single payer health care in France. Makes so much sense, I swear I don't know what is wrong with the retardos in this country that want to pay twice as much for health care as any other country in the world. They're even fighting Kerry's plan, even when you say 'it's just buying into the federal insurance with a subsidy if you qualify'. Even keeping it as simple as possible, they scream "socialism".

I'm sorry, I'm really annoyed with people today. Can you tell? :-)

[JayS]

75. At lunch today I brought up what I posted, along with the posts...

...of other DUers. As two people that were eating with us were pretty far right I expected them to have a lot of negative things to say. Other than comments like "makes sense" and "should be cheaper than what we have now" they had little to say. A good number of Republicans here are recent Democrats but I don't think this was the case today.

So if us "common folk" can sit down at a table, define the terms we are using, and come to an agreement even before dessert is served (which was good. cheesecake. :)) why can't politicians sit down and do the same? It can't be that hard to temporarily deflate the ego enough for them all to sit at the same table.

[JayS]

76. Thump

[Kanary]

47. Your mom has bought the Reich Wing propaganda

Here's the bare facts:

The US spends much more than any other country for health care. MUCH MORE.

The World Health Organization rates the US #37 in health indices --- there are Third World countries receiving better care than US citizens! That alone should get you to thinking.

So, if you're satisfied with being that low in health care, then you're in the right place.

It's amazing that people will buy the propaganda without ever checking the facts...... on something as important as our health!

Rather than take your mom's word for it, how 'bout doing some research into the health care of other countries... especially the Scandinavian countries. This is such an important issue.... wouldn't it be worth your time to look into it further?

Even Canada, whose system isn't the best, actually does better than the US. You heard here that Canadians don't look with favor on the US sytem. One of the things that's also used as propaganda is the idea that the US system costs more because, supposedly, the US has more medical innovations. That's simply not true, either. As I said, the Canadian system isn't the best, yet it has advanced treatments for diabetes that the US doesn't have, and a few other things like that.

Propaganda. It's not good for your health.

Kanary

[JayS]

54. I've always felt that you can have both private and public...

...health insurance and free (or subsidized) health insurance for people with a lower income. An employer can offer as slick of a private plan as they want. For people working in companies that do not offer insurance, a public plan is available. For those with a lower income, a sliding scale plan is available. A mix of co-pays and deductables can be offered to keep cost down.

[emc]

22. Mine could have topped yours

My last premiums for health insurance would have been 12000 per year and thats with 10,000 deductible----I elected not to pay for it was getting out of hand----This was for my wife and self ages 63 or there abouts----no previous records of having spent time in hospital, no previous health problems---no previous claims-----

I have always had hospitalization in the past but its out of site now---all I can hope for is to make it to Medicare and not come down with something-------

Pretty soon, you will be paying more for health insurance then you make------why worry about food and the necessities

[qwertyMike]

31. Move to Canada

good buddy

We need more Liberals
:)
ON EDIT:
I had a li'l prostate scare. The process involved 3 blood tests, 3 office visits, visit to a specialist, biopsy (out-patient). NEGATIVE - phew.

All in 5 weeks No charge. No waiting. If I had to proceed to surgery it would have been within 2 weeks I was told, instant chemo if necessary.

No charge. No bills from the hospital. All chemo drugs would have been covered.

O Canada!

[Cleita]

35. Can we all move up there?

It's getting to be desparate here.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

52. wow

I am sitting here gobsmacked at that. Last time I had free medical was when my husband was in the Army and you had to wait forever for an appointment, etc.

[Frederic Bastiat]

67. You pay for your drugs in Canada

Most people have private insurance to cover prescriptions, as well as dental + eye care + auxilliary treatments such as physical/occupational therapy if demanded.

Universal healthcare covers the bare minimum, you gotta pay for the bells and whistles just like everywhere else.

[qwertyMike]

72. My company (like many others )

Pay for my drug plan - 80% anyway.
The only thing I have to pay for is . . . well let me see, it covers Dental after one year 80% . . .glasses (new each year) . . .and I have my kids on it too at the company's expense.
Really I haven't looked at it. I think things like private room I have to pay for.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

32. In other news...bush continues to talk up

his drug prescription plan, nothing to see here /sarcasm

[Cleita]

34. Welcome to the evergrowing demographic of Americans,

who have a health plan but not much healthcare.

We have to work for Single Payer health care. It's the only way.

[progressivebydesign]

37. $232 a month?

That's not bad monthly, but the deductibles now are unacceptable! Our insurance was $500.00 a month for three healthy people.. on Cobra it shot up to $780! Now we are without insurance until the new one kicks in later this summer.. at $380 a month.

THe deductibles are riduculous! It's like having NO insurance. When I broke a bone in my ankle (I realized later), I didn't go to the ER or Doctor, the deductible was too high, and we didn't have the money at that point. Our insurance is useless for those things. Health insurance now has become catastrophic insurance... Many doctors are refusing insurance altogether now, going cash only. Some people are buying catastrophic insurance only.. but the problem is, that it's leaving them vulnerable to those mid-level expenses, x-rays, tests, etc.

We can totally afford Single Payer Healthcare.. but we have yet to get a candidate nominated who has that kind of vision! (paging Dr. Dean)

[Cleita]

40. Same here. My deductible is so high that I am passing on

routine screening, which at my age involves expensive tests for bone density and such, and that means my doctor won't renew prescriptions for me if I don't. Well, I do without, yet I pay for a health plan, which for most intents and purposes is useless. I do hope the mucky mucks at Blue Cross are enjoying their yachts and mansions that my health care premiums help to pay for.

[Kanary]

53. You can page Dr Dean, but he wasn't advocating single payer Universal

He was for keeping the insurance companies, so ....... little would really change.

Yes, he wanted to have all children covered, but....... where does that leave us adults?

No, there was only one candidate who was really campaigning for Universal single payer, and he will still keep working for it. It's up to the rest of us to keep pressuring for it. There are organizations advocating USP, so it might be a good idea to search out one, and do what you can.

Kanary

[progressivebydesign]

60. Actually Dean planned to cover ALL Americans..

He has accomplished covering the children in his state. But, if you read the position papers for Dean, you'll see that he had a very compresensive program to make insurance available to all Americans who desired it. I've heard him speak on it numerous times. Perhaps Howard Dean is clever enough to realize that you will never put the insurance companies out of business when it comes to health insurance. It'll never happen. But his plans were extremely well thought out and feasible. Perhaps he'll be appointed head of HHS. While I like the thought of USP, I realize it will not happen in this country, not with the corporate stranglehold on the health care industry. I just hope someone does something..

Kerry's plan, which I believe is more about tax credits, is my absolutely LEAST favorite idea. I do wish he would borrow from the other candidates in their ideas. Kerry lives in an affluent bubble.. he doesn't realize that tax breaks mean absolutely zero when it comes to health care, because the money ISN'T there when you need it. The reason I adored Howard Dean on this issue, is that he worked as a physician, he KNEW the financial and human side of getting treatment. He knew that a tax break is meaningless to a family with a sick or injured child and no cash, and no insurance.

[Cleita]

61. Actually, that was what he was trying to do, get something that

could pass. He did have NHC in mind though for the future.

[Kanary]

63. We'll just have to agree to disagree

I'm not so defeatist as to believe that Universal Single Payer can *never* be done here.... just believing that makes it so, and I'm not willing to concede defeat to the corporate bastards.

If you've seen the polls, you know that the percentages are quite high -- considerably over 50% -- of USians who favor Universal Single Payer. That alone means that it CAN happen, if we chose it.

These last 20 years with the DEMs have made me very weary of waving the white flag on everything.

Kanary

[TrogL]

56. Wanna know my health care premiums?

The computers are down right now but I'll post approximate numbers.

Basic Health care $18.50 monthly
Blue Cross Family $45.00 monthly

Basic: all doctors visits free including yearly eye exam
Blue Cross: 80% drug no limits, 80% dental some limits, 50% ortho some limits, some chiro, psych, alternative therapies

No deductables

[Tyler Durden]

58. YE GODS! WHO do you work for?

A progressive employer. Who'da thunk it?

[progressivebydesign]

62. You're in a union, aren't you?

My husband's ex is in a retail union. All of their premiums are paid for them, with no deductible. They have all the benefits you'd want. They actually went on strike recently because they were upset about paying 20 dollars a month for a single person, and 60 dollars a month for a family of any size. I guess they have no idea what most people pay now.

My husband's past job.. they still cover the employees for 120 dollars a month regardless of family size... even tho the cost has gone up, the owner has absorbed it. My husband's new job cover the employee.. but you have to pay for the spouse and family. Of course for me and his 12 year old daughter, that adds up to 350 a month or more.

[JayS]

65. "they have no idea what most people pay now"

I wish they would pay more attention to this sort of thing. I lived on the border for years and saw too many companies pull up stakes and head to Mexico.

[Cleita]

69. I have to believe you are under thirty.

There is no way Blue Cross would insure anyone older that cheaply. I also have to believe that the premium is what you pay into it, not what the whole premium actually is, which either your company or union pays the lion's share of. Am I right?

[Aunt Anti-bush]

70. OMG!

Is your company hiring? I'd like to submit my resume. :)

[AP]

68. Interestingly, 15% is the % of the GDP that Health Care Industry generates

every year.

It's the biggest single sector of the economy, and big pharma is the most profitable industry in the world today.

I guess we know where the money is coming from. Straight out of the pockets of people who work for a living.

[Cleita]

71. And they aren't getting enough bang for their buck either.