Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:00 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 612

I despise Trump but would vote for him over someone who wants to take my family's insurance away


Having voted for every Democrat since Bill Clinton I would like to vote for another pro-business Democrat. Barack Obama was the gold standard with his JOBS Act and TPP.

Now there is this:

Quote:
According to Gallup polling from late last year, 82% of Democrats said the quality of health care they received was either good or excellent. A large majority, 71%, believed their health care coverage was either good or excellent. Even when it comes to health care costs, 61% of Democrats said were satisfied with what they paid in health care.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/polit...nce/index.html

And Senator Warren claims she doesn't know ANYONE who likes their health insurance?

Kaiser:

Quote:
It turns out that Kaiser posed this question to Americans back in 2013 "Do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of your own health insurance company?"
In that poll, 72% of Democrats they had a favorable view of their health insurance company. That's triple the 24% who said they had an unfavorable view.
If successful in the primaries a Warren or Sanders would doom the Democratic Party in 2020.

Quote:
Just 30% said there should be a national health care plan and it should eliminate private insurance.
Why would a candidate wear such a millstone?
  #2  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:18 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,984
I'm on Medicare, and I'm 10x more satisfied with it than any private insurance I ever had.

Or you could ask my daughter, who couldn't even get health insurance before Obamacare.

Or my daughter-in-law, who couldn't afford health insurance before expanded Medicaid.

If you want private insurance to be the hill Democrats die on, I have to ask, why would YOU want to wear that millstone?
  #3  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:27 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,256
I would ask you to think hard and distinguish between access to health care and access to health insurance.

Isn't it really access to health care you're after?

Why would you put health insurance companies and their profits in between you and your access to health care?

I just don't get it. It's not like you get better/different access to health care because your insurance company is in charge of it. You're just paying more for that access so they can maintain their profits.
  #4  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:35 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
It turns out that Kaiser posed this question to Americans back in 2013 "Do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of your own health insurance company?"

That presupposes that they have health insurance, which quite a few people don't. Sure, if you have insurance through work, you probably don't think it's too bad. But lots of people don't have that.

Also, in 2013, they probably did not have as great a sense of what would be possible with some sort of universal health care. You can be satisfied with what you have, but still prefer a change if you think it can be better.
  #5  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:48 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post

I just don't get it. It's not like you get better/different access to health care because your insurance company is in charge of it. You're just paying more for that access so they can maintain their profits.
Your argument is "You should not get to choose FedEx because the US Post Office is all you really need"

I should get to choose what is best for my family.

I know that if everyone is on Medicaid then Medicaid will suffer more than it already does.

(For the record I support the ACA)
  #6  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:07 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,256
As someone whose employment would be fully wiped out overnight if we immediately switched to Medicare for all and who is intimately knowledgeable about these issues due to my work, I also support expanding the ACA as proposed by Pete Buttegieg/Joe Biden. The conversion one way or the other must be done gradually. There are a lot of people who will lose their employment if we instantly abandon the bloated system we currently have.

I think Pete Buttegieg is correct when he said at the debate on Thursday that people will figure it out for themselves if we simply add a public option. It will cost less and provide better access to care.

But believe me, what the insurance companies are doing to the public, even through employers, is disgusting. You only think you're getting FedEx. You're really getting the Pony Express and paying for FedEx. Right into their pockets. And I would gladly forego my current employment if we got something more compassionate and sane. Medicare for all would fulfill that better and faster than a gradual transition. However, because many people don't understand this, I support the gradual transition -- so you can think you're choosing what's best for your family.
  #7  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:14 PM
TimeWinder is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
I know that if everyone is on Medicaid then Medicaid will suffer more than it already does.
Unless, of course, it turns out to work better, as it does...practically everywhere.

Last edited by TimeWinder; 09-16-2019 at 11:14 PM.
  #8  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:19 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
However, because many people don't understand this, I support the gradual transition -- so you can think you're choosing what's best for your family.
It is this smug attitude (that individuals don't know what is best for them and should not get to choose) by Sanders/Warren types that will doom the Dems in 2020.

Remember Bernie famously said he likes bread lines because the rich don't get to eat better.
  #9  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:32 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,256
It's not a smug attitude. It's an understanding borne of 20 years' experience working to bridge the ever-growing gap of coverage for employers and employees for premium, co-pay and deductible costs. I've watched this train wreck in real time. I know everyone is paying more every year for a whole lot less coverage.

But obviously you didn't start this thread to learn anything. You know best.
  #10  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:47 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,574
You need to think long and hard about what would happen if you lost your job. It could happen any time, and COBRA costs more than most people's mortgage payments. Finding coverage while you are out of work is devastatingly expensive, and the GOP will just watch you (or your children) die rather than help you with that.

Browse around on gofundme.com if you want a real picture of the state of American health care.

Last edited by TruCelt; 09-16-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #11  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:53 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,485
Just one anecdotal data point.

I know TWO liberal friends who have expressed the same feelings as the OP.


People are scared of the public health care.

Let others be the guinea pig and if they do alright maybe the rest will come around.
  #12  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:57 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,948
What I really liked was when you couldn't even GET insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That was always fun!
  #13  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:27 AM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
What I really liked was when you couldn't even GET insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That was always fun!
Still true for some, thanks to the GOP (no Medicaid expansion states)! And they’d like it to be that way again for everyone! Yay! /sarcasm

That’s the thing I can’t understand about people who think like the OP. Do they think they will never lose their job and thus their health care? Do they think their children are guaranteed a job with health coverage when they fall off their parents’ wonderful coverage plan?

GOP are not defending the preexisting condition clause in the ACA, either.

Plus I don’t know about others, but the coverage I have through my job is pretty crappy and I could lose it at any time. It was a struggle for my employer to find a plan for us. The premium for a family of 4 is off the charts.
  #14  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:34 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
It is this smug attitude (that individuals don't know what is best for them and should not get to choose) by Sanders/Warren types that will doom the Dems in 2020.
No, it's this smug attitude (namely, your attitude that a knowledgeable experienced professional explaining what the average layperson doesn't know about a complicated subject is just being "smug", and should be threatened with electoral failure instead of being listened to) that is making the Dems' job a whole lot harder than it needs to be.

Our health insurance system can definitely be improved, but not if we refuse to acknowledge that there's a lot that most of us don't understand about it, and that our lack of understanding can be exploited for profit by those running the system.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-17-2019 at 12:35 AM.
  #15  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:46 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,094
Don't be scared. There is zero chance that Medicare for all will come about any time soon regardless of who wins the white house.

Best case scenario, the Dems have slight majorities in the house and senate, that are only made possible with the help of Democrats winning close elections in relatively conservative districts. These legislators are only going to risk their seats voting for something that the entire Democratic party, and ideally a few moderate Republicans can get behind. If the topic is so controversial that even the Democrats running for president can't agree on it, its not going to happen. The ACA barely made it through and took pretty much all of Obama's political capital with it. The best we can hope for is ACA 2.0 that allows for a public option.

On the other hand if you value having a working Democracy and a Supreme court left of the Spanish Inquisition, there is a very real danger of voting for Trump.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 09-17-2019 at 12:48 AM.
  #16  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:52 AM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,183
"It turns out that Kaiser posed this question to Americans back in 2013 'Do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of your own health insurance company?' "
My deductible was $3500 less in 2013 than it is in 2019, for the same policy. My opinion today is much lower than it was in 2013.
  #17  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:02 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
As far as I know, all of the likely candidates (including Trump) are proposing massive upheavals to the health insurance system that will probably result in lots of people losing "their" insurance. (Trump's plan is to bring back pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits, no mandatory coverage, etc.)

Of course, people lose their insurance all of the time right now. Most people get insurance from at-will employers and their insurance can be taken away in the blink of an eye.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 01:05 AM.
  #18  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:33 AM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,907
OP, how many hospitalizations and/or surgeries have you had in the last few years? What is your out-of-pocket maximum, and how many times have you reached it? I find that generally people who are happy with their insurance are either people who have scarcely had to use it or those fortunate few who have gold standard insurance, such as what Boeing employees get. I had crappy insurance through my employer and had $13,000 in medical bills my last two years of employment.

Sucks to be me, right? Nope. I'm now on Medicare and it's lightyears better. However, I'm smart enough to recognize how much better off the country would be with a complete overhaul of health care, and insurance companies (eventually) be damned. I'm compassionate enough to want others to have quality health care they can afford. I'm sick to death of seeing GoFundMe's for people with insurance who can't afford medical costs.

I hope that doesn't sound smug, because I'm not. I'm angry.
  #19  
Old 09-17-2019, 01:40 AM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 8,070
What's standing in the way of universal health care in the US is...insurance companies. It will not happen until the insurance companies get out of it, which they're in no hurry to do, and meanwhile, the costs of health care have gone up because of insurance. Not medical professionals, not medical equipment companies, and certainly not illegal immigrants. Insurance companies.

Insurance companies are also, for a lot of people, the barrier between their own customers and good health care. But definitely the barrier blocking universal FREE health care. They have the best lobbyists money can buy, and they also have the money.
  #20  
Old 09-17-2019, 02:29 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Per capita health care costs are twice in the USA what they are in Canada -- and the only reason for that is that we still have a private health-insurance industry, which Canada has long since socialized/marginalized. That extra cost is going entirely to the insurance-company execs and shareholders. Nowhere else.

Let there be no misunderstanding: When we speak of single-payer healthcare, we are not talking about "government taking over the health care industry." That would be the British National Health model. Rather, we are talking about government taking over the health insurance industry -- a far less objectionable and more desirable thing.
  #21  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:20 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
OP, how many hospitalizations and/or surgeries have you had in the last few years? What is your out-of-pocket maximum, and how many times have you reached it? I find that generally people who are happy with their insurance are either people who have scarcely had to use it or those fortunate few who have gold standard insurance, such as what Boeing employees get.
Dingdingding!

Most people happy with their health insurance haven't had the kinds of horror stories that you constantly hear about people with health insurance getting fucked because their health insurance didn't cover something. This is usually because they haven't had the opportunity, not because their insurance provider was actually any good.

Linden, as someone who has lived under the US system and a far more nationalized, European system, let me be frank. You are working against your own best interests and are the victim of propaganda. Your health insurance company is not your friend. It is an unnecessary, profit-driven middleman who will sooner leave you to die than give you a fuckin' red cent that you aren't contractually owed (and since they wrote the contract you'd better believe they know of a lot of situations where you think they'd owe you money but they know they don't). You deserve better, and if it's smug of me to say so, I'm very sorry, but I'll be Smuggy McSmuggerson when it comes to this issue, because in aggregate, you, and the people who think like you, are just simply wrong.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-17-2019 at 03:21 AM.
  #22  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:12 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
And Senator Warren claims she doesn't know ANYONE who likes their health insurance?
I'd like to point out that health insurance is not at all the same thing as health care.
  #23  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:15 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
I should get to choose what is best for my family.
Unless you purchase your health insurance independently, on the open, private-policy market no you don't. For most Americans with health insurance their EMPLOYER chooses what they will get, or what few options they can choose from.
  #24  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:19 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
It is this smug attitude (that individuals don't know what is best for them and should not get to choose) by Sanders/Warren types that will doom the Dems in 2020.
Actually.... individuals often DON'T know what's best for themselves. Just look at all those smokers out there "choosing" to be nicotine addicts. You pre-suppose that the average individual is an expert in everything, and they're not.
  #25  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:20 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
People are scared of the public health care.

Let others be the guinea pig and if they do alright maybe the rest will come around.
There are numerous countries full of millions of people who have already been guinea pigs ahead of us. At this point, it's sticking our collective heads in the sand and refusing to believe what has been demonstrated as successful time and again.
  #26  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:35 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,816
Back when, Obama made his sales pitch by saying that, if you like your plan, you can keep it; I mention this not to shriek “liar”, but to note that he apparently knew what Warren apparently doesn’t: that some folks do, in fact, like their plans, to the point of really wanting to be reassured that they’ll be able to keep on keeping on.

Why she’s saying otherwise, I honestly don’t know.
  #27  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:39 AM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,760
I moved (as an adult) from the US to Australia, pre-Obamacare.
Over here, there is private health insurance, but it is strictly supplemental, basically adding dental and optical coverage, and some perks. The UHC, Medicare, is taxpayer-funded and government run. I don't bother with private insurance here, and increasing numbers of others don't, either.

Having experienced both, there is no fucking way I'd want to go back to the State's way of doing things. For a slightly higher tax rate, I don't have to worry when changing jobs, or between jobs, or whatever - I'm covered. When the doc says "you should have that test done", I'm covered. I can go to pretty much any doc I choose; I don't have to go by a list provided by some company who's trying to maximize profits, to a doctor who's trying to maximize profits, or just get paid by the insurance companies. The longest wait I've had for medical care was for a spot in a private hospital, for a dental procedure not covered by UHC, for which I waited two months. Everything I've done in the public part has been within a week.

Oh, and that slightly higher tax rate? I pay about 10.6% more income tax than I would pay for the same income if I lived in the States. I don't pay any insurance premiums over and above that income tax. Nothing but income tax and some retirement contributions are being taken from my paycheck. I'm pretty sure I come out ahead on the deal, along with never, ever, having to worry about it.

In other words, you're simply, utterly wrong, Linden Arden. UHC is superior in every conceivable way.
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #28  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:43 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
I'll just point out that even in UHC systems there often exists a second private tier of health insurance for those who want more than the basic healthcare service. And because this doesn't have to cover emergency and critical care cases (which are prioritized in UHC systems), it's much much cheaper as it only has to cover medically necessary but non-urgent procedures.

So everyone has access to the USPS, but you can still shell out for a FedEx service if you want.
  #29  
Old 09-17-2019, 05:59 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Back when, Obama made his sales pitch by saying that, if you like your plan, you can keep it; I mention this not to shriek “liar”, but to note that he apparently knew what Warren apparently doesn’t: that some folks do, in fact, like their plans, to the point of really wanting to be reassured that they’ll be able to keep on keeping on.
I completely agree with you on the electoral politics of it. I wish Elizabeth Warren had maintained her strategic silence on the matter. The best "plan for that" on health care is "I'll sign whatever manages to pass" and then shut up.

But Jesus, it's so dumb. Health insurance plans are not permanent! Nobody ever keeps their plan, because plans are inherently temporary. Even if you count a new policy from the same company with crappier terms and premiums as "keeping their plan," employer-based insurance is inherently something that gets taken away, over and over and over, every time an employer trims the budget or someone gets a new job (which the average person entering the workforce can expect to do around a dozen times).

And it's not just "Medicare for All" that will result in a massive national hissy fit, though that's probably the easiest electoral target. Any real reform will bust up the employer-sponsored insurance racket (this is actually the only way to create that vaunted "choice" we keep hearing about but never experiencing) and "take away" most people's insurance.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 06:04 AM.
  #30  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:15 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,514
Before the ACA, the vast majority of Americans didn't even have health insurance at all. They thought they did, and they paid significant amounts of money to companies that claimed they were insurance companies, but if anything ever happened to make them unprofitable, the "insurance" companies would drop them instantly without paying out a dime. If you've got a plan that will drop you the moment they have to pay out, then what you had was never actually an insurance plan; it's a Mafia-style protection racket that was somehow legal. But most people didn't realize it, because they hadn't yet gotten to that point, and so they thought they were satisfied with insurance they didn't even have.
  #31  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:22 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
And the whole idea that people are out there exercising "choice" is a joke. Most people pay for their insurance with thousands of dollars in company scrip that can only be used for one particular offering, and the law even backs this up by banning you from buying subsidized insurance on the market if you opt not to buy that one option with your scrip.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 07:24 AM.
  #32  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:25 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
Having voted for every Democrat since Bill Clinton I would like to vote for another pro-business Democrat. Barack Obama was the gold standard with his JOBS Act and TPP.

Now there is this:



https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/polit...nce/index.html

And Senator Warren claims she doesn't know ANYONE who likes their health insurance?

Kaiser:



If successful in the primaries a Warren or Sanders would doom the Democratic Party in 2020.



Why would a candidate wear such a millstone?
It's sad that there has to be a purity test in the Dem primaries with some people. Polling is very clear and consistent in the US. People like their healthcare and they like their insurance by large %'s. Sanders and Warren might think they are well-intentioned. But their insistence that private insurance be done away with is foolish at best. There are other ways to achieve UHC that do not require this approach.

If Trump wins because Dems are supporting a candidate who vows to do away with the Health Insurance industry, then I hope people won't say they weren't warned.
  #33  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:31 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
There are other ways to achieve UHC that do not require this approach.
Are there? Right now, most people buy insurance at the company store, with scrip provided from their employer for that purpose alone (plus a portion of their own paychecks, but mostly scrip). I agree that there are lots of ways to do UHC, but I'm not sure that any of them can coexist with a system where your employer chooses your plan and forces you to take it or lose thousands of dollars a year in compensation, which is what people claim to like. Any real reform of that will "take away" insurance from most people.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 07:35 AM.
  #34  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:35 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
I like Warren but for the life of me don't understand the reasoning behind getting rid of private insurance. It doesn't make sense practically and is nearly suicidal politically (with the center). I started a thread a while back asking about her and Sander's likely reasoning behind it and and no one could really come up with an answer. The only reasonable argument was that it created a potential for preferential treatment of the privately insured. That would indeed be a problem but is easily legislated away. If the public option is good, people will choose it over private, and the private insurance industry will die a natural death. The optics (not the reality) of this issue, reparations, and decriminalizing illegal immigration are going to put Trump in office for another 4, possibly 8 years. I can't believe my fellow progressives don't see that. You don't remodel the kitchen when the house is on fire.
  #35  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:36 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
By sad coincidence, this thread popped up at the same time as two others, started by Maggie the Ocelot. Here's part of her first OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggie the Ocelot
Soooo at the beginning of June I was diagnosed with colon cancer, which had metastasized* into my lungs and possibly my liver.

Because it's spread so far (and mostly to my lungs), it's considered incurable, and I'm not currently considered a candidate for surgery. Basically they could cut the tumor out, but it would just grow back somewhere else since it's already taken the Lymphatic Express all the way up to Lungland.** They have given me some radiation treatment to shrink the main tumor (which was coming close to closing off my colon entirely. This would have been Bad.) and I'm also doing chemotherapy, so as to give me as much time as possible.
Quote:
Q: Do you have insurance?

A: Yes, thank goodness. I've got Kaiser HMO, which means I can't doctor-shop as much as I could otherwise - but it also means that I don't need to worry about whether a treatment or doctor or lab or pharmacy or whatever is in-network - if they prescribe it, it's authorized, and it's $15 a visit.
Quote:
Q: Are you still working?

A: Yep! I'm lucky enough to have a job in civil service, so I've got not only decent insurance but a lot of sick/vacation days saved up and a union that will help me out with keeping my job as long as I can. Which is what I need to do, since I'm the sole support for Husband and I. I'm currently missing a bit of time for doctors' visits (not as frequent as when I was first diagnosed) and 2-3 days every 3 weeks for my chemo, but other than that I'm still chugging along like normal.
Here's part of the other OP, three years later:
Quote:
So. Those who have been following along may remember this thread that I started in 2015, when i was first diagnosed with stage 4 colorectal cancer. In the 3 1/2 years since my diagnosis, my life has pretty much continued on - able to work full time, do most of the stuff I like to do, etc. Now, though, that has changed.

On the day after Thanksgiving, my oncologist told me that the most recent MRI showed that my primary tumor, on the corner of Colon & Rectum, has regrown to approximately the size it was when this all started. That is to say, it has become resistant to the various chemotherapies we have thrown at it, and we’re pretty much out of chemo drugs.

And now everything is different. And now I need help.

I have gone on Disability from work, which means my income is reduced. Fortunately, our lease expires on 1/1, and we will be able to move in to a much cheaper apartment next to my parents, so they will be able to help my husband care for me. We’ll need to pay for movers, plus storage (downshifting from a 2-bedroom to a 1-bedroom), plus I would like to see a doctor at USC for a second opinion and Kaiser generally won’t pay for that.

My folks started a Gofundme a couple days ago, and my friends have been very kind. Our initial goal has been met, which takes care of immediate needs, but we are continuing to raise money for future issues - I’ll need to deal with COBRA stuff, for one thing, and that ain’t cheap. If any Dopers could help out, I would totally appreciate it.
Later in the same thread she writes:
Quote:
...my work will pay for my health insurance for up to 6 months while I’m on disability, though I have to pay them back for my portion when I quit or return to work. After that I will have to either do COBRA or Medicaid (if allowed) or find insurance thru Obamacare.
Maggie liked her insurance. But it wasn't enough. And ironically, because her insurance was through her work, when the same illness she needed the insurance for caused her to be unable to work, it affected her ability to pay for ongoing treatment for that illness.

Maggie the Ocelot has now sadly passed away (which may well be unrelated to the insurance situation - her initial prognosis wasn't great to begin with). But the point I'm making here is that lots of people are likewise "happy with their insurance", not realizing exactly how small a safety net it may be.
  #36  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:42 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If the public option is good, people will choose it over private, and the private insurance industry will die a natural death.
Except the only way to allow people to freely choose the public option will likely involve the destruction of the employer-sponsored insurance that 158 million people have and most of them say they like.

To give people choice, I think you'd have to force employers to pay their portion of premiums to the government whenever an employee takes the public option. And if a company has to do that, well, then they might as well ditch all of the HR people who are administering the company plan and offload everyone onto the public option. It won't be a "natural death," it will be quite sudden. And all of those people will unzip their wrists and bleed about how their insurance was tooken away by the nasty Biden/Harris/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/O'Rourke.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 07:45 AM.
  #37  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:17 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Except the only way to allow people to freely choose the public option will likely involve the destruction of the employer-sponsored insurance that 158 million people have and most of them say they like.

To give people choice, I think you'd have to force employers to pay their portion of premiums to the government whenever an employee takes the public option. And if a company has to do that, well, then they might as well ditch all of the HR people who are administering the company plan and offload everyone onto the public option. It won't be a "natural death," it will be quite sudden. And all of those people will unzip their wrists and bleed about how their insurance was tooken away by the nasty Biden/Harris/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/O'Rourke.
I don't follow you. Why would employers pay when an employee takes a public option? That's not how national health care is financed. Yes, there would be dislocations as an industry died (more accurately transformed) that would likely require remedy, but that hasn't ever stopped us before. Industries die and/or transform all the time.
  #38  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:22 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I don't follow you. Why would employers pay when an employee takes a public option?
Because they pay when an employee takes the private option. "Choice" requires not penalizing people who don't take their employer's offering.

Edit: If your cash pay is a year $50,000, your employer pays $5,000 for insurance, and you pay $2,000 for insurance, switching to a public option that provided the same benefits at half the cost would still cost you (or the government) $1,500. Your employer would then get $5,000 for doing nothing.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-17-2019 at 08:27 AM.
  #39  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:31 AM
JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,042
> According to Gallup polling from late last year, 82% of Democrats said the quality of health care they received was either good or excellent. A large majority, 71%, believed their health care coverage was either good or excellent. Even when it comes to health care costs, 61% of Democrats said were satisfied with what they paid in health care.

Before I read all the replies so far, I want to say how I would answer this poll. I am generally happy with the care that my doctors provide and so far the insurance I have is fine, too. With one HUGE exception that they never ask about in polls: the pharmacy benefit management program (PBM) sucks giant brass donkey balls. I hate them with the heat of a thousand suns. They make me fight tooth and nail to get the prescriptions my doctors order for me. Over the last 10 or so years I've changed insurance companies many times and have used all the majors by now except for Kaiser. (So, all the major PPO's I guess.) So I'm used all the major PBM's also and every single one is operated by satan himself.

They're so bad that if they took away our insurance programs and replaced them with something different that didn't use PBM's I'd be happy.
  #40  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:37 AM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
Your argument is "You should not get to choose FedEx because the US Post Office is all you really need"

I should get to choose what is best for my family.

I know that if everyone is on Medicaid then Medicaid will suffer more than it already does.

(For the record I support the ACA)
What is best for every American is UHC, as shown in many other countries.

To illustrate this, here is my examples from the UK, where we have both the wonderful National Health Service and also private health schemes.
Yes, you can have both if you want to!

Whenever I visit Europe, I simply fill out a form and am covered for treatment by their UHC under a reciprocal agreement.
Whenever I visit America, I take out $1,000,000 in health insurance (as recommended by our Government.)

I once cut my toe in Las Vegas. A doctor cleaned the minor wound, disinfected and bandaged it. For 15 minutes work, he charged $450.

Meanwhile I've had an eventful year here in England:

- I developed gallstones, which required an MRI, an ultrasound, a 4 hour operation and a week recuperating in hospital
- my enlarged prostate was causing problems with my bladder function. Again I had an MRI plus several hospital visits as an outpatient. The condition is being controlled by two separate pills daily for the foreseeable future
- the worst was liver sepsis (potentially life-threatening.) After a blood test revealed the problem, I was rushed to hospital in an ambulance and spent 3 days with strong antibiotics administered through a drip. I then spent another 4 days in hospital recovering.

I'm fine now - and the total cost (including the pills) was prepaid through taxes. Total cost therefore = £0 ($0).
Friends in America reckon the cost of all the diagnosis, testing, ambulance, surgery and hospital stays would be around $200,000 in the US.

N.B. I find it hard to believe that you are charged for ambulance rides in the USA. Just when you need urgent medical attention, you have to find the money?!
From here:

- on average, an ambulance company will charge anywhere from $350 to as much as $2,000 for a trip without insurance.

- even with health insurance, an ambulance ride may not be covered 100 percent. Refer to your insurance documentation to see exactly what is covered; most of the time, the insurance company will only cover the payment if it were a medical necessity and your life was in danger. Some insurance policies have a flat fee/co-pay, while others may say you are only responsible for the deductible.

- (according to the LaTimes) a patient was billed more than $1,538 for her ambulance ride. This was after the insurance company had paid more than $750.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
  #41  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:00 AM
msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
It is this smug attitude (that individuals don't know what is best for them and should not get to choose) by Sanders/Warren types that will doom the Dems in 2020.

Remember Bernie famously said he likes bread lines because the rich don't get to eat better.
People DON'T know what's best for them. Most people know that they want to be able to go to a health care provider of their choosing, not have to wait indefinitely for service and not go into bankruptcy if they suffer a major illness. But they are in no position to determine if universal health care, our current system or some other future system would best be suited for maximizing their health care needs.

And even if people did know these things, most people don't have a choice. Their choice of health care provider is usually a secondary decision, based off of which company they work for.

So the way I see it, right now we have the worst of both options.
  #42  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:12 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,670
I confess, I'm a little unclear on what is meant by the policy proposals. What does it mean to eliminate private insurance: will private insurance be illegal, or will everyone be automatically enrolled in the public option, making private insurance obsolete?
  #43  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:42 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,670
Huh. It looks like I'm unclear on Warren's plan because she hasn't released one.
  #44  
Old 09-17-2019, 09:49 AM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I confess, I'm a little unclear on what is meant by the policy proposals. What does it mean to eliminate private insurance: will private insurance be illegal, or will everyone be automatically enrolled in the public option, making private insurance obsolete?
I haven't seen any of those details; I don't think anyone has developed them yet.

I'm a Kaiser customer; they are a non-profit, and it is really nice having everything under one roof.

When I hear UHC, I don't think about Europe, Canada, and Australia; I think Veteran's Administration. That's another obstacle to be overcome in the USA.
  #45  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:16 AM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
I should get to choose what is best for my family.
Yes, you should. But you live under the US healthcare system, so you don't get to. You get the health insurance picked by your employer, or paying insane amounts out-of-pocket. Maybe some expensive or substandard individual scheme.

I don't live under the US healthcare system. I have full UHC, I can get any private plan I want, or I can pay out of pocket. And if I do, I'd pay considerably less than in the US, despite living in a country with a higher cost of living. I can choose whats best for my family. You can't. And your system is the reason.
  #46  
Old 09-17-2019, 10:49 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,670
Sanders does ban private insurance for anything the government covers. Here's the reason:
Quote:
Why ban duplicative coverage? Because, while the government covers everyone (That's the point!), private insurers can limit their customer pool by charging high premiums. Which could also allow them to reimburse health-care providers at a higher rate than the government. If your doctor accepts both your government coverage and another patient's private coverage, they might privilege the other patient or move them to the front of the line because their coverage gives a more generous reimbursement. It's basically a question of how high a priority you put on fairness in your health-care system.
The article is worth a read. It ends with some reflections on polls:
Quote:
A recent Morning Consult poll found that support for Medicare-for-all does indeed fall if it "diminishes the role of private insurers." But it more than recovers if the diminishment "allows you to keep your doctor and hospital." Americans, it seems, bear no love for private insurers. They simply don't want the daily rhythm of their own lives — the doctors they see and the local providers they trust — upended by a transition to Medicare-for-all. Which makes perfect sense.
  #47  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:04 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Are there? Right now, most people buy insurance at the company store, with scrip provided from their employer for that purpose alone (plus a portion of their own paychecks, but mostly scrip). I agree that there are lots of ways to do UHC, but I'm not sure that any of them can coexist with a system where your employer chooses your plan and forces you to take it or lose thousands of dollars a year in compensation, which is what people claim to like. Any real reform of that will "take away" insurance from most people.
To answer your original question directly ("Are there?"), yes there are ways to get UHC without outlawing private insurance. This has been done in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are both structured similar to the ACA exchanges but with real teeth on mandates and better subsidies. Singapore also has a system that is a combination of private and public, and it's structured very differently than the ACA.

Any UHC system will require government involvement. There's no way around it. That much is proven worldwide beyond a reasonable doubt. But then once we get past that, we have to decide if the abolition of private insurance is a requirement. And the answer clearly is "no, it's not required". So, people may not like the fact that private insurance can exist with UHC. But it can, and in the US, it would be political suicide to do away with it. Might as well just hand the election to Trump if we go down that route.
  #48  
Old 09-17-2019, 11:07 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I like Warren but for the life of me don't understand the reasoning behind getting rid of private insurance. It doesn't make sense practically and is nearly suicidal politically (with the center). I started a thread a while back asking about her and Sander's likely reasoning behind it and and no one could really come up with an answer. The only reasonable argument was that it created a potential for preferential treatment of the privately insured. That would indeed be a problem but is easily legislated away. If the public option is good, people will choose it over private, and the private insurance industry will die a natural death. The optics (not the reality) of this issue, reparations, and decriminalizing illegal immigration are going to put Trump in office for another 4, possibly 8 years. I can't believe my fellow progressives don't see that. You don't remodel the kitchen when the house is on fire.
Great Post.
  #49  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:16 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
That presupposes that they have health insurance, which quite a few people don't. Sure, if you have insurance through work, you probably don't think it's too bad. But lots of people don't have that.

Also, in 2013, they probably did not have as great a sense of what would be possible with some sort of universal health care. You can be satisfied with what you have, but still prefer a change if you think it can be better.
FYI, just to put some numbers down, 91.2% of people as of 2017 had health insurance.

So we're talking about 8% of people, which might be valid for certain values of "quite a few" or "lots".
  #50  
Old 09-17-2019, 12:24 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,191
I think a far more useful statistic would be to poll people who've just had a major medical illness or injury and see how many of them are happy with their health insurance.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017