You owe me a new keyboard for that, dammit.
See, this is actually helpful info - unlike the retarded snippets Ogre has been giving me. But as a grad student I assume that *Ogre *would not be covered by an employer.
I really feel for your situation, by the way. To me it seems like knowing people are in your situation is exactly why we have UHC in Canada. Hard-working, regular people who didn’t cause their own medical problems through smoking/drug use/obesity/etc., but have just been unlucky. How is it okay to punish someone for a condition that they were born with?
Seriously, this thread is making me want to get a little Canadian flag and march around singing ‘Oh Canada’.
Meyer6, I addressed some of the problems with employer-paid health insurance way back in post #258:
Tying health care to employment is just another failed portion of our model–because what the hell happens if you get so sick you can’t work? COBRA benefits are supposed to make health insurance transportable, but it’s horribly expensive (the cheapest I ever had quoted to me was for a really crap health plan and it was $300/month just for me) and only lasts for a finite time–if you can’t get another job in that time or you are forced to let your COBRA benefits lapse you’re back in pre-existing condition hell when you DO get eligible for another employer furnished health insurance plan. Seriously, at this point I’m scrabbling hard to find any way in which our health care system ISN’T broken…
Excellent summary. I would just add that many, if not most employers, require their employees to pay part of the premium. I pay $132 a month, and my employer picks up the rest of my premium. If I want to add a spouse and/or kids to my plan, I’d pay more. My husband gets insurance at no cost to himself, but if he were to add a spouse and children to his insurance, his would cost $498 a month.
The majority of bankruptcies are caused by illnesses. You can go broke easily if a serious illness hits. A catastrophic illness can break a wealthy family. Insurance is generally provided with employment. Lose your job ,lose your health insurance. Then you can not afford it. It is very expensive. A lot of people are hoping not to get sick when they are between jobs. Unemployment is accompanied by the dread of getting sick and losing everything.
Okay, thanks for the explanations about health care. I does seem to me then that there is no ‘excluded middle’ - either you have insurance because you can afford it (in terms of being well employed or just having the money), or you just hope naively that nothing ever happens.
Poor paying jobs do not have benefits. They do not provide health insurance. With a job like that ,you can not afford to buy insurance. So you work and go without. The poor go to crowded clinics or use emergency rooms at hospitals when they are sick.
Actually, I think I’d like to apologize to Broomstick. I’m not sure I was entirely aware of the extremity of her and her husband’s medical plight. I should have just backed off at that point, but I was in full anger-and-irritation mode. I certainly didn’t need to exacerbate her anxiety about it.
Broomstick - I apologize if I offended you, or in any way made the situation a little worse than it already was for you. I’m not really a “go for the throat, win at any moral cost” guy in real life. I tend to treat the internet (including SDMB) as an intellectual exercise, and forget about some of the community around here. Sometimes I think I’m just a little more angry at lot of things on this board than I ought to be, and it makes me argue aggressively. If you ever met me, I’d like to think I’m a cool-headed, friendly enough fellow.
So I’m sorry for fanning the flames.
A while back, I stumbled onto a Fox News anti-UHC bloviator who said that the typical German family pays 13.3% of its gross income on health care.
I pay 10.6% of mine in premiums and contributions to a flex fund of $1680/year(up from $1440 last year because that amount didn’t quite cover all deductible and co-pays in 2007) and the increased flex fund will be about 3%of gross too little for 2008 if I don’t set foot in a doctor’s office the rest of the year.
So, to avoid the “heavy hand of wasteful socialism”, I pay .3% MORE than the German “victim” of heavy-handed socialism. AND, I have the privilege of spending hours on-hold waiting my turns to engage in several screaming matches per year with health care providers and/or or Blue Cross.
That poor German bastard doesn’t know what a masochist’s joy THAT is!
Oh, and to hold costs down to 13.6, I have to defer my wife’s and my going to the eye doctor 'til after Jan.1,'09.
In the States, my net pay would be about 84% of my gross - income tax, social security, medicare, and health insurance accounting for the 16%.
Here in the horribly socialistic land of Australia, I lose about 11% of my gross pay to income tax, super (aka retirement), and so forth. I suppose I should mention that Australia has UHC…
Help, help I’m being repressed!
There was a time where I was not covered under employer-provided health insurance that I purchased my own. It wasn’t cheap, but I did find that if I evaluated my priorities it was affordable.
Why is this a problem?
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a person paying for part or all of the cost of health insurance. Individuals buy insurance on a wide variety of things such as cars, homes, and lives that the government doesn’t and is not expected to provide. Why should health insurance be different?
For that matter, why doesn’t health insurance work more like car insurance? You purchase it to cover major unforseen problems and accidents, but any routine type maintenance isn’t covered and is paid out of pocket.
Good for you.
We were quoted premiums of between $900 and $1,400 per month to cover my husband and me in the private market. The only way to afford that is for us to stop paying rent and stop purchasing food, utilities, gas, clothing… My income has averaged around $1,100 per month this last year, which means we have, at times, been quoted premiums that exceed our income.
The problem is someone like my husband. Those who most need such insurance are those least able to pay. You can live without a car, you can rent a place to live instead of owning a home, and so on. Those are optional. You can’t live without a functioning body.
My husband’s routine maintenance currently exceeds our income. I don’t mean it busts our budget, I mean it exceeds our current gross income. Which is why he is NOT getting all the “routine maintenance” he should be at this point.
Which is the stupidity of it all - our current society won’t pay for my husband’s medical care until it’s a life or death emergency. It will pay for an emergency amputation due to gangrene, with all the attendant complications, but it won’t pay for maintenance to PREVENT the amputation at a significantly lesser cost.
A question for those posters living with a single-payer system.
The only thing that keeps me from becoming a fire-breathing supporter of a single-payer system is the fear that the NHS would become a political tool and that a nutjob administration would do something like decide that birth control was no longer funded. Sarah Palin’s scarily close brush with national office makes me worry that someone who is just fucked in the head will wind up making decisions on NHS priorities that screw all of us.
My question: is this a fear for those of you who live in single-payer countries? How, if at all, does your system protect against that?
(I do believe that everyone should be able to afford healthcare, and I think overall a single-payer system would be better than what we have. But this scenario concerns me.)
Is that coverage for emergency major medical, or is it of the type where you don’t pay for oil changes? This is one of my issues with health insurance of all types, including socialized. Insurance is supposed to be protection against some unforseen problem, not a way of shifting payment for routine maintenance. The routine doctor visit, like the routine oil change on the car, is something that is paid out of pocket. Oh I heard you, you don’t have to have a car. But who buys bus pass insurance? Nobody. They pay out of pocket for it.
I keep seeing all these commercials on TV from drug companies that say things like ‘If you can’t afford your medication, Astra Zeneca may be able to help.’ or about that bus (Pfizer’s?) that drives around helping people who can’t afford medicine. Have you contacted any of the drug companies directly?
Call me selfish if you want, but I don’t see why I, member of society, should be paying for your husband’s medical care. Would it be nice of me (or anyone else) to do so? Yes. Is it my duty to? No.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a problem, just trying to explain the system to a non-USer. If someone in Canada or the UK hears that most health care coverage is provided through employers, they might easily assume that covered employees and their families don’t pay anything out of pocket, which is most definitely not the case.
By not electing mentalists. That, and all drug decisions are made by independent bodies.
The point is the system is broken. You pay more for health care in the US and get less. We leave people uncovered and claim it is good.
Take care of yourself ,slacker. Do not get downsized or you are not a person worth considering.
Everything you buy in America has the health costs folded into them. These slackers are paying your coverage. It is wrapped in the cost of everything we buy. So why should we pay for your insurance? That is the real question. Why should the consumer pay higher costs .so you can get covered ?
I fear I can’t be certain we’d follow the first step. About the independent bodies, though – are they appointed by politicians for a certain term, sort of like a supreme court or something?
NICE develops guidelines for medical treatment. The guidelines are written by panels of healthcare experts, so the guidelines for Obstetrics care are written by senior Obstetricians.
Patients and other health professionals can get involved by joining the committees and working groups. You just apply to join if you want to be involved in the decision making process. It’s a pretty open system actually. They actually want patient input into even the technical discussions.
If I understand you correctly you seem to be under the impression that I am touting the healthcare in the US, and you would be wrong. I have absolutely no idea how goo dor bad healthcare in the US is, however I am intimately familiar with healthcare in Cuba, and any problems in the US healthcare system are not significant enough to make choose the Cuban system.