Next Pres. Election and Health Ins.

[Zoocat]

It's really the only subject that's of interest to me on this forum. It drives me nuts that a group of people who desire to retire early, at someone else's expense, want to ruin a decent system that serves the masses well by going single-payor, all in a vain attempt to be able retire 10 years early instead of working 'till age 65.

Wow. Now I get you. You're pissed off that people here are retired early!
But what is with the "at someone else's expense" comment? Who else is paying for the person's retirement except themselves? Through their pension or their savings? Also, you characterize ER as a "vain attempt" which also indicates you are disparaging those who live below their means or save prodigiously so that they can retire from work that is not satisfying, too stressful, or whatever. This is a person's choice. You are way over the top here.

 

[kcowan]

Can the system be improved upon? YES! But why do it with a single-payor system? IMO, in the long-run, that will be nothing short of disastrous. IMO, there are better ways to make improvements to our system.

Funny that our HMO broker friend spends much time disparaging the obviously better systems without even a hint as to how the current multiple payor system might be improved.

Chicken Little rides again!

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Wow. Now I get you. You're pissed off that people here are retired early!
But what is with the "at someone else's expense" comment? Who else is paying for the person's retirement except themselves? Through their pension or their savings? Also, you characterize ER as a "vain attempt" which also indicates you are disparaging those who live below their means or save prodigiously so that they can retire from work that is not satisfying, too stressful, or whatever. This is a person's choice. You are way over the top here.

I am an early retiree wannabe. I've been planning for it since age 25. When I retire, hopefully soon, I will have enough money to pay for my own healthcare. Knowing that I will present a higher risk and it will be much more expensive as I age, I have worked that into my plan.

I think it is very selfish to support a single-payor system for the sake of wanting to be able to retire early. That's not a good reason to ask our young people (someone else who is working hard) to pay extra taxes and burden them with the possibility that they might not have access to the best quality of care when they get old, unless they plan to save additional money for the possibility that they might have to buy private care in addition to paying into the national system. It's already going to cost our young people enough to take care of the 65+ age category, and they probably won't even get any social security benefits. Why should we ask them to now take care of the 55+? YOU didn't have to pay high taxes AND expensive private health insurance rates when YOU were 25!

Look, right now, it costs about $500/mo for a 50-60 yr old to protect their assests in the event of a huge medical claim. If you can't afford $500/mo, buy a smaller house and buy a used car. cut back on vacations. Now you can get by for the next 5-10 years, but don't ask our young people to pay for your "free" healthcare! Why is it that Americans will spend $1200-1500/mo or more on a house, and $500-$800/mo to have a nice car and budget $3000-$10000/yr to take nice vacations, but they don't want to spend a DIME on their own healthcare?

Oh by the way Kcowan, I have presented many ideas on how to improve the system in past threads. I can repeat my thoughts if you are interested, but I doubt you would be. Generally, I support disassociating health insurance from employment, and I would support catastrophic coverage for everyone including preventive care. I DO NOT support single-payor systems or Medicare for all.

 

[Webzter]

>but they don't want to spend a DIME on their own healthcare?

Raise your hand if you've advocated not wanting to spend money on your own health care.

I'm 29. I make a decent salary. I'd love to pay more money and ensure that everyone is covered.

My biggest concern is not being able to get coverage at any cost if I'm not under a group policy.

My second-biggest concern is that I elected to read your post.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

 

[JustMeUC]

MKLD, ok, I have a question. I have not been here long and perhaps you have spelled it out before, but humor me:

What do you suggest that we do about the current problem of all the people that do not have and can not afford insurance?

Please do not tell me that the current system will take care of them. My plumber lost his life to cancer. He was in his mid-50's. He worked hard all his life as a plumber, had small savings and a house partially paid for, he did not qualify for government assistance as he had too much money for that but not enough money for treatment. This is not something that he could go to the emergency room and be treated for. He was many in the middle who fell through the cracks. The working uninsured I believe they are called? I want to know what the folks like him are to do currently. If you are in the business, perhaps you can give me some feedback so that if I every run into this situation again I can advise the people. Thanks

 

[mykidslovedogs]

MKLD, ok, I have a question. I have not been here long and perhaps you have spelled it out before, but humor me:

What do you suggest that we do about the current problem of all the people that do not have and can not afford insurance?

Please do not tell me that the current system will take care of them. My plumber lost his life to cancer. He was in his mid-50's. He worked hard all his life as a plumber, had small savings and a house partially paid for, he did not qualify for government assistance as he had too much money for that but not enough money for treatment. This is not something that he could go to the emergency room and be treated for. He was many in the middle who fell through the cracks. The working uninsured I believe they are called? I want to know what the folks like him are to do currently. If you are in the business, perhaps you can give me some feedback so that if I every run into this situation again I can advise the people. Thanks

I am generally in favor of disassociating health insurance from employment. People should be required to purchase, at minimum, a catastrophic, portable, health insurance plan from birth that is guaranteed issue and perhaps subsidized by the gov't on a sliding scale. Preventive care not subject to deductible could be included. That way, if someone gets catastrophically ill, our providers will be paid fairly above the deductible, and our economy will experience less cost shifting as a result. As for the deductible, we should be on our own. It's not that complicated to put a little bit aside on a personal basis every month from the time you are young and healthy to the time you are old and in need of care to save for some of your own out of pocket expenses. Perhaps supplemental products could be made available to allow for the purchase of supplemental insurance which would pay for deductibles or Rx on a first dollar basis if people don't want to save on their own, but if you CHOOSE not to do that while your are healthy, them's the breaks!

I am so not in favor of Medicare or Medicaid for all with free primary care services and prescription drug coverage. That would bankrupt our economy and ultimately result in care rationing of another kind.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

My biggest concern is not being able to get coverage at any cost if I'm not under a group policy.

If you want to retire early, then I would suggest you consider purchasing private coverage instead of employer-sponsored coverage now, while you are healthy. You might have to pay a little more now (which you said you are willing to do), and it's better than not being able to retire early later. Otherwise, you run the risk of developing a pre-existing condition and not being eligible for private coverage later on. If you CHOOSE not to do that, then, plan on working 'till you are '65.

 

[JustMeUC]

I'll have to think about what you said in the above post... Who are the companies that have to offer the policies from birth? Are the rates kept in check or are they allowed to charge whatever they want if the person develops health problems? I agree that a higher deductible is a good idea. So you are for the government subsidizing this program?

As far as purchasing individual policies currently, sometimes it is just too darn expensive. I was quoted over $10,000/year 5k deductible for my individual policy and I am only 40 years old. Can you imagine what it might be years from now? BCBS has to offer me insurance here in NC but they can charge me whatever they want to which basically means that they can price folks right out of buying it. How many "average" working folks could pay that per year? Of course health insurance is NOT a guaranteed right here in the USA, but I do believe it is a sad day when this great country lets some hard working folks die just because they are not as considered as valuable as others (with money). Lesson Learned? Be REALLY poor, or wealthy or be able to get a job that has good group health insurance.

 

[Webzter]

Otherwise, you run the risk of developing a pre-existing condition and not being eligible for private coverage later on.

Leidens factor v

A tumor in my ribcage that is either calcified and benign or not with no easy way to find out

a wife with anemia and thalassemia

I think I'm pretty set on the pre-existing conditions, thanks.

 

[Moemg]

Unfortunately even the jobs are requiring workers to pay more and more towards their health insurance .Young people are going without because the costs are too high .Several of my former co-workers (nurses ) went without health insurance because it was too much being taken out of their pay .

 

[Beststash]

It's really the only subject that's of interest to me on this forum.

This is an early retirement forum for those that "dropped out" or are hoping to do so at some point.

It drives me nuts that a group of people who desire to retire early, at someone else's expense, want to ruin a decent system that serves the masses well by going single-payor, all in a vain attempt to be able retire 10 years early instead of working 'till age 65. In the meantime, our young people will get to pay out the ying yang so that y'all can get what you want, and then, by the time they get to be 55 years old, the system will be reduced to a socialized mess with long wait times for complicated health problems and a separate, private tier, that hardly any of them will be able to afford in retirement. At the same time, hardly any money will be left for them in the social security system either. So, in the meantime, they'll have to pay additional taxes, PLUS save for the possibility of needing private care, PLUS pay into social security, PLUS save for the social security they won't get in their old ages too.

Most if not all of us that have retired early were very prudent and driven to save, plan wisely, and work our butt off to achieve our goal (ER). While others spent, talked trash, and played high-roller - we saved and kept our focus on the goal (ER).

What drives me nuts is after retiring and running the numbers in as many ways as possible - we experience the greed of employers cutting benefits that were promised at time of retirement, insurance companies that have screwed the healthcare in this country (it's all about profit), and the politicians that have allowed it to happen.

Can the system be improved upon? YES! But why do it with a single-payor system? IMO, in the long-run, that will be nothing short of disastrous. IMO, there are better ways to make improvements to our system.

You are simply wrong. I appreciate your passion for your job but you are wrong. Healthcare is not about your feelings, my feelings, it is about the basic rights of citizens of this country that are paying the bills. It is simply a question of priorities, it is not socialism (single-payer), and it is the right thing to do. It will happen and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Until you experience some of the things that are everyday occurrences that happen to millions of people in our present system - you might not understand. I don't think anyone on this forum or most people in general are asking for healthcare welfare - just a system that is not discriminatory, and to be honest I personally wish the middleman (insurance companies) were totally out of the picture. They had their chance and they blew it.

Peace

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I was quoted over $10,000/year 5k deductible for my individual policy and I am only 40 years old.

Hmmmm. That just doesn't sound right to me. I have no clue why NC is so expensive. In Colorado, a 5K deductible for a 40 yr old would run about $150/mo. (you can look at the quoting engine on my website if you send me a private message to request it.) I think if we could require people all over the country to have at minimum, a catastrophic plan, rates would begin to flatten and equalize substantially. One of the main reasons, I believe, for such high inflation is cost-shifing, in part due to healthy folks dropping out of the risk pool (and CHOOSING TO BE UNINSURED) as coverage becomes less and less affordable. The other big part of the cost-shifting to privately insured people is due to Medicare and Medicaid re-imbursement rates being too low. (about 25 cents on the dollar). Cost shifting, IMO, is at the root of our inflation problems (not profit taking, and not admin costs). We've always had admin costs and we've always had profits, but things didn't really start getting out of control until the invention of employer-sponsored health insurance (when people became disassociated from the cost of their care, and when Medicare and Medicaid grew to it's current levels. The bigger Medicare and Medicaid get, the more cost-shifting. The more cost-shifting, the more people drop out of the market, the more people drop out, the more expensive health insurance gets, and so on and so on.

My preference would be that the catastrophic plans be standardized by the gov't and offered, like medicare supplements, through private insurance. I don't beleive in price capping in a free market, so no, I wouldn't do that. However, I wouldn't be opposed to gov't subsidies on a sliding scale to cover the cost of the products.

I would also forbid employers from selling health insurance benefits, but I would encourage them, through tax incentives to open health reimbursement accounts (as a benefit for employees) that people could use to spend freely on health expenses as they wish - including health insurance premiums and deductibles.

 

[JustMeUC]

Hmmmm. That just doesn't sound right to me. I have no clue why NC is so expensive.

Didn't sound "right" to me either, but there it was. I had 2 pretty major surgeries in 2005 and no other insurance company would touch me at any cost. BCBS HAS to offer insurance to NC residents but they can charge whatever they want. THIS is what they offer folks like me. If I had no pre-existing conditions perhaps the rates would be more reasonable, but I do.

 

[wildcat]

This is an early retirement forum for those that "dropped out" or are hoping to do so at some point.

Most if not all of us that have retired early were very prudent and driven to save, plan wisely, and work our butt off to achieve our goal (ER). While others spent, talked trash, and played high-roller - we saved and kept our focus on the goal (ER).

What drives me nuts is after retiring and running the numbers in as many ways as possible - we experience the greed of employers cutting benefits that were promised at time of retirement, insurance companies that have screwed the healthcare in this country (it's all about profit), and the politicians that have allowed it to happen.

You are simply wrong. I appreciate your passion for your job but you are wrong. Healthcare is not about your feelings, my feelings, it is about the basic rights of citizens of this country that are paying the bills. It is simply a question of priorities, it is not socialism (single-payer), and it is the right thing to do. It will happen and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Until you experience some of the things that are everyday occurrences that happen to millions of people in our present system - you might not understand. I don't think anyone on this forum or most people in general are asking for healthcare welfare - just a system that is not discriminatory, and to be honest I personally wish the middleman (insurance companies) were totally out of the picture. They had their chance and they blew it.

Peace

I happen to think that was a fantastic post. Hey, why don't you post more often ?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Didn't sound "right" to me either, but there it was. I had 2 pretty major surgeries in 2005 and no other insurance company would touch me at any cost. BCBS HAS to offer insurance to NC residents but they can charge whatever they want. THIS is what they offer folks like me. If I had no pre-existing conditions perhaps the rates would be more reasonable, but I do.

Oh, now I see....Yes, guaranteed issue plans are expensive to compensate for the additional risk. They have to be. People generally don't sign up for them until they need them, so there isn't any wiggle worm for insurance companies to compensate for the additional risk, unless they charge higher premiums. Medically underwritten plans are much less expensive, because people buy them before they get sick, so the prices don't need to be as high...... See, that's why I'm in favor of mandated catastrophic coverage. That would eliminate the problem of differences in cost between underwritten and guaranteed issue plans right there...because there would no longer be any concern for adverse selection. Everyone would be participating.

 

[JustMeUC]

As I said in a previous post, lots of this is really over my head. I did TRY to get health insurance from other companies, they wouldn't cover me... at any cost. So, you are saying that mandated catastrophic coverage would be different? Every company would have to offer me/everyone insurance at a "reasonable" price? If not, what would be the difference from now? Help me understand please.

 

[bright eyed]

You are simply wrong. I appreciate your passion for your job but you are wrong. Healthcare is not about your feelings, my feelings, it is about the basic rights of citizens of this country that are paying the bills. It is simply a question of priorities, it is not socialism (single-payer), and it is the right thing to do. It will happen and hopefully sooner rather than later.

Peace

 

[bright eyed]

sorry, double post, wasn't me, was the 1.5 yr old - she wanted to chime in...

 

[bright eyed]

Mike - I have to say I am in agreement with you on this question. The main reason why Kaiser, in particular, gets heat over making too much profit is because Kaiser is a HUGE proponent of single-payor systems. Why? Because Kaiser is trying to position themselves as THE single-payor....and they're doing a pretty good job at it. It would be hypocritical of them to take too much profit. (I can't stand hypocricsy). In all likelihood...if we ever get to the point where we go single-payor, Kaiser will be the system that the gov't will contract with to administrate it.....and that's exactly what they want. Don't be fooled folks...Kaiser is no different than any other evil, profit-taking corporation...they are preparing for a single-payor system and they know that they will be one of the only health administration systems that survives and profits off of it!

perhaps you don't understand the nature of "NOT- FOR - PROFIT" they would lose their tax status if they made a profit or profit that wasn't reinvested - and kaiser does a lot of great studies, research that benefits the general public, aside from their selfish desire to better serve their patients and reduce their costs by educating them...those sneaky devils. why don't you give them a call and tell them to stop airing all those selfish, manipulative, "eat more broccoli" commercials...

if their mission is to grow and serve more people, then they are/will achieve their mission...to your horror...

we've had kaiser for a while and have been well served. 2 babies, son got an MRI and physical therapy for a knee injury - got an appointment (don't shudder, we had to wait a week for the appt and one week for the mri) and immediate PT once they figured out what was up w/ his knee. kids go in the day of if they are sick, the next day if not that bad. love the advice nurses and always get next day appt if need be...

when i had a ppo i had to search all the doctors on my own, deal w/ each individual bureaucracy - drive somewhere else to get my friggin blood drawn, drive somewhere else for the prescription, drive somewhere else.. you get the picture...and i paid more!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think I'm pretty set on the pre-existing conditions, thanks.

Just cant stop pushing that "view post" button, can ya?

Its like watching a train wreck.

 

[Martha]

As I said in a previous post, lots of this is really over my head. I did TRY to get health insurance from other companies, they wouldn't cover me... at any cost. So, you are saying that mandated catastrophic coverage would be different? Every company would have to offer me/everyone insurance at a "reasonable" price? If not, what would be the difference from now? Help me understand please.

Government is free to regulate insurance companies. Either the state or the federal government could mandate that insurance companies cover everyone.

I recommend reading this booklet that talks about private insurance: http://www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/nefe/Understand_Private_Health_Insurance.pdf

Elsewhere on the same site you can look at consumer guides for your state that tells you what your rights are: Health Insurance Consumer Guides.

Unfortunately, North Carolina is pretty tough on those with pre-existing conditions that are unable to buy on the open market. The cost is very high and IIRC, the lifetime maximums may be somewhat low. Some other states offer better benefits for people in your position.

 

[Nords]

Just cant stop pushing that "view post" button, can ya?

I wish you hadn't said that! I was blissfully ignorant of its existence until you made me curious enough to go looking for it. Still haven't pushed one yet.

Its like watching a train wreck.

Actually this thread is doing just fine by seeing the reactions of the other posters. It's like H0cus-- you don't have to read his posts to know what he's saying (or, to be precise, not saying). You can still learn a lot about the subject by reading the other poster's responses with the added bonus of not being distracted by all the crap.

I still can't tell if MKLD is a H0cus-level world-class troll sent here to torment Rich_in_Tampa & Martha, or an extraordinarily obsessed poster. Somewhere there must be a discussion board devoted to healthcare & insurance issues that would no longer make it necessary for MKLD to hang out here insulting the posters who've worked/are working so hard to ER.

 

[eridanus]

I think MKLD reflects the point of view of the health insurance industry. As much as I disagree with him, it is interesting to read his arguments because they reflect those who will make every effort to maintain the status quo.

Yes, agreed. It is thankfully a viewpoint that is fast going the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Webzter]

Just cant stop pushing that "view post" button, can ya?

Its like watching a train wreck.

Well, to be fair, I didn't block them until this thread and I didn't hit the view post link until you quoted some absurdity. I can't stop now, no.

I'll try, though.

Man, it's like chocolate for the soul.