Octopus Overlords

Let's get an informal idea of the temperature in the room.

Tick the poll whether you're insured by your employer, though a government program, privately, or even if you have no insurance (that's still a health insurance situation, after all).

On behalf on the Great White North...

We welcome you to our social utopia.

No insurance. I could get on tlr's plan through her company, but adding me would cost $450/month, which is just not affordable.

My goals at this point is to someday become a burden to society.

I'm unhappy with the fact that with each passing year, my health insurance costs me significantly more and I am given less and less under the limited policies that I'm offered. I plow $5K annually into a family HSA in addition to the premiums I pay. Last year, the four of us burned through the entire $5K in June and ended up with just over $9K in out of pocket. This year we've managed to stretch the HSA $ through August.

My economist friends have told me that to check our rising health care costs, we need more market forces on consumers so we will make better choices. I honestly am not seeing that. My buddy is having surgery to reattach a tendon in his arm and he was explaining how the surgeon's office called and offered him a 10% cash discount if he pays up front. His medical procedure entailed a visit to the clinic who refered him to the CT lab then a consultation with a specialist and then the surgeon who was hoping to jump in front of all the other players in that chain. Few of the players could give him a price for services before he went in. It's not at all like finding a contractor to put in an AC unit or furnace.

As unhappy as I am with the the fact that I pay significantly more for less each year, I'm thankful to have health coverage. I really don't know how families live without it.

its VERY tough to find a restaurant that offers health insurance. The ones that do, its not very good. While at Applebees, i didnt sign up for health insurance when I started, and I asked in march whent he baby was born about getting on the plan. I was told I would have to wait until the yearly sign up in october.

I love my health insurance. It is a great plan which covers a ton of stuff, and has a $1500 out of pocket max per year. Since our kids were born with health problems we have met that max for the last 4 years. Our first son was very sick last time I added up all the bills from the hospital it was around 1 million! Oh that reminds me of another wonderful feature of my insurance - no lifetime limit. Many policies pay well but have a limit to how much they pay over your lifetime.

But I picked my job specifically because of good insurance. I don't make as much as I could, and there are other drawbacks to the job but insurance was my overriding concern.


It might seem that I wouldn't want an overhaul of the current system since I am clearly in the "win" category but I do. I do because of my kids. Since both of them had heart and lung problems as babies they will have pre-existing conditions forever. They will never be able to take jobs that don't have exclusions for pre-existing conditions which means they really can't pick a vast number of careers. Judging by current trends their choices for jobs will be even more limited by the time they hit the job market. I don't think that is right.

I'm indifferent. My current plan has me pay the first $750 of treatment, then the insurance company pays the next $750, and then after that everything is a 90/10 split where I just pay 10%. And the $750 that the company pays rolls over to the following year. I didn't go to the doctor my first year of coverage, so now the first $1,500 of coverage is completely paid for by the insurance company, and then I start the 90/10 split.

Not that good, but going without insurance for years made this seem incredible.

My employer-provided plan is terrible and gets worse (and more expensive) every year.

This year they jacked up our premiums again - but don't worry! They also introduced a $2,500 deductible before anything is actually covered! And we get one plan to "choose" from.

Health-care reform can't arrive soon enough.

I chose somewhat happy. I like being able to use my own doctor and get the important things covered. I do think it is way overpriced and only getting worse.

Our Blue X plan is of mediocre quality. COBRA guarantees that we can keep getting it at the employer group rate thru the middle of next year. Federal subsidy has kept it affordable for the past several months, but when the subsidy expires in October the premium will exceed our mortgage payment.

State law requires us to have insurance, and insurers can refuse to cover pre-existing conditions if you let your coverage lapse for more than a few months. That provision effectively makes you uninsurable, because by the time you're in your 50s everything is a pre-existing condition. Therefore going uninsured is not an option.

If we're still outside the employer-based system in November, I'll have to explore the state's Commonwealth Care. I believe that we can get cheap, inferior coverage through that. It would satisfy the letter of the law and keep us from being locked out of the market.

At least we don't have CIGNA. That was the worst insurance ever.

Yep. I'm happy with my health insurance situation.

I'm not unhappy, however am not pleased either. When I was laid off I applied to a private plan as I'm single and under 40 so the costs are not horribly outrageous (about $180/month), and compared to cobra it is down right cheap (which was closer to $400/month).

The problem is, with opening the business I won't be able to take advantage of the collective bargaining that big businesses do, which means I won't have access to the best plans.

I'd also like to know that if something bad happens to me that I won't have to declare bankruptcy.

Ironrod: check out http://www.ehealthinsurance.com, that is where I went to get coverage to avoid cobra. They have short term catastrophic coverage (was under $100/month for me) that is usable to bridge the insurance gap between one policy ending and a new one beginning so you don't have a lapse in coverage.

Currently on COBRA, which means the insurance itself is good but it's very expensive. Not sure what we'll do once the COBRA discount runs out at the end of this year and we're looking at paying $1200 a month to insure all three of us. I have a pre-existing condition which will just make it even harder to buy an individual plan. So, I would say I'm very unhappy with it.

Is there any talk at all about extending the COBRA subsidy? An awful lot of unemployed people are going to skip xmas entirely this year if our insurance bill triples in November.

(edit) Thanks for the link, Wargus, I'll look into that as well as Commonwealth Care. I expect that our government plan will be superior. Right now my wife has two strong job prospects that would solve this problem if either comes through.

My current healthcare is decent enough, but I'm dreading looking for a new job when we plan on moving in 8 months due to my wife's chronic illness. At what point in the interviewing process is it kosher to ask what MS medications their health insurance covers?

i'm totally happy with my situation. my job provides great coverage in the form of a fully paid low-cost, high deductible plan combined with a corporation-funded health savings account...just one of the perks of being an anesthesiologist in a large private practice group. as a healthcare provider, i very much sympathize with those who aren't in such a fortunate position though. the system definitely is not cheap or friendly to those who need coverage the most...

CGMark wrote:its VERY tough to find a restaurant that offers health insurance. The ones that do, its not very good. While at Applebees, i didnt sign up for health insurance when I started, and I asked in march whent he baby was born about getting on the plan. I was told I would have to wait until the yearly sign up in october.

I think they have to let you sign up with the birth of the baby. All costs prior to the birth are not covered, but after birth the child would be. This is a change in life status event that I believe would allow you to get insurance. Check into it.

WPD wrote:My current healthcare is decent enough, but I'm dreading looking for a new job when we plan on moving in 8 months due to my wife's chronic illness. At what point in the interviewing process is it kosher to ask what MS medications their health insurance covers?

Once the offer is on the table and the salary offer/negotiation is in progress.

And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better. These people, of which I am one, mostly see downside risk to their current system. It's not to say that we are right, just that the proponents of change need to acknowledge and address this. Dismissing it as irrational fear is both disingenuous and counterproductive.

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better. These people, of which I am one, mostly see downside risk to their current system. It's not to say that we are right, just that the proponents of change need to acknowledge and address this. Dismissing it as irrational fear is both disingenuous and counterproductive.

Microsoft will be changing it's exchange policies to allow for same day exchanges of Xbox 360 units that get a Red Ring of Death. This service will affect only those who experience said system failure. All other users will continue to have perfectly working Xbox 360 units.

ChrisGrenard wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better. These people, of which I am one, mostly see downside risk to their current system. It's not to say that we are right, just that the proponents of change need to acknowledge and address this. Dismissing it as irrational fear is both disingenuous and counterproductive.

Microsoft will be changing it's exchange policies to allow for same day exchanges of Xbox 360 units that get a Red Ring of Death. This service will affect only those who experience said system failure. All other users will continue to have perfectly working Xbox 360 units.

Microsoft isn't a democracy.

noxiousdog wrote:

ChrisGrenard wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better. These people, of which I am one, mostly see downside risk to their current system. It's not to say that we are right, just that the proponents of change need to acknowledge and address this. Dismissing it as irrational fear is both disingenuous and counterproductive.

Microsoft will be changing it's exchange policies to allow for same day exchanges of Xbox 360 units that get a Red Ring of Death. This service will affect only those who experience said system failure. All other users will continue to have perfectly working Xbox 360 units.

Microsoft isn't a democracy.

Microsoft does, however, offer amazing benefits. I have a gold plated blue cross plan and I haven't paid a dime for doctor visits or medications since I joined the company.

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Yeah I would say that OO is not even remotely reflective of the general population. Mostly male, mostly between 20-40, mostly employed.

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Unions offer the highest benefits packages in the country. The government employees are probably happy with their bennies by and large. We upper/upper middles at OO are happy. And only 15% of the country is uninsured.

So, while I certainly wouldn't say that the national numbers would match ours, the overall point is still the same: a large portion of this country is perfectly fine with what they already have.

The Preacher wrote:

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Unions offer the highest benefits packages in the country. The government employees are probably happy with their bennies by and large. We upper/upper middles at OO are happy. And only 15% of the country is uninsured.

So, while I certainly wouldn't say that the national numbers would match ours, the overall point is still the same: a large portion of this country is perfectly fine with what they already have.

40% of this selected group would seem to be unhappy with their health insurance to some extent. That, too, would seem to be an interesting observation.

Most people think the government is offering free health care. Despite my quip above, I'm not sure public (dis)approval is worth much.

I'm working three different part time jobs right now and due to my heart disease that I was born with no company will even offer me any sort of health insurance that helps cover that.

I'd say I'm not overly happy with that.

The VA around here is pretty good. I've never used Medicare even tho I've been paying into it for 15 years.

farley2k wrote:

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Yeah I would say that OO is not even remotely reflective of the general population. Mostly male, mostly between 20-40, mostly employed.

I was surprised by the reverse bell curve. We are polarized on this one. The Mehs usually win.

The Meal wrote:

The Preacher wrote:

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Unions offer the highest benefits packages in the country. The government employees are probably happy with their bennies by and large. We upper/upper middles at OO are happy. And only 15% of the country is uninsured.

So, while I certainly wouldn't say that the national numbers would match ours, the overall point is still the same: a large portion of this country is perfectly fine with what they already have.

40% of this selected group would seem to be unhappy with their health insurance to some extent. That, too, would seem to be an interesting observation.

No doubt. But the bully pulpit belongs to the Yes We Can crowd. If they want to know why people are opposed -- Obama at times seems bewildered that there are opponents to change -- then they need to recognize that (a) half the country is fine with what they have and (b) those who are already happy may {i} lose/change their current plans with which they are pleased as punch and {ii} pay for the new program for everyone else. Their losing their cake and paying for it too (or so they fear).

The Preacher wrote:

The Meal wrote:

The Preacher wrote:

Exodor wrote:

The Preacher wrote:And the poll shows the issue. 54% are apathetic or better.

Do you think OO reflects the demographics of the country in general?

I'd say we tend to have higher incomes and better benefits packages than the population in general.

Unions offer the highest benefits packages in the country. The government employees are probably happy with their bennies by and large. We upper/upper middles at OO are happy. And only 15% of the country is uninsured.

So, while I certainly wouldn't say that the national numbers would match ours, the overall point is still the same: a large portion of this country is perfectly fine with what they already have.

40% of this selected group would seem to be unhappy with their health insurance to some extent. That, too, would seem to be an interesting observation.

No doubt. But the bully pulpit belongs to the Yes We Can crowd. If they want to know why people are opposed -- Obama at times seems bewildered that there are opponents to change -- then they need to recognize that (a) half the country is fine with what they have and (b) those who are already happy may {i} lose/change their current plans with which they are pleased as punch and {ii} pay for the new program for everyone else. Their losing their cake and paying for it too (or so they fear).

More than half the country. 84% is happy with their current plan. I think there needs to be reform in health care insurance business but making changes that will almost inevitably lead to the scrapping of the current system is a terrible idea. It seems to be more ideological wish fulfillment. This to be considered: if Obama had his way, a plan would already by passed by Congress and signed in to law. How could they come up with any workable bill so fast? Answer: they couldn't.

Never let a good crisis go to waste!

I marked "somewhat happy," but I am desperately in favor of change. More than my own medical insurance situation, which I'm not thrilled with, but which seems to be adequate, I am concerned about many of my friends who are in unfair places. That's why I support reform -- it'll help me a little, but help people I care about a lot.

One of my best friends had cancer when he was 18. He has since been uninsurable. When we both worked for the state, to get the same insurance package that I got with a premium of next to nothing, he would have had to pay several hundred dollars a month. Now that he's self-employed, he cannot get any insurance, for he is excluded for "pre-existing" condition reasons. Without reform, this smart, self-sufficient, hard-working American will die the next time he gets seriously ill, because our current system refuses to provide him coverage.

I have another friend who is stuck in a job he hates, but cannot leave, because he is diabetic, and in the industry he works in, health care benefits are fairly poor, and tend to have six-month enrollment delays, where he'd have to shell out around $1,000 a month for COBRA for six months, or, well, die. He can't afford that. Without reform, he'll be stuck in a job he loathes with a boss who treats him like shit for the foreseeable future.

I have friends who've been driven to the brink of bankruptcy because their insurance company retroactively determined that a surgery was "experimental" and would not, after all, be covered.

I guess my friends have been fortunate. They've never been victim of rescission, where a deathly ill person suddenly has their insurance taken away because the company doesn't want to pay for treatment and has had their army of lawyer find an error or out in the victim's insurance application. That we as a people tolerate rescission... there's not words for it. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Fireball1244 wrote: Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Then why don't you provide it instead of talking about it?

noxiousdog wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote: Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Then why don't you provide it instead of talking about it?

We've got bills in the House and Senate that make a good move towards doing exactly that.

noxiousdog wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote: Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Then why don't you provide it instead of talking about it?

More so, it's these examples of opening the risk pool to the high risk individuals (whether they deserve treatment or not aside) that make me baffled at the idea that we are going to cut the costs of our spending. This is the one claim that I just don't comprehend.

The Preacher wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote: Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Then why don't you provide it instead of talking about it?

More so, it's these examples of opening the risk pool to the high risk individuals (whether they deserve treatment or not aside) that make me baffled at the idea that we are going to cut the costs of our spending. This is the one claim that I just don't comprehend.

There are two parts to health reform: reform of access to make coverage universal, and reform of compensation and procedures to bring down costs. The former helps the latter, in that providing proper coverage should reduce the need for people to go to the ER for late, grossly expensive care for conditions that could have been addressed more cheaply earlier. The larger the insurance pool, the better costs can be spread about. But it is, generally, the former issue, not the latter, that I'm most concerned with. The rich-man-gets-cured, poor-man-gets-buried system we have now is unjust and wrong, and a blight on our national character.

Do you think that my friend who got cancer at 18 should be left out of the medical system for his entire life, and left to die the next time he gets seriously ill?

Or that people who pay their premiums every month without question should have their coverage pulled at the very moment they actually need it on some technicality that the company didn't even bother to look for until paying for care was suddenly required?

Fireball1244 wrote:

The Preacher wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote: Americans deserve better than this crap. Americans *deserve* decent access to health care. All of us. Not just those of us who haven't been sick. Not just those of us with great jobs that provide solid benefits.

Then why don't you provide it instead of talking about it?

More so, it's these examples of opening the risk pool to the high risk individuals (whether they deserve treatment or not aside) that make me baffled at the idea that we are going to cut the costs of our spending. This is the one claim that I just don't comprehend.

There are two parts to health reform: reform of access to make coverage universal, and reform of compensation and procedures to bring down costs. The former helps the latter, in that providing proper coverage should reduce the need for people to go to the ER for late, grossly expensive care for conditions that could have been addressed more cheaply earlier.
The larger the insurance pool, the better costs can be spread about.

Only if the larger pool maintains the same or lesser risk. For better or worse, I'd imagine that the currently uninsured are going to be, on average, higher risk. They will, on average, have higher rates of Type II diabetes, AIDS, cancer and heart disease. How including these people in my pool will reduce costs to me is a serious head scratcher.

But it is, generally, the former issue, not the latter, that I'm most concerned with. The rich-man-gets-cured, poor-man-gets-buried system we have now is unjust and wrong, and a blight on our national character.

Good to see both sides of the aisle practice their demagoguery with such eloquence. Now we can discuss the system killing Americans instead of terrorists doing the same. Boy, we sure have changed in the last 9 months.

Do you think that my friend who got cancer at 18 should be left out of the medical system for his entire life, and left to die the next time he gets seriously ill?

As you've stated, he is not out of the system nor will he be left to die. Perhaps you can bring your strawmen to some other site. At least argue the right thing which is his quality of life. Your image could use something other than "grandstanding mode."

Or that people who pay their premiums every month without question should have their coverage pulled at the very moment they actually need it on some technicality that the company didn't even bother to look for until paying for care was suddenly required?

Technicalities are rules by another name. Whether the case raises my ire is dependent on the particulars of that case, not just because you threw around a diminishing term.

Look, the system we have is far from perfect. I think there are probably some good, strengthening laws that could help people. What I don't see is much honest debate on the best way to do that. Hopefully the Gang of Six is doing it for us.

Fireball1244 wrote:
We've got bills in the House and Senate that make a good move towards doing exactly that.

I'm not worried about bills. I'm worried about you. If you have a moral obligation to provide health care, perhaps you should be providing health care.