Discovered a couple of weeks ago that our new health insurance through my wife's company (a major government contractor) has a $1,000 annual deductible. This means that we pay ALL expenses out of pocket for any doctor's appointment, tests, etc. until we hit $1,000 in a year, after which they begin to cover expenses.

While this might be a good deal for people who have serious health issues, we don't. So now we're faced with the prospect of paying a couple hundred bucks to visit the doctor if one of us gets sick, or just sucking it up and dealing with it. Same for injuries. I've got a serious shoulder issue, and I'm looking at the cost of going to the doctor and weighing it against how much actual physical discomfort I'm experiencing with this, and it's coming out as just not worth it. After all, they're going to want to do X-rays at the very least, which of course will cost as well.

Has anyone else seen this kind of insurance at their workplace? I'm looking at it and I'm just thinking what the fuck. This in no way benefits us, because we don't have ongoing health issues.

_________________

Yeah, the plan I have this year works similarly. If your wife has a choice of plans, it looks like she chose the wrong style this year. If it's the only one available, it's there in case of a major tragedy, but, yeah, you get killed on incidental expenses.

While I'm paying more for health insurance than I ever have, I'm still on a relatively standard plan, and my company is adding health perks that help both me and them. Just got an announcement that they were putting in a health and wellness clinic on campus. Not a ton of details, but large employers seem to be getting a bit smarter about some things, which is nice.

I actually pay less per month now and get more coverage this year

You are paying for Health [b]insurance[b], not health care.

/shrug

don't get it.

I am in the same boat trying to get private health insurance. I do want it, but bluecross is like 100+ a month(the "good" plan) for me, plus a 1kish deductible. So...I am doing without and thinking of picking up something part time at home depot or somewhere for the benefits.

It's about as much fun reading about the different plans as trying to figure out how to get the best deal on your cable.

_________________

part time employment usually doesn't come with benefits, and if it does, you'll still be paying out of pocket the same amount.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I hear Home Depot has great part time benefits... that's why I named them.

_________________

I know they did at one point. My buddy's dad was retired but worked part-time at Home Depot just for the benefits.

Starbucks used to do that too, I doubt they do anymore, but IDK.

_________________

Xerox has a 3% salary deductible. At least that scales with mgmt salaries, although we all know the gold parachute guys get it free for life.

My current health care plan from work is through Cigna, they shop hard to keep prices down, but I'm paying about $400 a month pre-tax. This year they gave me a free physical and our copays are only $20 for doctor visits, BUT we have a deductible that is basically $1500 first hospital visit, $1500 2nd, and 3rd, then 100% covered. So cheap routine care, $1500 for 3 hospital visits.

Quick someone post how a national health care plan letting people buy into the govt group rate is socialism, communism, and will bring about the end of the world !!! Someone defend the medical costs and insurance costs!

Jesus ^ that plan makes the one I was reading about seem great.

_________________

At least you don't have to stand in line for over a month at a time like Canada!

But seriously, the health care industry as a whole is out of control. There are some things in life that the government should control or at least regulate and this is one of them.

That's a terrible plan, Azzi.

Does someone from your insurance company come over to your house and set a swarm of bees on you and your family, too?

I'm lucky that mine is great. I'm still in favor of universal health coverage, though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7549564.stm

Just what we need, the government even more in control of our physical health then it already is.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

lol... "in control of our physical health"

Said it before, will say it again - healthcare should not be nationalized, but it should be mandated. Below certain incomes it should be subsidized.

Set metrics and price points just like various states do for Medicaid, allow the various private carriers to opt-in.

You could provide reasonable, base healthcare for every American citizen in America for under $300 a month. Yes, it's exensive when you multiply that by the total number of people in the country, but that is not all paid with tax dollars.

Just let us have tort reform, loser pays, let's see what happens.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Bankruptcies skyrocket?

_________________

Yes, because lawsuits are the only reason we have health care cost issues.

What are you talking about?

_________________

Tort reform is part of the needed solution. My uncle was a doctor, he died about 10 years ago. The thing that led to his early retirement was the skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs that he had to have. In North Little Rock, where I grew, up he was a pillar of the community. He was one of the lead doctors at the hospital, was the high school team's physician, had his practice right on the main section of town, and was highly influential in the charitable activities for the city.

Medical Malpractice Insurance have become a large, it not the largest, portion of each doctor's expense. In our ever litigious society a doc can be sued if the treatment isn't fast enough or even if the outcome was inevitable and the doc did nothing wrong. A loser pays rule would help to reduce the amount of false claims. I also think that putting a cap on what the lawyers and law firms can make on malpractice claims would reduce the lawsuits as well. (If the government can force "salary caps" on financial executives, they should be able to force these types of caps on lawyers).

Tort reform is not the only solution but it must be included if we are going to do this right.

My sister, an RN, was going to become a nurse midwife until she saw how often midwives get sued for malpractice and how much their insurance costs.

I'm talking about stopping the cockwads that sue for fast settlements. If the loser has to pay court costs and attorney fees it will cut down on bogus lawsuits because then they will have something to lose, which the ambulance chasers currently do not.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

In some jurisdictions that does apply (per my spouse). I had thought it was all (in CA, because we did have reforms here years ago) which is why I was puzzled at your post. But I checked with him as it's his area of expertise...he said essentially in some jurisdictions it's mandatory, in others discretional (and in some you can't).

In California it's ALWAYS discretional, meaning the other side has to ask for it, then it's up to the judge. Which IMHO is a good way of doing it, to weed out those who truly believed they had a legitimate case...and the bullshit ones hoping for the quickie settlement.

I'm not happy with the caps system though. Mind you I don't want to see health care bankrupted...but I've seen cases where I think people should be awarded a whoooole lot more based on sheer fucking incompetence at multiple levels. I'm not talking 'Wah, I'm not happy with my boobs' (Though Tara Reid should sue, just saying)...but 'Whoops, Mom and baby are dead because she bled to death because the doctor wouldn't come in because he was tired and cranky, and the nurse was screaming at people, and then they couldn't find her blood type, then by the time they decide 'oh shit, let's at least save the baby', they don't have any prep. for it and the infant is dead now too' (and I'm leaving tons of shit out, like someone calling for transfusion of the WRONG BLOOD TYPE, because it's an actual incident)...in a case like THAT when there's just failures at every goddamn level...the caps should be lifted.

There are ways around the caps in extreme circumstances, but I think that's when there's other liabilities as well and not just malpractice.

The real problem is in the bad cases, it's really not about the money for the families. The doctors aren't going to go to jail (they almost never do). They're not going to lose their license (they almost never do). So the only 'justice' for a family is civil suits. It's not about the money, because no amount really can replace that person...though in instances of the person being a breadwinner in the family, it does help cushion the impact and hardship.

But really, if say, a doctor was doing some emergency dental work on your kid because he or she had a fall, and forgot to attach a heart moniter while they were under anesthesia and your child died as a result (because they didn't realize the distress until it was too late...another actual case, though it involved a dentist) ...and that person wasn't going to spend a day in jail over it, or even have their license taken away...wouldn't you want to punish them financially if nothing else?

I know you're not talking about those cases. But it's hard for any family member to be rational. In many instances there isn't a real case, it's just...a shitty fact of life that SOME people die. Maybe the same scenario but no failure of care, the child just has an adverse reaction...and dies. Parents want someone to blame. It's not about dollars, it's about it being 'wrong' so someone has to be 'punished' or 'blamed'. =\

Anyhoo, the only bad aspect of requiring them to pay is that it gives a lot of leverage to insurance companies to force low settlements, as mid to low income people cannot afford the risks of loss, especially when the insurance threatens to make an example of them and put on a case they cannot HOPE to match, with experts, etc. And that does happen too.

_________________

I...I'm hesitant to post this because it will piss off some people.

I'm not a fan of midwives. Hear me out...I know they're great, I know they do great work, and they're a REALLY affordable option for most people. And most people do not have problems during delivery and everything is hunky dorey.

And I have NO problems with midwives who work inside a hospital. None.

I'm just REALLY not a fan of any form of home birthing, which a lot of midwives do. Even if it's unlikely, there's so many things that can go wrong for both mother and baby that are severely damaging to lethal without proper equipment, which you have in a hospital.

Just one problem is cerebal palsy. While the majority of CP occurs during a problem in pregnancy (and therefore probably can't be prevented/is no one's fault), and only like 10% (IIRC) due to problems in birthing, it's a common lawsuit. Why? In the majority of cases you can't determine causation, and since we know that it CAN be caused by problems in the birthing process and almost all births have SOME irregularity or something not recorded (where someone can raise doubts)...it makes it a common lawsuit source.

When it happens under a midwife, well the big problem is that while they are experts, they're not doctors (even though they're highly trained and competent and many prefer them over ob/gyns) so they don't look as good to a jury. And if it's a home birth, it's pretty much impossible to defend against because there's no equipment measuring and recording the things that they'll raise issue with (such as oxygen rate, yadda yadda).

So that's why they have ginormous insurance rates, and even then ...they're still less expensive than an ob/gyn.

It's a bit off topic, but I can kinda drag it under the insurance umbrella...what I find even more disturbing is 'Freebirthing', which is people giving birth at home without any medical assistance to save money. There was a BBC special on it (though I missed seeing it, and I don't know that I could have watched it)...but I just can't believe how fucking retarded that is. Yes, sure women have given birth for eons without medical benefits, but people have died for eons too without many wonders of science. Do they do 'at home denistry' too in order to save money? For fuck's sake. I'm sympathetic, I really am, to people who don't have enough money. I probably did myself some perm. lung damage in my 20s walking around for six months with pneumonia before my insurance kicked in with a new job. So I get being stupid over health care costs.

But if you can't afford, literally, to have a child....c'mon.

Anyway, as to your sister, given the big bucks RNs are making right now in most hospitals due to a severe lack of RNs...I'm sure that most would choose to do that, rather than take the financial risks of midwifery. Especially since there's always the scary potential of the insurance not covering something, and you lose everything.

_________________

"Tort reform" does not solve the healthcare problem and it is not necessarily part of the solution. If you implement a "loser pays" system you might lower premiums by 5%. Medical care would not miraculously become available.

And let's say people think the number is bigger than 5%, I'll give you 30%. If I could wave a wand and reduce medical cost by 30%, guess what - we still have a huge problem.

The system, not the net cost, is the problem.

The reforms in CA haven't really resulted in lower health care costs, I can say that. I'm not sure what the percentages would be, but we did NOT see a lowering of costs. I'm sure some analysis on it is available on what, if any, the actual savings trickled down to be if someone is really interested in digging for it.

_________________