honestly makes me laugh. you said as much earlier. um, question...how does one afford to buy health insurance...if they don't have a JOB? and sure, lots of companies offer healthplans, you do not need to be white collar, at all, to have insurance...absolutely correct. some blue collar jobs have excellent insurance. thing of it is....WHY does our healthcare have to be tied to our jobs and what our employers may offer as our options? yes...we can get insurance all on our own, but those plans are ridiculously expensive! thus why, most have to go with whatever their employers offer (and some employers don't offer)...so definitely cuts into the choice scenario significantly there.
you are misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying you can have a job that doesn't offer a healthcare plan and still have insurance.
its not tied to our jobs at all. pick up the phone and get a quote.
yes, i got that. however, you ALSO said you don't 'need to have a job' to have insurnace:
second of all, you dont need a job to have health care coverage. plans are available for purchase to anyone.
....so surely, that is a wee bit of a misstatement is all - one does need it so they can pay for it. and i already touched upon that, indeed, one CAN get insurance outside their employer....but most don't b/c it is prohibitively expensive to do so on your own - as i said above. that was the point.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
yes, you are right you can. i also could buy a land rover suv if i wanted to and could afford it. thing of it is, a land rover is not a necessity, whereas healthcare - at least to most people - is a necesssity. buying healthcare all on your own is prohibitivle expensive for the average person, especially with a family. thus why most choose the limited options they are offered, if they are lucky enough to be offered, through their employer. so sure, while the option exists...it really isn't too useful if most cannot afford said option.
i think everyone should have coverage...employed or unemployed. plenty of people are employed withouth coverage, and cannot afford coverage on their own, and i believe they should be covered.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
yes, you are right you can. i also could buy a land rover suv if i wanted to and could afford it. thing of it is, a land rover is not a necessity, whereas healthcare - at least to most people - is a necesssity. buying healthcare all on your own is prohibitivle expensive for the average person, especially with a family. thus why most choose the limited options they are offered, if they are lucky enough to be offered, through their employer. so sure, while the option exists...it really isn't too useful if most cannot afford said option.
i think everyone should have coverage...employed or unemployed. plenty of people are employed withouth coverage, and cannot afford coverage on their own, and i believe they should be covered.
and it's not like you just buy insurance and you're set. you still have deductibles, copays, prescription costs....
my last employer had their insurance through blue cross & blue shield and every year the premiums and deductibles went up while the coverage got less and less. on top of the biweekly premium you have to pay the deductible, which went up to $1,500/single person, $3,000/family. so we have to pay that before they start paying for anything and even then the highest plan they offered was still only 80%! ALSO the prescription coverage changed to the SAME DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT, so as a single person I had to spend $1,500 just on drugs before they would cover anything and even then I would have to pay full price and submit it for reimbursement, to me that seems to be giving the insurance company more work in having someone process these requests.
obviously it can be argued my employer should've found a better plan and that is true, nevertheless, it doesn't take away from the point in many cases having health insurance is all but useless unless you have a major accident
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and it's not like you just buy insurance and you're set. you still have deductibles, copays, prescription costs....
my last employer had their insurance through blue cross & blue shield and every year the premiums and deductibles went up while the coverage got less and less. on top of the biweekly premium you have to pay the deductible, which went up to $1,500/single person, $3,000/family. so we have to pay that before they start paying for anything and even then the highest plan they offered was still only 80%! ALSO the prescription coverage changed to the SAME DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT, so as a single person I had to spend $1,500 just on drugs before they would cover anything and even then I would have to pay full price and submit it for reimbursement, to me that seems to be giving the insurance company more work in having someone process these requests.
obviously it can be argued my employer should've found a better plan and that is true, nevertheless, it doesn't take away from the point in many cases having health insurance is all but useless unless you have a major accident
In some states, you could discover that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is NOT legally an insurance company...they have a special status
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
well I know plenty, yes, including myself. at the time, I think my payment was $150 a month and $2000 deductible.
your ......'s and all caps...and incomplete sentences....and condescending tone really gives me a headache. I'm sure you are a kind hearted person, but your poor husband. I can just hear your nails on a chalkboard voice yelling about this or that.
So this is the kind of childish behavior you resort to when you can't get your point across?? And you accuse others of being immature and insulting? There is no room for assholes around here, so please check yourself. Thank you.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
well I know plenty, yes, including myself. at the time, I think my payment was $150 a month and $2000 deductible.
honestly makes me laugh. you said as much earlier. um, question...how does one afford to buy health insurance...if they don't have a JOB? and sure, lots of companies offer healthplans, you do not need to be white collar, at all, to have insurance...absolutely correct. some blue collar jobs have excellent insurance. thing of it is....WHY does our healthcare have to be tied to our jobs and what our employers may offer as our options? yes...we can get insurance all on our own, but those plans are ridiculously expensive! thus why, most have to go with whatever their employers offer (and some employers don't offer)...so definitely cuts into the choice scenario significantly there.
you are misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying you can have a job that doesn't offer a healthcare plan and still have insurance.
its not tied to our jobs at all. pick up the phone and get a quote.
your ......'s and all caps...and incomplete sentences....and condescending tone really gives me a headache. I'm sure you are a kind hearted person, but your poor husband. I can just hear your nails on a chalkboard voice yelling about this or that.
My wife has had an insurance plan that she (and now we) have purchased for years and is not tied to any job. It's still cheaper for her to have that plan than to add her to my employers plan. But, before we were married she paid for it herself from the salary she earned at a job that didn't offer health insurance.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
I mentioned this in another post, but my wife has paid for her own insurance policy for years. It was not provided by her employer. Cost is about $200 per month over that time but now it has gone up to $240 recently.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
ok...could you tell me which wonderful insurance company insures with preexisting conditions?
i've tried about 6...but i guess i'm not choosing the right one's...what is the name of this wonderful company?
Right on. But the interesting thing is that Doctors WILL treat someone with pre-existing conditions.
So again I ask - is it healthcare we're fixing or health insurance?
this is one thing i will agree with you on...we have great health care but a fucked system on getting said care...unfortunately i don't know what the answer is although i know letting the federal govt handle it is the worst idea regardless of what the rest of the world does
Right on. But the interesting thing is that Doctors WILL treat someone with pre-existing conditions.
So again I ask - is it healthcare we're fixing or health insurance?
this is one thing i will agree with you on...we have great health care but a fucked system on getting said care...unfortunately i don't know what the answer is although i know letting the federal govt handle it is the worst idea regardless of what the rest of the world does
So here's another way of looking at it. I know people don't like to think of health care as a business, but in reality it is. Here's the question:
Who is the customer for the doctor or hospital? Is it the patient or the health insurance provider. At this point it is the health insurance provider. They are the entity that pays the doctor, after all.
In my mind, that is just wrong. We need to get rid of the concept of health insurance governing - and more accurately, intervening - in our daily medical lives. We need to get the doctor and patient relationship back in line and that will solve much of what's wrong with the health industry today.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Right on. But the interesting thing is that Doctors WILL treat someone with pre-existing conditions.
So again I ask - is it healthcare we're fixing or health insurance?
this is one thing i will agree with you on...we have great health care but a fucked system on getting said care...unfortunately i don't know what the answer is although i know letting the federal govt handle it is the worst idea regardless of what the rest of the world does
So here's another way of looking at it. I know people don't like to think of health care as a business, but in reality it is. Here's the question:
Who is the customer for the doctor or hospital? Is it the patient or the health insurance provider. At this point it is the health insurance provider. They are the entity that pays the doctor, after all.
In my mind, that is just wrong. We need to get rid of the concept of health insurance governing - and more accurately, intervening - in our daily medical lives. We need to get the doctor and patient relationship back in line and that will solve much of what's wrong with the health industry today.
So again I ask - is it healthcare we're fixing or health insurance?
It's health insurance, and I agree that that's a really important distinction. Of course people say insurance when they mean care because lack of insurance prevents them from getting care. But it doesn't work the other way; just because you have insurance doesn't mean you necessarily have good, accessible care.
I think this is a particularly important distiction when it comes to how things will be run. As has been demonstrated in the other thread (or is it this one? I'm getting confused), many people erroneously believe that if the government takes over insurance that means they will take over care as well. Until they realize the difference, their misconception could really stand in the way of providing the insurance - which helps lead to the care - for everyone.
and my point is that having a job and having heathcare coverage are not mutually exclusive. you can have healthcare coverage with NO job. sure they would need a nice savings account to pay for it...but you dont need a job. but we all agree on this anyway, I believe the government should cover the unemployed.
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
I mentioned this in another post, but my wife has paid for her own insurance policy for years. It was not provided by her employer. Cost is about $200 per month over that time but now it has gone up to $240 recently.
I'm happy that your wife has this option. But I don't think it's realistically available to everyone. If it were, and it was as good an option as anything else, I don't think we would have a system where most (or so many) people's insurance is tied to their employer.
I'm happy that your wife has this option. But I don't think it's realistically available to everyone. If it were, and it was as good an option as anything else, I don't think we would have a system where most (or so many) people's insurance is tied to their employer.
Why isn't it available to everyone? We didn't join some special club or something. She just started calling insurance companies and got a policy.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
I'm not saying you aren't making logical points but what are you suggesting? eliminate the insurance company and just pay the doctors/hospitals directly?
Are we attempting to fix healthcare or are we attempting to fix health insurance?
Both... for most of us, health care (at least anything more than a routine doctor visit) is currently unaffordable without health insurance.
I would venture to say that health care is currently unaffordable BECAUSE of health insurance.
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. It artificially inflates costs. You cannot get any care without insurance because noone will treat or see you without proof of insurance. Then, once you have insurance, it covers nothing. So you essentially have to buy membership and pay a ton of upfront costs to get into a program just to have the option to pay for all your treatments because they won't cover anything until you get to a certain threshold of emergency services. And beyond that, hospitals increase costs to insurance companies to offset the fact that many people seeking emergency care have no insurance and they need someone to foot the bill to stay open. Those costs are then passed on to consumers through rate hikes and decreased coverage. Those same hikes and coverage reductions are also driven because anytime someone does get so sick that they pass that $4000 co-pay limit, the insurance company isn't going to pay that increased cost (even though that's exactly the purpose of insurance), they're going to drop the person needing the coverage and raise your rates to recoup their loss.
If ANY other industry operated this way, they would be prosecuted for it under racketeering or other organized fraud/organized crime statutes. But they managed to make enough money before anyone figured out the scam that they can now use OUR copays to buy lobbying and legislators to protect their interests and ensure that no meaningful reform is ever enacted. Including Obama's new plan.
I'm happy that your wife has this option. But I don't think it's realistically available to everyone. If it were, and it was as good an option as anything else, I don't think we would have a system where most (or so many) people's insurance is tied to their employer.
Why isn't it available to everyone? We didn't join some special club or something. She just started calling insurance companies and got a policy.
Admittedly, I've never personally tried to get insurance outside my employer so maybe I'm just not in-the-know. But it has always been my understanding that it's very expensive. Maybe I'm just thinking of people who don't have jobs, or those who have jobs which don't provide them with insurance (since these are frequently low-paying jobs). Of course, if you have a job which provides you with insurance, you probably wouldn't need to get insurance through another source.
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
I'm not saying you aren't making logical points but what are you suggesting? eliminate the insurance company and just pay the doctors/hospitals directly?
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. It artificially inflates costs. You cannot get any care without insurance because noone will treat or see you without proof of insurance. Then, once you have insurance, it covers nothing. So you essentially have to buy membership and pay a ton of upfront costs to get into a program just to have the option to pay for all your treatments because they won't cover anything until you get to a certain threshold of emergency services. And beyond that, hospitals increase costs to insurance companies to offset the fact that many people seeking emergency care have no insurance and they need someone to foot the bill to stay open. Those costs are then passed on to consumers through rate hikes and decreased coverage. Those same hikes and coverage reductions are also driven because anytime someone does get so sick that they pass that $4000 co-pay limit, the insurance company isn't going to pay that increased cost (even though that's exactly the purpose of insurance), they're going to drop the person needing the coverage and raise your rates to recoup their loss.
If ANY other industry operated this way, they would be prosecuted for it under racketeering or other organized fraud/organized crime statutes. But they managed to make enough money before anyone figured out the scam that they can now use OUR copays to buy lobbying and legislators to protect their interests and ensure that no meaningful reform is ever enacted. Including Obama's new plan.
just wanted to point out that is not true...you can get health care if you pay for it...and most doctors give a discount (anywhere from 5 to 20%) off the cost they would charge to the insurance cos
just wanted to point out that is not true...you can get health care if you pay for it...and most doctors give a discount (anywhere from 5 to 20%) off the cost they would charge to the insurance cos
but i agree with all you said though
I just want to point out that self-pay patients still end up paying more for the same services than insurance companies do. That doesn't seem fair to me.
just wanted to point out that is not true...you can get health care if you pay for it...and most doctors give a discount (anywhere from 5 to 20%) off the cost they would charge to the insurance cos
but i agree with all you said though
I just want to point out that self-pay patients still end up paying more for the same services than insurance companies do. That doesn't seem fair to me.
i didn't say it was fair and fully aware of what i have to pay
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
I'm not saying you aren't making logical points but what are you suggesting? eliminate the insurance company and just pay the doctors/hospitals directly?
Yes
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
yes, i got that. however, you ALSO said you don't 'need to have a job' to have insurnace:
....so surely, that is a wee bit of a misstatement is all - one does need it so they can pay for it. and i already touched upon that, indeed, one CAN get insurance outside their employer....but most don't b/c it is prohibitively expensive to do so on your own - as i said above. that was the point.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
yes, you are right you can. i also could buy a land rover suv if i wanted to and could afford it. thing of it is, a land rover is not a necessity, whereas healthcare - at least to most people - is a necesssity. buying healthcare all on your own is prohibitivle expensive for the average person, especially with a family. thus why most choose the limited options they are offered, if they are lucky enough to be offered, through their employer. so sure, while the option exists...it really isn't too useful if most cannot afford said option.
i think everyone should have coverage...employed or unemployed. plenty of people are employed withouth coverage, and cannot afford coverage on their own, and i believe they should be covered.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
and it's not like you just buy insurance and you're set. you still have deductibles, copays, prescription costs....
my last employer had their insurance through blue cross & blue shield and every year the premiums and deductibles went up while the coverage got less and less. on top of the biweekly premium you have to pay the deductible, which went up to $1,500/single person, $3,000/family. so we have to pay that before they start paying for anything and even then the highest plan they offered was still only 80%! ALSO the prescription coverage changed to the SAME DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT, so as a single person I had to spend $1,500 just on drugs before they would cover anything and even then I would have to pay full price and submit it for reimbursement, to me that seems to be giving the insurance company more work in having someone process these requests.
obviously it can be argued my employer should've found a better plan and that is true, nevertheless, it doesn't take away from the point in many cases having health insurance is all but useless unless you have a major accident
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I've never known anyone, even with a job, who was able to afford private health insurance outside their job. I'm sure these people exist - I believe you even said you were one of them - but, all in all, I think this is an unrealistic "option".
well I know plenty, yes, including myself. at the time, I think my payment was $150 a month and $2000 deductible.
where do you live?
So this is the kind of childish behavior you resort to when you can't get your point across?? And you accuse others of being immature and insulting? There is no room for assholes around here, so please check yourself. Thank you.
I currently live in New Mexico.
I would venture to say that health care is currently unaffordable BECAUSE of health insurance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Ahh - that's what I've been saying for a few years.
But...the problem is that the terms are used interchangeably so people naturally equate them and they are not the same thing.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Right on. But the interesting thing is that Doctors WILL treat someone with pre-existing conditions.
So again I ask - is it healthcare we're fixing or health insurance?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My wife has had an insurance plan that she (and now we) have purchased for years and is not tied to any job. It's still cheaper for her to have that plan than to add her to my employers plan. But, before we were married she paid for it herself from the salary she earned at a job that didn't offer health insurance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I mentioned this in another post, but my wife has paid for her own insurance policy for years. It was not provided by her employer. Cost is about $200 per month over that time but now it has gone up to $240 recently.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
this is one thing i will agree with you on...we have great health care but a fucked system on getting said care...unfortunately i don't know what the answer is although i know letting the federal govt handle it is the worst idea regardless of what the rest of the world does
So here's another way of looking at it. I know people don't like to think of health care as a business, but in reality it is. Here's the question:
Who is the customer for the doctor or hospital? Is it the patient or the health insurance provider. At this point it is the health insurance provider. They are the entity that pays the doctor, after all.
In my mind, that is just wrong. We need to get rid of the concept of health insurance governing - and more accurately, intervening - in our daily medical lives. We need to get the doctor and patient relationship back in line and that will solve much of what's wrong with the health industry today.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Good points.
It's health insurance, and I agree that that's a really important distinction. Of course people say insurance when they mean care because lack of insurance prevents them from getting care. But it doesn't work the other way; just because you have insurance doesn't mean you necessarily have good, accessible care.
I think this is a particularly important distiction when it comes to how things will be run. As has been demonstrated in the other thread (or is it this one? I'm getting confused), many people erroneously believe that if the government takes over insurance that means they will take over care as well. Until they realize the difference, their misconception could really stand in the way of providing the insurance - which helps lead to the care - for everyone.
I'm happy that your wife has this option. But I don't think it's realistically available to everyone. If it were, and it was as good an option as anything else, I don't think we would have a system where most (or so many) people's insurance is tied to their employer.
Why isn't it available to everyone? We didn't join some special club or something. She just started calling insurance companies and got a policy.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not saying you aren't making logical points but what are you suggesting? eliminate the insurance company and just pay the doctors/hospitals directly?
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. It artificially inflates costs. You cannot get any care without insurance because noone will treat or see you without proof of insurance. Then, once you have insurance, it covers nothing. So you essentially have to buy membership and pay a ton of upfront costs to get into a program just to have the option to pay for all your treatments because they won't cover anything until you get to a certain threshold of emergency services. And beyond that, hospitals increase costs to insurance companies to offset the fact that many people seeking emergency care have no insurance and they need someone to foot the bill to stay open. Those costs are then passed on to consumers through rate hikes and decreased coverage. Those same hikes and coverage reductions are also driven because anytime someone does get so sick that they pass that $4000 co-pay limit, the insurance company isn't going to pay that increased cost (even though that's exactly the purpose of insurance), they're going to drop the person needing the coverage and raise your rates to recoup their loss.
If ANY other industry operated this way, they would be prosecuted for it under racketeering or other organized fraud/organized crime statutes. But they managed to make enough money before anyone figured out the scam that they can now use OUR copays to buy lobbying and legislators to protect their interests and ensure that no meaningful reform is ever enacted. Including Obama's new plan.
Admittedly, I've never personally tried to get insurance outside my employer so maybe I'm just not in-the-know. But it has always been my understanding that it's very expensive. Maybe I'm just thinking of people who don't have jobs, or those who have jobs which don't provide them with insurance (since these are frequently low-paying jobs). Of course, if you have a job which provides you with insurance, you probably wouldn't need to get insurance through another source.
Exactly.
absolute agreement.
thus why the system of health insurance, that leads to our healthcare....needs to disappear.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
just wanted to point out that is not true...you can get health care if you pay for it...and most doctors give a discount (anywhere from 5 to 20%) off the cost they would charge to the insurance cos
but i agree with all you said though
I just want to point out that self-pay patients still end up paying more for the same services than insurance companies do. That doesn't seem fair to me.
i didn't say it was fair and fully aware of what i have to pay
Yes
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.