HealthCARE does not equal Health INSURANCE

jlew24asu · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

and then raise all our premiums to cover all these covered persons with such expesnive conditions! because, yes, a priavte company, they need to turn a profit for their stockholders. that's the issue there. with keeping it private and profit-based. we all absorb the costs no matter what, i rather make it cheaper by not having stock dividends built into my healthcare costs. also, they may not deny coverage...but how about they simply make it so prohibitively expensive for you that there's no way the average person can afford it? another possibility.......

Obama also mentioned controlling how much they can raise premiums. maybe you should watch the press conference

jlew24asu · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

A lot of things can be avoided by not demanding someone get xyz in the first place. Bankruptcy and lack of treatment can be avoided by you not demanding sick people of limited means get white collar jobs that offer comprehensive health care plans in the first place.

many companies offer health care plans, not just white collar jobs. second of all, you dont need a job to have health care coverage. plans are available for purchase to anyone.

tybird · July 2009

soulsinging wrote:

A lot of things can be avoided by not demanding someone get xyz in the first place. Bankruptcy and lack of treatment can be avoided by you not demanding sick people of limited means get white collar jobs that offer comprehensive health care plans in the first place.

So....let's get rid of the white-collar jobs that thousands of people already have....and the insurance coverage provided to them as employees of insurance companies....sure that there is some logic in that....somewhere....maybe..... :twisted:

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

and then raise all our premiums to cover all these covered persons with such expesnive conditions! because, yes, a priavte company, they need to turn a profit for their stockholders. that's the issue there. with keeping it private and profit-based. we all absorb the costs no matter what, i rather make it cheaper by not having stock dividends built into my healthcare costs. also, they may not deny coverage...but how about they simply make it so prohibitively expensive for you that there's no way the average person can afford it? another possibility.......

Obama also mentioned controlling how much they can raise premiums. maybe you should watch the press conference

i did catch that part. i was able to see some, tho not all of it. out last night.
and, the bill is not passed just yet...so simply pointing out current, and possible scenarios...as we know it as of now. but hey, you are right....perhaps if they do enough of all of that.....profit-margins will decrease, less will want to be in healthcare as it will grow less and less profitable...and then we'll get UHC in the end anyway. i like how obama works.

:P

and this....

jlew wrote:

many companies offer health care plans, not just white collar jobs. second of all, you dont need a job to have health care coverage. plans are available for purchase to anyone.

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.

soulsinging · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

A lot of things can be avoided by not demanding someone get xyz in the first place. Bankruptcy and lack of treatment can be avoided by you not demanding sick people of limited means get white collar jobs that offer comprehensive health care plans in the first place.

many companies offer health care plans, not just white collar jobs. second of all, you dont need a job to have health care coverage. plans are available for purchase to anyone.

And every single one of those health care plans restricts your options and places your health in the backseat after their profits.

soulsinging · July 2009

tybird wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

A lot of things can be avoided by not demanding someone get xyz in the first place. Bankruptcy and lack of treatment can be avoided by you not demanding sick people of limited means get white collar jobs that offer comprehensive health care plans in the first place.

So....let's get rid of the white-collar jobs that thousands of people already have....and the insurance coverage provided to them as employees of insurance companies....sure that there is some logic in that....somewhere....maybe..... :twisted:

The logic is in a system that means they don't need health care coverage through their employer because they already have it from the day they are born. And then they can look for a job in an industry that isn't built upon obtaining profit from the sickness and tragedy of others' lives.

jlew24asu · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Gern Blansten · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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.

how do you propose that those without a job pay for this health insurance that they get by picking up the phone?

jlew24asu · July 2009

Gern Blansten wrote:

how do you propose that those without a job pay for this health insurance that they get by picking up the phone?

you are new here. I've said countless times the government should treat healthcare like an unemployment benefit. and Obama touched on that last night as well as part of reform.

Gern Blansten · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

how do you propose that those without a job pay for this health insurance that they get by picking up the phone?

you are new here. I've said countless times the government should treat healthcare like an unemployment benefit. and Obama touched on that last night as well as part of reform.

That brings me to imagine a person who job jumps a lot....has gov't insurance program, then an employer, then gov't, then employer

lot's of paperwork there

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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:

jlew wrote:

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.

jlew24asu · July 2009

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.

decides2dream · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

Pepe Silvia · July 2009

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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

tybird · July 2009

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

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

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

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".

jlew24asu · July 2009

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

where do you live?

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

_ · July 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

where do you live?

I currently live in New Mexico.

know1 · July 2009

blackredyellow wrote:

know1 wrote:

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.

HealthCARE does not equal Health INSURANCE

Comments

Categories