Health Insurance Discussion

[momisery]

If I don't like my lot??? Really??? There is nothing wrong with my lot except there are no jobs for people and no way to pay for healthcare. What should we do to exactly here die? Big business allowed this to get out of control and now they want to toss it back on our laps, and we have no control at all. Business could have negotiated, but they decided not too. Nanny states? Really? I think we have bailed out businesses and continue to give them TAX breaks to ship jobs overseas. So, your idea to fix this is?????

[TooMuchCredit]

Nanny states always fail.

Which ones have failed? Specific examples please :-)

I think there has to be a balance. Pure capitalism is bad as is pure socialism. Adding universal healthcare - be it government run or not will not turn us into a complete socialist society. European countries, Japan, Australia, all have large and healthy free markets.

I don't necessarily think universal healthcare is in the same "nanny state" category as welfare, unemployment, and social security/gov't pension benefits. It's more of a moral/humanitarian service.

[OhioFiler]

I will not blame peop;le for having what I would like to have, Lindsay. We all need affordable healthcare, and good paying jobs. Perhaps the good paying jobs would allow us to shop for healthcare on our own and that would make it more affordable? But you simply can not take peoples company pensions and healthcare away or make it cost more drop their incomes and then suddenly decide they can pay for their healthcare costs too... Totally dumb to think our nation could work that way. We will all be in the poor house if all we can afford to buy is healthcare and save for retirement. What would we all need to work for since no one would be buying anything? So, Lindsay, I am glad you have coverage!

Nanny states always fail.

If you don't like your lot in life, change it. Why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to ensure you have everything you want?

[lindsay2181]

I'm not completely understanding your post....I didn't state anything to do with the recent healthcare reform issues. Just posted about my own personal experience with insurance.

[momisery]

I will not blame peop;le for having what I would like to have, Lindsay. We all need affordable healthcare, and good paying jobs. Perhaps the good paying jobs would allow us to shop for healthcare on our own and that would make it more affordable? But you simply can not take peoples company pensions and healthcare away or make it cost more drop their incomes and then suddenly decide they can pay for their healthcare costs too... Totally dumb to think our nation could work that way. We will all be in the poor house if all we can afford to buy is healthcare and save for retirement. What would we all need to work for since no one would be buying anything? So, Lindsay, I am glad you have coverage!

[lindsay2181]

Hadn't noticed this thread before now. I'd been insured through my jobs post-college, paying my $50-$100 per check, thinking it was just something I HAD to have. Well, the first time I got pregnant, I checked into medicaid. I qualified for it, even though my husband and I were both working full time. If I'd gone through the entire pregnancy, labor and delivery with just the insurance through my job, I'd have come out of pocket about $5k. If I applied for medicaid, I'd have zero OOP. Not a hard decision to make huh? Medicaid was used as secondary. Medicaid actually reimbursed ME for the premiums I paid for my company insurance...the company insurance paid its portion, and then Medicaid covered the remainder. I did pay about $600 to my dr, because he didn't accept Medicaid at the time.

I have a thyroid condition that must be monitored, and I have regular appts that include tests. In all the years I was working and had insurance through my job, I'd end up paying $300-$400 for these tests AFTER my insurance paid its part. During the pregnancy however, Medicaid covered and I had zero OOP. After the pregnancy was over, I was unemployed and uninsured. My first check up with the thyroid specialist, and I was SHOCKED to get a bill for $30. This was my OOP after "non-insured discount." So I thought to myself, "WTH have I been doing all these years? Paying all this money OOP when I had insurance....should have dropped the insurance long ago and been paying $30 instead of $300+!"

Second pregnancy....I was still unemployed and had no insurance, so automatically qualified for Medicaid. No OOP's again and this time my dr does accept Medicaid, so no fees to pay him either.

No, I don't think of myself as a "welfare mom" or whatever....I have worked and paid my taxes, so has my husband, and if I can get some of that back I see nothing wrong it. I have only been state-insured during pregnancy...this will be my last child, so I will go back to being uninsured in a few months. Back to getting the "non-insured discount" and when I do get employment, I'm sure I will hesitate to sign up for insurance where they will deduct hundreds of dollars from my paycheck so that I can owe hundreds of dollars after each dr. visit.....when I know I can take home my paycheck instead and just pay $30 to the dr....doesn't make much sense but that's how it's worked in my situation so far. God forbid something TERRIBLE would happen and I was uninsured....but god forbid I "waste" that money on insurance/healthcare instead of spending it on food for my kids.

[PacificBlue]

For me living with cancer, I always hope there will be a cure, (and soon) but the reality side of me knows there too much money being made "treating it" then for there to be a cure.

Having cancer, and being close to retirement (about 3 years) we are depending on CORBA for a "reasonable" monthly cost. It's a helpless feeling watching this health care plan in congress right now, knowing my future treatments could depend on it.

Maybe.. just maybe if the profit of "treating" cancer was removed, a cure would show up right away.

[TooMuchCredit]

The profit for this discovery[cure for cancer] would dwarf the $700B you see now.

I would not be so sure about that. A cure would be a one shot deal. You take the drug or drug regiment for a period of time and you are cured. You don't need any additional drug.

Whereas now, people take the treatment month after month, year after year. Not to mention all the other tests and scans to check progress.

It's like they could make pens that virtually never run out of ink. But why? After everyone buys one, the market would shrivel up to just replacing lost pens.

[justbroke]

If you have a problem, I'm sure the drug companies will find a profitable (for them) drug to cure it.

(Exceptions for BL5 level viruses/disease.)

[momisery]

Yes, the 700 is probably before expenses? Not sure but the top ones do pretty well, so maybe all combined is pretty good even after expenses?

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion) [in 2002]. Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself."

[momisery]

There is grant money available to research drugs too and they use that, and that is TAXPAYER dollars for free.

[justbroke]

I looked up the pharmaceutical company that makes these drugs.. last year they had a net of 700 billion dollars... that's SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION dollars in profit. I look at those figures and it worries me... With that kind of profit fighting cancer for one.. just one pharmaceutical company ... will there ever be a cure.

Pharma is a very special business. It's one of the only ones where government has and can step in and basically invalidated their patent (and manufacturing process) with others.

So, Pharma can spend (and does) over a billion dollars dollars just developing and to get approval for one drug! Then, their patent is only protected for so long (20 years or so), before it becomes "generic". The government (FDA) can also step in and, based on needs of the People at large, accelerate the protection period and now their drug is generic (Remember the Cipro issue... I do, because the place that made it was in Lansing Michigan by the airport and after 9/11/2001, they had super security around that plan!)

After approval, setting up a fabrication plant for the particular drug will cost a billion or more, in addition to the R&D and approval costs!

So... they are special, and they do need to make all their money quickly. Remember, most of these Pharmaceuticals are gigantic. They are a conglomeration built upon many many acquisitions and merges. Sanofi-Aventis alone is like Aventis, Pasteur Merieux Connaught , Sanofi, and others.

FYI, I think your $700B annual for one company is inaccurate. They'd be the worlds biggest corporation.

[OhioFiler]

Whatever comes out of Congress, mark my words you will not be paying anything cheaper for Health Care. It is illogical to assume you can cover more people and make all people regardless of infirmity pay the same rates and assume that rates will go down.

I'm glad they stripped the lowered age of Medicare from the bill as it is already headed for bankruptcy and could have doubled enrollment potentially. It's just something that we can't afford.

Don't believe the numbers they are touting either. Government accounting is like Enron, they never include the full picture and they use smoke and mirrors. They always use the rosiest income generation figures (that's highest) and the rosiest cost projections (that's lowest). The truth is because of this they always overestimate revenue and underestimate cost and not insignificantly either. Medicare costs well in excess of ten fold its original projections.

The most significant change I believe needed is not in the bills, that's tort reform.

Bingo! Strangely, it's not even being discussed as part of this massive overhaul. I wonder why.

[OhioFiler]

I gotta jump in one fast comment. I'm batting cancer, and just two of the meds I HAVE to have to survive are... $736.00 a month, (30 tiny pills) and I will need these for life, the other is $2,800 for a 3 month injection (shot), I need every three months.. for life.

I looked up the pharmaceutical company that makes these drugs.. last year they had a net of 700 billion dollars... that's SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION dollars in profit. I look at those figures and it worries me... With that kind of profit fighting cancer for one.. just one pharmaceutical company ... will there ever be a cure.

The profit for this discovery would dwarf the $700B you see now.

I haven't studied the pharmaceutical companies but just listing the net profit without listing gross revenue and the sources of that revenue really means nothing. The concept of profit is not bad in spite of what the liberal media and socialists like Obama might lead you to believe.

It's like that thread being argued about the debtor who is receiving a lump sum distribution of $50K. To him it means practically nothing in the scope of his bankruptcy but others are bad mouthing him claiming he's abusing the system. It's all relative.

[PacificBlue]

I gotta jump in one fast comment. I'm batting cancer, and just two of the meds I HAVE to have to survive are... $736.00 a month, (30 tiny pills) and I will need these for life, the other is $2,800 for a 3 month injection (shot), I need every three months.. for life.

I looked up the pharmaceutical company that makes these drugs.. last year they had a net of 700 billion dollars... that's SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION dollars in profit. I look at those figures and it worries me... With that kind of profit fighting cancer for one.. just one pharmaceutical company ... will there ever be a cure.