If you don't agree with the healthcare reform...

Kentuckychick wrote: Just a healthy discussion -- that can also be a healthy debate... though I'd like to see no arguing (can't say that won't happen... )

I just wondered, for those who don't support healthcare reform, do you not support it at all? Or what parts would you like to see changed if anything? Which parts do you disagree the most with?

I'll post my own opinion in just a minute in a new message.

Kentuckychick replied: I know for me personally, I do not agree with universal healthcare. But I DO believe that there is reform that needs to occur. Mostly dealing with insurance companies.

I, for one, have a very difficult time finding insurance companies to cover me due to my "pre-existing" condition (classic migraines with aura). Granted the only thing my insurance has ever had to cover for these migraines, when they finally agreed to cover them (only after I majorly raised my deductible) is my prescription medication.

I now have another condition (endometriosis) which, though it wasn't a pre-existing condition, my insurance has fought me tooth and nail on covering. They fought me on covering the surgery. The fought me on paying the doctor. They are currently fighting me on taking medication that may or may not be the only means of saving the possibility of my ever having children. And they WILL NOT cover it.

I have a cousin whose wife is 28 years old and because of a condition she has had since childhood she has already met her LIFETIME deductible. Therefore, no insuranc company will except her and she's left to pay everything on her own... leaving her family in debt and having to claim bankruptcy just to survive.

I know a family whose child has cancer. At the age of FIVE, their child has already met her lifetime deductible.

I may not agree with all of the healthcare reform ideas, but it's clear to me that there are big changes that need to happen. I've talked to so many individuals who are healthy who just simply do not know what it is like to have to struggle with an insurance company... insurance that you pay for EVERY month... and have them refuse to help you.

I am holding out hope for the no pre-existing conditions clause for insurance. I think that's the best part of this whole thing.

I also think that while I don't agree with completely universal healthcare, I do believe that healthcare should be available to every single person. Regardless of their ability to pay.

No one should have to die because they cannot afford to pay for medication, or treatment or surgery. Period.

my2monkeyboys replied: I honestly don't know what the answer is for the problems we have. I do not want universal/govt ran health care, but I, too, see a huge need for changes in our system as it is now. I think one way would be to allow insurance companies to cross state lines. It would allow more competition and therefore would create lower prices and better coverage. Simple rules of supply and demand. The idea of someone dieing just because they can't afford health care seems so wrong to me. Maybe there could be some sort of govt program for those that can't get insurance for certain kinds of illnesses... the kind that have to be treated in order to sustain life, but where there are no insurance companies that will cover them. I don't know... I don't think we are entitled to insurance/care for every thing, like a normal dr visit, or treatment for a bug that you will get over, but I can't say, as a Christian, that anyone should be turned away from treatment for things that can kill them. I think there are things that we simply have to be responsible for ourselves, and then there are things that we should be able to have help with, too.
It really bothers me when those that are already on the govt welfare program to abuse it - for example, around here (and I'm sure elsewhere) every night there are kids brought in to the ER bc they have colds or low grade fevers. These things can be taken care of at home, but bc THEY aren't paying for it they'll abuse the system and think nothing of it. This is just one small example, but there are many more.
Like I said, we have to be responsible for the things we CAN be. That in itself would help a lot I think.

coasterqueen replied: I'm going to be brief as I always get questioned for my views, albeit similar to many others.

I am against Obama's plan. I am for health care reform, just not how he is going to go about it.

Kentuckychick - you mention those that you've talked to that are healthy don't understand what it's like because they have great insurance, etc.... I have been in both places. I have been on my own since 17 (semi-on my own since 15) and had no insurance for the longest time - at a time when I was suffering ovarian cysts and migraines. Then I got insurance, but I had "pre-existing" conditions, of course, and my personal insurance premiums were atrocious. I tried to pay them on my own, but it was hard and had to drop the insurance. Then when my husband and I got married and he got a great job, I was able to get on his insurance and they did not consider pre-existing conditions. I've had GREAT health care coverage ever since.

So I know what it's like on both ends, but I am STILL against his plan. I've given my explanations in various threads of my reasons for not agreeing with the plan, so I won't share them here again.

I believe as well no one should die because they don't have health coverage. I agree health insurance needs to be looked at and reformed and I work in the industry. I will also say that I believe in major tort reform. The tons of ridiculous medical malpractice lawsuits that go through the courts daily only drives up premiums for everyone else. It's disgusting and every time I come across cases that I have to write positions papers about (regarding tort reform) angers me even more.

I'll stop there.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: It really doesn't matter, the people of the USA won't be happy anyway. One way they can't afford the money to pay for the treatment, and the other way they won't be able to take the time to wait their turn for treatment.

It's not going to work. I call Future Epic Fail due to the public, not due to the programs.

The reformed healthcare plan sounds almost like the plan we have in place in Canada... and from all your reactions to our wait times.. ya'll ain't gonna be pleased even if you're looking forward to the "benefits" of everyone having equal healthcare chances....

You make healthcare available to everyone - everyone gets a chance to use it.. wait times will be drastically augmented, you will no longer just be able to "call your pedi", you will be stuck waiting, like we are, until you are bumped up to more urgent. You want an appointment with your doctor? forget same day, forget same week even.. you might see him in a couple weeks, and if it's urgent, well go to an urgentcare clinic, where you'll have to wait 6 hours because a bunch of people are there for useless reasons but still need to be run through triage takin gup the time and space that people who actually need to see a doctor could use. It makes me sick how many people go to the doctor's for a stupid cough, only to be told to buy a bottle of cough syrup.

Equal access healthcare... it only SOUNDS good, until you're the one waiting 12 hours, especially if you're used to being seen right away.

coasterqueen replied:
Just curious Rocky, have you always only known the universal health care that Canada provides?

ETA: I think it's nice how you can be so negative towards Americans and how they react to things when you don't even live in this country. I have had opinions on Canada's health care system, but my opinions are based on ALL of those I've heard from IN REAL LIFE and online. Some like it, some don't. But I'm not saying anything negative towards Canadians, just their health care system.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Ummm, how am I being negative towards the Americans?

For the reactions, I'm basing it on the words that you guys here at PC have written... both in reaction to OUR wait times when us canucks post about them, and about your own experiences.. how is me saying you guys aren't going to be happy negative, when that's what you guys are saying? Why is it so wrong if I say it, when you guys are saying it about yourselves? How is me saying americans won't be happy being negative?

Holy crap!

Hillbilly Housewife replied: To the original question about my experiences with healthcare, for what it's worth, I lived in Germany. I've experienced the healthcare there. I've also lived in Florida for nearly a year. I've experienced the healthcare there. I've also had provincial healthcare coverage only, and I've had coverage through my federal government employment. We've also had a healthcare reform lately, a lot of services have been restricted, or cut altogether, such as eye care exams.

As for your other comments... ya know what, forget replying to me Karen, I'm done with this. You turned yourself into a victim with my post, and if that's how you read it, whatever I don't care. I wrote about how the system here is, and that based on YOUR reactions to OUR posts about OUR healthcare, which is what YOUR healthcare is heading towards... and you somehow turned that into some "Rocky's bashing americans" fest. Way to go, way to plant ideas in other people's heads.

Maybe there should have been a disclaimer, something about how only Americans can post, because apparently canadian healthcare being described is inappropriate.

This conversation is over, it is going to go nowhere.

Kentuckychick replied: I actually wonder if something more along the lines of what the mayo clinic does wouldn't be the best(better) idea. Having doctors have set salaries that aren't affected by how many patients they treat or how many tests they run, but rather the quality of the care they give to the patients they DO recieve. It keeps doctors from running tests that aren't necessary or from referring patients to countless other "friend" doctors to boost their salaries.

The mayo clinic is one of the most reknowned facilities in the US for being the absolute best at what it does. They are also known to run less diagnostic tests then nearly any other facility and it's doctors are known for working together and pooling resources more than in most other facilities.

In the long run it's all cheaper for both the patient and the insurance company and the quality of care is no worse, if not better.

I know Obama has mentioned the Mayo clinic before in speeches... I wish they'd look more into something like that.

coasterqueen replied: Rocky, there is no reason to be dramatic. I'm only saying that as the rules on this board state that you can base your opinion without being so negative towards others. Say "ya all ain't gonna be happy.......blah blah.......epic failure due to the public....blah blah" that is negative and I KNOW I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Here is the original question "I just wondered, for those who don't support healthcare reform, do you not support it at all? Or what parts would you like to see changed if anything? Which parts do you disagree the most with?"

A great question I might add and one that can be answered civilly. Where did you answer it without being so negative towards how Americans aren't happy with anything type of remarks??

ETA: I'll just walk away from the discussion since I apparently made you so upset. I seem to be the only one to do that to everyone these days.

Kentuckychick replied:
I didn't think you were implying anything towards americans... but I do know that there are often times we already have to wait. And healthcare is already available to pretty much anyone (it's harder to get without insurance, but there's medicare/medicaid available already). It's nothing at this point to have to wait an hour or two at an urgent clinic (but I've also only waited 20 minutes on a slow day) and the same with the ER. I've known people to wait 4 hours... and when I went in with an abnormal heartrate in Feb. they had me back within 5 minutes.

My grandfather had to stay in a bed in the ER for two days last spring before they finally moved him to a bed on the stroke unit of the hospital because it was full.

I'm not saying this about you Rocky, but I've talked to some individuals who seem to think in America you can just walk right on into a doctor's office or ER and be seen... it's not like that at all.

Most often, thankfully you can see your primary physicians and pediatricians same day or soon after when you or your children are ill... but getting an appointment with a specialist, I've had to wait two months before.

We already have a somewhat "universal" healthcare system... it's just not in the same way that Canada's is. The government doesn't pay for the healthcare for everyone.

cameragirl21 replied: I definitely want to see some kind of healthcare reform. Idk enough about Obama's plan but TLCDad had said quite a bit about it in the past and what he said sounded really good.
I do see healthcare as a right and not a privilege, I know some may not agree with me on that but I do think it's the responsibility of the nation as a whole to ensure that every citizen has access to quality healthcare without worrying about the cost.

My2Beauties replied:
I think for the most part you are right, we live in a country where no one is ever satisfied. I would gladly wait a little while longer for an appt if it meant someone who needed urgent care was being seen and they really needed it. I've had to wait and haven't been able to get same day or same week appts before, even for a sudden illness that I knew I needed antibiotics or something for. Heck it takes like 5 months to get into my OB/GYN's office for a pap smear.

DansMom replied: I'm for reform, and I'm not sure about the details I'd support yet. Probably any bill that improves regulation would get my vote, but I want health care to be affordable and available to the unemployed and self-employed as well. Just one point, speaking as one who has fabulous health insurance through my employer---I still have to wait to get in, and if I need to be seen urgently, I'm not going to see my own doc but someone else in her practice. Same with our ped's office. I've waited weeks to get in to a lab to have tests done. I live in a city with two premiere hospitals and it is still the case that I've had to wait a long time to see doctors. I have to schedule my appointment for a physical months in advance, and there is a long wait for referrals for mammograms or specialists. Weeks, sometimes months. So I'm not sure things are all that different under private insurance. I'd have to experience both systems to know for sure how wait times compare.

luvmykids replied: I don't see Americans as never satisfied, I think we're just typical of a large group of people where you can't satisfy EVERYONE. This board has less than 100 people actively posting and there aren't many threads where everyone has the same opinion.

I've been on both sides of the fence as well, and even now the kids are insured but DH and I aren't and it sucks.

I agree we need reform and don't know what the best solution is, at this moment I still think there is a lot more work to be done before I could personally say I was happy with any of the proposals. Regulation is a huge factor for me, and I do not want government run healthcare. I want to pay for my own healthcare and make it affordable enough that others can pay for theirs.

PrairieMom replied:
ITA. you can't please everyone. And no matter how Good the changes turn out to be, people will still find fault. People don't like change in general.

I don't know what the answer is, I do think that the insurance companies are screwing over people and making profits doing it. Its sick, sad and wrong.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say.

Our government doesn't pay for everything. It pays for BASIC needs.

It is provincially mandated, first and foremost, so some provinces have more access or less access to different services. I believe any major orthodontics work if you're under 8 is paid for in Quebec, but not in Ontario, I believe the once a year eye exams is still being paid for in Alberta, but it is not in Ontario...I think Ontario only pays every 2nd year.. maybe every 3rd, I don't know. I am not sure, but there are differences depending on where you live.

A&A'smommy replied: I'm also for some change but NOT obama's plan which is going to cost 9BILLION dollars and we are already in a MASSIVE amount of debt as it is.

my2monkeyboys replied: No doubt all of the lawsuits are to blame for a lot if the cost of insurance. When something is wrong with a patient the dr. has to order virtually every test under the sun, even unneeded ones just to cover his butt so he won't get sued if he misses something. If we would realize that drs. are human and capable of mistakes just like the rest of us and not sue for every little thing that doesn't go just how you expect it. Pure negligence, sure, sue for that. But for things that could have gone a different way if this or that had been done a little differently... well, like I said, drs. are just human too.
There are so many aspects that have to be considered when reforming something so massive and so important... I just don't know that we'll ever get it quite right, but I do know that I don't want anything pushed through just bc it will be a change. Change without thought is no good to anyone.

holley79 replied: I"m not so much for healthcare reform as I am for regulating what the hospitals can charge for their services. I'm sorry but $10.00 for a non- narcotic pill is a bit much. I have been on both sides of the fence. When I had my car accident I did not have health care coverage. I went to get help with my perscriptions and with home health care items I was turned down because I "made too much money". I was in a wheel chair with both legs stright in front of me and my right arm in a cast. Now I have duel covered. I have employer provided coverage and coverage through my DH's work. So no I don't want govt regulated health care. Why can't they take the already exsisting medicaid and make it to where average Joe citizen of the US does qualify.

I also don't see where we , as Americans, are never happy. There were plenty of things in this country that did make us happy.

jcc64 replied:

That is because they are over-compensating for those patients w/o insurance. Hospitals are required by law to treat people who come into ERs, insurance or not. To make up for bills that will never be paid, they over-charge the people who CAN pay. So, I always find it ironic to hear people against universal coverage say that they shouldn't have to pay for other people's health care. To which I say, "You already are."

holley79 replied:
You also have those that over use the health care system for illegal reasons. Going to the ER for "back pain" to get pills. In turn they run up bills they never intend to pay which in turn as with everything else we as tax payers have to pick up the tab. Sorry but those who are doing this are not tax payers because they do not even work.

Crystalina replied:
I see nothing wrong with this post. It's the truth. Americans (and I'm one) want instant gratification. Heck, if it takes longer then 15 minutes for our food at a sit-down restaruant you are already talking about how slow the place is. Movies uploaded...now. Music...now. Buy...now. Get in touch with this person...now. Change in America...NOW. It would be really hard to believe that anyone who does want reform would be happy with waiting for service. You can say you will until it's you that are waiting. I am one who wants reform but I'm not sure Pres. Obama is going about it the right way. I'm hoping he knows what he's doing but there doesn't seem to be anyone else stepping up with a plan. A lot of people saying we need it but nobody wanting to put their idea up on the block.
Who knows.

jcc64 replied: For those of you who want some kind of reform, but believe that "Obama is going about it the wrong way, what specifically do you think he should be doing differently? I'm just curious--this is a genuine question, not a snarky rhetorical one.

redchief replied: I have a tough time with these questions because I DO believe we need some sort of universal health care. However, I'm against socialized medicine across the board; that is a plan that competes on every level with private insurers. Once you take the level off the playing field in the market you'll eventually be left with the sole survivor - the one with the government budget line.

I also believe that basic health care is a right that should be extended to all citizens. I don't think that non-citizens have a right to tax payer supported programs if they are not among the tax paying supporters. Take that argument for what you will, because I'm not opposed to making some of our immigrants legal citizens. Perhaps there could be some requirement for a plan for such illegals that is paid for by those that employ them - now that would go a ways towards leveling the playing field for domestic laborers that feel illegal immigrants are taking their jobs.

Now, for the sticky part. I don't feel that everyone should have equal access to every medical program or technology or gadget or new experimental treatment that's out there. I think the universal health care requirement should extend to basic good health care practices, including disallowing insurance company exemptions for preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions are more than likely in today's health care scene where everyone knows everything about everyone and everyone has some sort of preexisting something. I think it's OK for a tiered health care insurance system wherein treatment costs for elective surgical procedures and treatments can be figured into options. This can't happen under a government run system, and if a government run system is the major competitor, insurance for these treatments will soon cease to exist.

My health care plan, while not the greatest, is very good, and many elective procedures are covered that deal with quality of life. Quality of life versus a healthy life state is difficult to quantify, but the insurance companies and doctors seem pretty good at that now.

I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but we really NEED tort reform with any health care package. Malpractice insurance rates DO negatively effect cost. The automotive insurance industry (in NJ anyway) already has placed value on everything from a finger tip to a life, and while that seems a little cold, it's real and can be budgeted for. Multi-million dollar malpractice claims have to be reeled in. Don't get me wrong, I believe that some greedy docs have more punishment coming to them than a tort rated settlement could provide. In such cases the loss should be paid and the injured should have the right to sue the doc civilly.

Now for the final OMG I'm certain to provoke. Hospitals should have the right and responsibility to defer emergency room treatment to clinics for non-life threatening illnesses. Flu and colds should not tax the emergency room or the hospitals unless the patient is respiratory compromised.

Now to the clinics. Here we have an excellent pay as you can clinic that is well supported by the local medical community. Everywhere should have this! Perhaps instead of creating another government bureaucracy to insure, the government could give tax incentives to medical professionals to give their time and expertise to clinical service. These clinics could also benefit from government grants and/or tax relief. For instance if a certain percentage of care given in a clinic is uncompensated, then the taxes paid by the clinic for compensated care can be shaved. A stronger clinical care system would ease the burden on the emergency rooms and provide basic health care in a more responsible and appropriate manner.

I'm sure there are other ways to lower health care costs, and some of them are included in the Obama plan. One is in streamlining the billing and procedural process to reduce paperwork. For every procedure that is done for my family we get three pieces of paper from three different entities. It's ridiculous.

Another I LIKE is to require that employers provide insurance or pay a penalty - the proceeds of which should go toward providing health care to those without insurance. That the WalMart empire refuses to extend health care to its employees is a disgrace, and they're just one example of a company that gets rich without a care toward the quality of life of their employees.

This might cause some eyebrows to raise, but I LIKE the so-called death committee idea. Not for nothing, but most elder folks that I've dealt with find comfort in knowing that they have a plan for what and how much health care entities should do to extend life in cases where they aren't able to communicate it themselves. This isn't cold hearted. This is simply taking the wishes of the elder and making everyone aware of them, so that family is spared the agony of making such decisions based upon perceived notions of what "grandpappy would want."

It also might be a good idea to enforce a federal standard of care and cost (though demographically this could be difficult). Right now, if I were to become injured my insurance company has agreements with companies in every other state to ensure that my basic medical needs will be met in emergency. That is a huge benefit of my current insurance program. My old program didn't do that. If I got hurt out of NJ, I was out of network and a whole bunch of red tape kicked in wherein getting payment to the providers became a real battle. The feds can fix this fairly easily by setting fixed cost schedules for emergency treatment and requiring that insurers everywhere accept that.

Those without jobs should be able to utilize existing Medic-Aid and Medi-Care programs without any stigma and no medical facility should be licensed by any state that does not accept those programs. No kid or senior citizen should have to hunt for a doctor's office that takes the government health care program. It should be a given, for the sake of public health.

jcc64 replied: Ed for president in 2012!

(Seriously Ed, ita with practically all of what you said, believe it or not, though I would say there are a good many people, some not alive anymore, who would disagree with this assessment:

redchief replied:
Jeanne, as usual I welcome your own assessment of my position, but if you're going to take issue with a single sentence (and one I didn't put a whole lot of thought into by the way) at least you could show how the differences could be easily quantified. I mean, I wrote a lot back there. Help me out a little!

Kentuckychick replied:
Absolutely NOT raising my eyebrows over here!

On April 30th of this year my grandfather passed away at the age of 76 from a combination of congestive heart failure, emphysema and a tumor on his brain. He had been in and out of the hospital for months... sick for years... smoked 90% of his life and lost his wife (my grandmother to lung cancer 7 years before).

Had he not died that evening, in the hospital, the chaplain by his side, my father arriving five minutes too late and his wife thankfully across town, he would have been taken out of the hospital the next day and forced to undergo many painful procedures scheduled by the woman he married three years before who was determined it was not his time to die.

My father and his siblings knew what he wanted and tried to be the voice of reason... but couldn't convince him to share his feelings with his new family. In turn he treated his own children badly trying to impress his wife and step kids. If his wishes had been known earlier or written down. If someone had been the voice of reason to say that treatments at that point were uncessary and cruel, then it would never have been the issue it became.

ETA: Even though the treatments outside of the hospital she'd scheduled never happened, in the months leading up to his death she made sure that every possible expensive drug was being considered, and that many unecessary options were tried.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I was going through some private messages to clear out some stuff... and came across some PM's about this post.

Now that it's been nearly 2 years, what are your thoughts on the reform?

PrairieMom replied:
Things still aint pretty! LOL. My thoughts haven't changed. Reform is needed, health insurance companies suck.
My DH's group insurance at work has raised the premiums another 30% for the past 3 years in a row.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Well, for starters...wasn't Obama going to penalize those who chose not to use 'his' healthcare choices, but exempted himself and his 'buddies' from these choices and penalizations? Sounds a bit fishy to me. If he isn't willing to use it, why should we? This is unsettling to me, to be honest. Even a judge said the plan was unconstitutional and needed some heavy revisions. I'll hop on board when he decides whatever is signed, is good enough for him and his family too.

I don't think it's fair to compare the US to Canada, simply due to the fact that the US has more hospitals and doctors per people (unless someone corrects me with factual evidence, but last I checked the US was almost doubled).

Rocky, I didn't take your first post as bashing Americans, but I do think because you don't know our system first hand it's a little hard to understand truly where we are coming from. Same can be said about us...we don't know the Canadian healthcare system first hand either so I don't like how some people (in general, not here) automatically assume that universal healthcare here will be 'just like Canada'.

I think things need to be reformed within our insurance companies and the hospitals. I worked in laboratory billing for 3 years...there is no reason why a lab test that takes 5 minutes to run (and $10 to run) should cost $500! I don't care who isn't paying what...it's insane and should be illegal to inflate the cost THAT much. I think our hospitals have also gotten greedy, along side our insurance companies (lawsuits aside).

I am all for universal healthcare...BUT, I do not think ANYONE should be exempted from anything (Obama shouldn't be exempted from the same care that he's MAKING Joe Schmoe take) and I think we should still be able to have choices and not get penalized for making a choice that is best suited for our families.

I as well, think basic health care is a right. Living should not be a priveledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a law passed about pre-exsisting conditions? I thought insurance companies couldn't deny someone care based on them? Is there some fine print that I didn't read?

Ed...I agree with most of what you said. Pretty much sums it up for me as well.

For a year while Troy was unemployed, our family was on Medicaid/Badgercare. Thankfully, around here, a lot of doctors accept it...even the doctors we were already using. Our experience with it was good (although a headache or two at times), so the little bit of experience we have first hand with it is positive. Quite honestly...it was the best insurance we had ever had...paid $20 a month to have it, had no bills. WI is at least doing 'something' right when it comes to healthcare!

coasterqueen replied: I agree on the hospitals, considering a two hour ORAL surgery for Megan cost us $20,000 - well the insurance company is paying the largest portion of that. But seriously? $20,000 for 2 hours!

mummy2girls replied:
Thats insane!!!! WOW....

mummy2girls replied: Im trying to understand the US healthcare and why most people like it better that the canadian one. I can see both sides and i guess I cant pass judgement unless i was an american and had thier healthcare. I like the coverage i have but that because thats all I have known...

How many of you guys(americans) have no coverage because of it, and if you dont have coverage for you or your kids and they need the hospital/doctor/traetments will they be turned away?

Boo&BugsMom replied:
It's illegal for a doctor or hospital to turn a patient away who is in need of care. The patient will just have a huge bill at the end of it all and will have to pay out of pocket.

coasterqueen replied:
Yep, we haven't seen the bill yet, but they told us the hospital portion would be $16,000 and then our estimate for the dentist was $3,000 but they had to do more than they estimated, so we are assuming closer to $20,000. We'll see when we get the bill.

coasterqueen replied:
True and most hospitals will make deals with you. Our friends didn't have insurance when they had their first daughter. They made an agreement to pay so much a month for well, she's 16 now and they finished paying it off two years ago. Also, If you say you'll pay so much of the total bill, they will write off the rest of it.

PrairieMom replied: Shelly,

Hospitals have to inflate cost so much to make up for those that aren't paying. it sucks. A lot. but SOMEONE has to pay for the care. They can't force the people with no money to do it, so the paying ones have to carry the load.

Our health care situation is that we have a group plan through DH's work, but he is a small business ( 13 total employees) so carrying insurance on everyone is a HUGE burden. It is more costly for our age group because we are all of " breeding age" so are young families with associated costs of child birth, and young children. They have raised our rates 30% each year for the past years. They can just do that. No reason. Just because they say so. I believe how much we personally have to pay for our insurance out of pocket is up to the individual company to decide. They decide how much of the cost they will pay and how much to pass on to their employees. for us, we paid $5000 out of our paychecks last year. We still have to pay $25 every time we see a Dr, plus we have to pay up to i THINK $1000. on our Drs bills, out of pocket a year. Once we pay our $1000. (per PERSON) then we only have to pay 20% of each bill. This doesn't count any dental or eyes, at all. That comes completely out of pocket.

Now Obama passed the bill where they can't deny you insurance because of pre existing conditions, and honestly, I haven't looked into insurance since, but BEFORE, I was considered uninsurable because I have asthma. They would over me, but deny any claims that had to do with my asthma. so, no coverage for Dr visits, or hospital stays that had to do with my breathing.

As for those that can't pay, you can't just say, "oops, sorry, can't pay". Its a debt you legally owe. So, they can turn you over to collections, make you pay everything you can, even if it means that you have claim bankruptcy. And, you can see by What Karen is having to pay, it wouldn't take long to bankrupt someone.

MommyToAshley replied: We were self pay when Ashley was born, and it's not just the hospital fee you pay. There's the hospital fee, the doctor fee, the antestegiologist, etc, etc, etc. It all adds up, and yes they will deal with you. With us, they gave us a 50% reduced cost, but we had to agree to pay that in advance. And, of course, there's all the prenatal care that you have to pay for before that as well.

From my own personal experience, I haven't seen anything different from before the reform was passed, our insurance went up another 30%, just as it did last year until DH called and questioned it, we had to submit some paperwork, and it oh... it should have only gone up 20% instead of 30%.... yup, just like before the bill was passed.

mummy2girls replied: so far i LOVE my healthcare. long waits suck but at least we dont have that on our shoulders... that would put us in the poor house. Expecially because Jordan was in the NICU PICU, and jenna having 3 surgeries, speech thrapy and OT as well.AND Breannas neurology app's as well! I think i would be sitting on the street right now. And then jenna having asthma... to thin k she can be denied coverage because of that...scarey!

coasterqueen replied:
I am confused on something so you'll have to clear this up for me, if you can. How are you "uninsurable"? If you are on a company group plan they do not look at pre-existing conditions. I've worked for several employers and every time I was not underwritten and I have asthma and allergies. You are only underwritten when you are getting insurance on your own outside of an employer policy, which happened to me in college and those things were not covered, as well as many other pre-existing conditions I had. This might be the case for you, although I find it confusing, but the majority of people employed by a business or their spouse is employed by a business is NOT underwritten, therefore any pre-existing conditions is not an issue. And if your husband is the company and insuring 13 other people, they would not be underwritten so why are you?

PrairieMom replied:
I am Uninsurable by PRIVATE insurance only. Since I have a group plan it isn't a issue. However, with my husbands group plan we have exceptionally high insurance costs because we all individually have medical issues. We all had to fill out paperwork for every insurance company they applied for stating our health history. I have asthma, and a kid with eating/ growing issues, one with a history of heart issues. his employees have blood blood clot issues, pre diabetes, we have had a child born within the company every year... insurance companies look at all those things individually when deciding what to charge the group.

coasterqueen replied:
Yes, they do usually look at that on a yearly basis, however I've never managed health insurance for a company that we had to be underwritten. Never heard of that. I'll have to ask our BCBS lobbyist when he comes in if this is a state thing, very weird. I do know insurance companies look at claims over a years time, which is how (one way) they determine the increase in your premium. All insurance does this, as well as looking at the community as a whole thing, but that's a thing in itself, lol.

PrairieMom replied:
I had to fill out paper work stating the entire families health history for the past 5 years for 2 separate places this year. I suppose it has to do with risk assessment or something. But I was told that because our employees and families are of reproducing age, and have health concerns we have higher costs. they don't deny us coverage, they just charge us out the ... well...
We are currently using BCBS, thats who has raised our rates 30% every year for the past 3 years.

coasterqueen replied:
Yeah, there are 3 of us in the office. I'm the only one of baby rearing age, yet my boss had a child same time I did, lol. They do have young kids, too. My co-worker's kids are grown. Ours has gone up 20-30% every year since I've been here and I've been here 12 years. And in that 12 years I've never had to fill out any paperwork for the three of us on health status. With all of Megan's health issues this year, I'm sure ours will go up 40% next year.

Is your insurance BCBS HMO or PPO? Ours is PPO. I wonder if that might be a difference as to why you would have to file paperwork. Ah, I will ask our BCBS guy whenever he actually comes in. He is just contractual so he's not always here.