Opie ofMaybery2

In another post a Canadian pointed out an interesting concept...

She mentioned you get a $600 tax break IF you sign your kids up for soccer (sport). I found this very interesting.... can anybody else see what is happening with that idea?

then you have maryland where parents are being threatened with fines and jail for not taking their kids in for shots, even free ones...

There's the flip side of dealing with health care issues...


As I look around our kids get less and less recreation time, more butts in a chair, in front of a tv or computer... you know nclb and foriegn competition and all that....but canada will give you money if you take your kid to play.

Which concept is more likely to cost more healthcare dollars down the road?

fendergirl

is that $600/year, or like a once and done deal? .

Like I said, I get a 30/mo credit for being a non smoker - each year. and a 20/mo credit for taking a health survey - each year. So my employer gives us each 300 credit per year for trying to "improve our health".. which I believe is what the 600 soccer credit is trying to do..

fendergirl

On Friday, I spoke a woman that had a 2007 premium of 268 dollars and her 2008 premium actually went down to 241. She called because she thought we mailed her the wrong billing materials and I explained to her that the claims experience under her plan was favorable and it resulted in a decrease in premiums. It took me like 15 minutes to convince me that we weren't taking anything away from her and that "Yes, your health insurance premium did go DOWN."

Not all companies are bad guys.

jclay2

To all those who want a healthcare in any way similar to canada watch this:

YouTube - Dead Meat

mini

"
Oh mini, if you are so keen on a government takeover, why don't you check this out

We already HAVE a government takeover of health care. It is called corporate socialism. It guarantees that money collected by the state will be paid out to private corporations in premiums far higher than they would be if the government self-insured. I know that - quite personally, in fact, because I am covered by a government-run self-insurance plan, and the number of insurers that will cover state employees drop like flies each year because they can't compete. (In fact, the only thing they can compete on is advertising.) It's also why, in the U.S., for the amount of money we spend, we could do so much BETTER than Canada, or England, or France, or....

The corporate socialist takeover of health care is reflected in every Republican health insurance CEO supporting the expansion of SCHIP against the Pres. They know where their bread is buttered - they buttered it.

That's why, in British Columbia, when asked, 88% of residents given the choice favor their system to ours, and why, when Washington residents are asked, 70% of residents (including a majority of Republicans) prefer their system to ours.

It's also why waiting lists for elective surgery in Canada are shorter than those for cancer surgery in the U.S. (says that radical, the President of AETNA), and why the standard of care for chemotherapy for breast cancer in the U.S. results in an 11% higher mortality rate than that used in Europe. It's why doctors are paid to not refer patients to specialists, insurance employees are paid to deny coverage, and employees are paid bonuses for cancelling policies. It's why thousands of people with insurance are going abroad for better care, better value, for major surgeries, for liver transplants, for heart valve replacements, and why insurance companies are rubbing their hands in glee. And why tens of millions of people don't have insurance at all.

You can either cover share costs or CYA for risks, but you can't do both at the same time. It shouldn't be a matter of "taking chances".

And it's why the SCHIP expansion could be FREE if there hadn't already been a corporate socialist government takeover of the program. Health care does indeed have a cost, and what drives health care costs (and hence the relative cost of SCHIP) is simply profit.

"And MINI what you aren't disclosing here is the WA high risk pool is for individual coverage, not group."

I know exactly what I'm saying - I also know I will reach Medicare age 7 years before my wife.

jclay2

Hey mini why don't you watch the movie "dead meat" and maybe you will think twice about their amazing system. Oh and on your percentages you quoted:

"That's why, in British Columbia, when asked, 88% of residents given the choice favor their system to ours, and why, when Washington residents are asked, 70% of residents (including a majority of Republicans) prefer their system to ours."

Just because people prefer it doesn't mean that it is a better system. That stat you put up is just a logical falicy.

Bay

leal,

Drivers in some states (including mine) are required by law to carry auto insurance. It is not a choice, unless you choose not to drive. It is also much cheaper than $9,500 per year.

I am not advocating that anyone should go without medical insurance coverage. I was merely putting a number on the example you gave, because it didn't look so crazy to me that a healthy family might prefer to self-insure at the rates you cited.

lealdragon

In TX drivers are required to have liability only. People who have nice, new cars choose to have full coverage, which is an extra cost, beyond the legal requirement, to pay for that nice, new car 'just in 'case.'

Of course healthy families can choose to take their chances. But what usually ends up happening is that something happens, and suddenly they want health insurance, and they can no longer get it except for risk pool. Every day people call me practically begging me to insure them, and I can't, because they waited too long and now they're not insurable.

I think I may have already shared the story about the man who kept putting me of for several weeks and then it was too late - he had to have triple bypass surgery. He said he was 'kicking himself.'

Personally, as one who favors alternative treatments for illnesses, I like catastrophic plans. But those wouldn't work well for most people, who would go the chemo route. But the option is there for those who would choose it.

My main point is that people should get more educated about their options, and not just assume that as soon as they are diagnosed with something, an insurance company will swoop in, accept them, and pay for everything. That's not how it works.

I also run into people calling me up wanting a dental plan AFTER they find out they'll need several thousand $$ worth of dental work. Obviously they plan to drop the coverage as soon as the work is done. Now just how is the company supposed to stay in business if they covered people like that?

NotReady4Purple

There's another side to this. I would be willing to self-insure - but there are higher charges to the uninsured than those negotiated by insurance companies - and these are significant. So I feel I have to carry insurance just for the this reason.

barrons

OTOH state run systems also can be harsh

New Zealand bars British man's 'fat' wife - Telegraph

Opie ofMaybery2

"And MINI what you aren't disclosing here is the WA high risk pool is for individual coverage, not group."

"I know exactly what I'm saying - I also know I will reach Medicare age 7 years before my wife."

No, I'm sorry you don't on this subject. WA is guaranteed issue for small group 2-50 with the ONLY underwriting applied to gender and age.. for the blues. Which are the two best nonprofit providers in WA and they dominate the market.

So, you are incorrect, you could start your own business and find insurance. If you came in without prior coverage you would be subject to pre-ex conditions which would mean at a max, a certain condition wouldn't be covered for 12 months. There after not a problem.

If you were going to work for boeing or mirco or another WA business and had prior coverage, again your wife would be covered immediately, unless she had no prior coverage.. The only exception could be where a business self insures or is dominciled in another state and uses federal guidelines, rather than state. They are more commonly called erisa plans.

I sell this stuff everyday and mini, you are incorrect in your statement. Now if you're lamenting quiting your job and moving out of state, I can't help you and you may very well be correct. But for your state (and mine) you are incorrect.

Bay

jclay,

Thanks for posting that YouTube link. It sounds like the Canadian health care system works great until you need to use it.

barrons

I wonder how those socalled health surveys were worded. I doubt anyone in my office would prefer the Canadian system. Neither would anyone in my wife's sugery office as they treat full pay Canadians all the time.

jclay2

Hey does anyone know what our healthcare system was like BEFORE the government got into it? How bad or good was it?

Nova10

Medicare is an expensive program for those being covered by it. A small number of people do have to pay a premium for Part A. The monthly premium for it is $420. Its deductible is $1024 every 60 days, and it will only pay up to a certain amount before you have to pay again. Part B is normally a 20% coinsurance and has a monthly premium of $96. Part D's average premium is about $26, and it has two deductibles, the initial $275 and then the second donut hole of I believe $2500.
Medicare/Medicade was set up in 1965.
To lower healthcare costs, you need to have more collaborative and prophylatic care. You need to get the MD off the pedestial. You need to encourage people to see dieticians, diabetes educators, Medication therapy management with pharmacists, and so on.