• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How satisfied are you with your health insurance provider?

How satisfied are you with your current health insurance provider?


  • Total voters
    54
I didn't ask if someone does. I ask if anyone HERE does. Do you?

I don't care what you THINK it costs. I want to know what people here pay for Health insurance (not dental, not vision, not co-pays, not deductibles) if you are willing to share. Not what your Aunt or Uncle or granddad says they pay.

I also wouldn't mind if you also inlcuded your state and age (nearest decade or half decade works)

There were two very conflicting surveys. One said the average US insurance for a single person costs $4000+ a year. The other reported $2500. That is significantly different. Considering everyone i personally know doesn't pay anywhere close to $400 a month I'm inclined to believe one of the surveys was full of ****. So that is why I'm asking people here.

Ours is around the $2500 or less mark, but we chose one with a high deductible $1500, so that would put us close to $3500, and you have to figure in the employer pays sometimes 70% of the premiums on top of that. I'd say everybody with decent HC is paying well over the $4,000 mark.
 
Then reform will be doomed to fail. Things have been tried at the state level. The states, most of them, are too small and too weak to confront the insurance/ pharmaceutical industry. My state has attempted some reforms and the insurance companies just pulled out and left a near monopoly to one company, then they tie up the state in litigation. One insurance company (Anthem) has 80% of the market and they have greater financial resources than the state to fight reform.

It didn't fail in Massachusetts.

Besides, it doesn't matter. Health Care at the national level is unconstitutional, period. Nothing can be done about that, unless you want to amend the Constitution for health care.
 
I have Aetna and my biggest complaint is they are so damned nosy. If I miss my A1C (3 month Diabetic test) they call the doctor to call me! :lol:

Damn those people who are looking out for your best interest.....:2razz:
 
I had a severe motorcycle wreck when I was in my 30's with out insurance and the financial repercussions almost ruined my life. Suicide was a serious consideration for me because I saw no way out of the hole I was in. It wound up affecting about 8 years of my life.

Do you have insurance now?
 
We have health care through the gov't (military).
It's not as good as the care I received through civilian doctors.

After the Walter Reed scandal exposed what was happening at military hospitals, I'm surprised so many people are willing to trust the government with their health care. Haven't any of you had experience with the VA hospitals, maybe with an older relative? The problems of inefficiency and rationing are pretty universal to gov't-run programs, imo. You don't want to deal with that when you're sick. We saw it when we received health care in Germany, too. Same old crap.

I'd take American civilian medical care over the alternative any day. I think people won't realize what they had til it's gone. We need to fix the current system, not replace it with one that is worse.
 
It didn't fail in Massachusetts.

Besides, it doesn't matter. Health Care at the national level is unconstitutional, period. Nothing can be done about that, unless you want to amend the Constitution for health care.
There are large cost overruns in Mass. due to the inability of one state to take on H.C. interest groups.
 
We have health care through the gov't (military).
It's not as good as the care I received through civilian doctors.

After the Walter Reed scandal exposed what was happening at military hospitals, I'm surprised so many people are willing to trust the government with their health care. Haven't any of you had experience with the VA hospitals, maybe with an older relative? The problems of inefficiency and rationing are pretty universal to gov't-run programs, imo. You don't want to deal with that when you're sick. We saw it when we received health care in Germany, too. Same old crap.

I'd take American civilian medical care over the alternative any day. I think people won't realize what they had til it's gone. We need to fix the current system, not replace it with one that is worse.


I’ve been in the VA health system for years and I am quite satisfied with it. It is better now than it has been in the distant past and with the upgrades to electronic medical records the errors of the past will be minimized.

Your really shouldn’t mention Walter Reed in the same breath as the VA as they are two separate healthcare systems. Here is some more reading on the VA if you’re interested.

<"Although VA has received many wonderful endorsements recently, the support of our veterans - the people who know us best - is the highest praise," said the Honorable R. James Nicholson, secretary of Veterans Affairs. "This is a testament to the hard work of VA employees, the support of Congress and the leadership of the White House.">


<VA's rating of 80 for outpatient care was five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and nine percentage points higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.>



Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) :: News
 
We have health care through the gov't (military).
It's not as good as the care I received through civilian doctors.

After the Walter Reed scandal exposed what was happening at military hospitals, I'm surprised so many people are willing to trust the government with their health care. Haven't any of you had experience with the VA hospitals, maybe with an older relative? The problems of inefficiency and rationing are pretty universal to gov't-run programs, imo. You don't want to deal with that when you're sick. We saw it when we received health care in Germany, too. Same old crap.

I'd take American civilian medical care over the alternative any day. I think people won't realize what they had til it's gone. We need to fix the current system, not replace it with one that is worse.

Some of the Vet's here got HIV after getting colonoscopies from dirty VA machines. Yukkk!

All I've ever seen at the VA were foreign doctor's, the type that you can't understand.
 
I am very unhappy cause it cost me a good chunk of my check each week:(
 
There should have been the option: I have health insurance and have never needed/used it.

Then you are lucky. That is the point of insurance, it is risk sharing.
By definition, for some people to recieve more then they put into insurance other people need to put in more then they take. The point is that you don't know which you will be o_O
 
There are large cost overruns in Mass. due to the inability of one state to take on H.C. interest groups.

And in what ways are they forced to "take on" these interest groups? What are the groups doing that prevents Massachusetts from being able to have whatever health care system it wants?

Anyways, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter. Having the Federal Government do it is unconstitutional, end of discussion.
 
Then you are lucky. That is the point of insurance, it is risk sharing.
By definition, for some people to recieve more then they put into insurance other people need to put in more then they take. The point is that you don't know which you will be o_O

Why should we not explore tailoring insurance to the type of care that the payee is likely to need? Young and healthy people would pay for only catastrophic insurance needs while the elderly would pay for insurance tailored to the health needs related to their age & condition. That would be better than everyone paying for blanket health-coverage that doesn't take in to account the health and care requirements of the payee.

I also believe that removing the cost of doctor's visits from health insurance coverage would help greatly in lowering health insurance costs.
 
And in what ways are they forced to "take on" these interest groups? What are the groups doing that prevents Massachusetts from being able to have whatever health care system it wants?
Take one example- Big Pharma. The Federal gov't decides the length of patent protection gives them the right to charge Americans the maximum the market will bear and has (so-far) failed to stop the major Pharmaceutical cos. from paying generic companies not to compete Only the federal government can take on Big Pharma. From Attorneyatlaw.com:

Taking Aim at ‘Pay-to-Delay’ Tactics for Generic Drugs

"When brand-name drug makers want to keep a competitive advantage over companies that market cheaper generic versions of the same drugs, they’ll sometimes pay generic drug companies to hold off on releasing the drugs for a few years.

The idea is simple: It’s a better deal in the long run for big drug companies to pay off generic drug makers not to market their versions, than to have the brand name drug compete with less-expensive generics.

The practice may seem underhanded and a bit sleazy, but it’s not against the law. It’s called “pay to delay” and is mostly a dirty little secret of the pharmaceutical industry that few consumers know about, even though it forces millions of them to pay more for their prescriptions. "

Anyways, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter. Having the Federal Government do it is unconstitutional, end of discussion.
We already have medicare/medicaid so I guess the constitutional question is moot.
 
Your really shouldn’t mention Walter Reed in the same breath as the VA as they are two separate healthcare systems.

They are both gov't run and that was rather the point.
 
Why should we not explore tailoring insurance to the type of care that the payee is likely to need? Young and healthy people would pay for only catastrophic insurance needs while the elderly would pay for insurance tailored to the health needs related to their age & condition. That would be better than everyone paying for blanket health-coverage that doesn't take in to account the health and care requirements of the payee.

I completely agree with this. As long as the catastrophic insurance truly covers catastrophic events, and isn't just a euphemism for ****ty coverage. Fortunately, Congress seems poised to eliminate "lifetime maximums" and limit out-of-pocket expenses, regardless of what happens with some of the more controversial aspects of the bill.

The silenced majority said:
I also believe that removing the cost of doctor's visits from health insurance coverage would help greatly in lowering health insurance costs.

Ehh...it depends. I think a couple of annual checkups, and things like mammograms for women should be covered. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But I agree that there's really no reason for minor health expenses (e.g. a broken arm) to be covered by insurance.
 
Why should we not explore tailoring insurance to the type of care that the payee is likely to need? Young and healthy people would pay for only catastrophic insurance needs while the elderly would pay for insurance tailored to the health needs related to their age & condition. That would be better than everyone paying for blanket health-coverage that doesn't take in to account the health and care requirements of the payee.

I also believe that removing the cost of doctor's visits from health insurance coverage would help greatly in lowering health insurance costs.

My brother was diagnosed with cancer in his 20's. What would happen to him under your idea?
 
My brother was diagnosed with cancer in his 20's. What would happen to him under your idea?

Hey, nothing works perfectly. Best case scenario is that your brother would be able to find the best market-based policy to suit his exceptional condition for somebody of his age. I'm doubtful that a one-size fits all insurance approach would bring about a better solution to your brother's unfortunate condition.
 
Hey, nothing works perfectly. Best case scenario is that your brother would be able to find the best market-based policy to suit his exceptional condition for somebody of his age. I'm doubtful that a one-size fits all insurance approach would bring about a better solution to your brother's unfortunate condition.

The problem with that is that once he knew he needed it, he had a pre-existing condition.
 
I don't have health insurance at all. Luckily, I'm quite fit. I do have one medication I take that is very expensive and wish I had health insurance to cover.

$300 for 20 pills.
 
It doesn't change my opinion that a market-based solution would be cheaper and provide better coverage than a one-size fits all government mandate.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Even the government plans could offer a wide variety of options, charge high enough premiums to cover the costs (with vouchers for those who need them), and offer the same sort of high-deductible low-premium arrangement that you're describing.

That might not necessarily be what the final bill entails...but I don't see any fundamental reason that such a system wouldn't be workable.
 
The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Even the government plans could offer a wide variety of options, charge high enough premiums to cover the costs (with vouchers for those who need them), and offer the same sort of high-deductible low-premium arrangement that you're describing.

That might not necessarily be what the final bill entails...but I don't see any fundamental reason that such a system wouldn't be workable.

That eventually traipses into the realm of a government entity that can expand it's budget to meet shortfalls vs. private companies who are affected by taxation and driven by profit.

I'm not against their being some type of law that would prevent denial of coverage due to a pre-existing condition, I'm just doubtful that a Government-backed option would be the best way to achieve this.
 
It doesn't change my opinion that a market-based solution would be cheaper and provide better coverage than a one-size fits all government mandate.

To be honest, if the health care reform just addressed pre-existing conditions, slow pay and first denial strategies from insurance companies, and worked to help poor people afford insurance, I would be satisfied with it. That does not mean I don't think more can, and maybe should be done, but at least those would be a good first step for this year. It kinda feels like we are rushing to solve a big problem, and doing that is probably not the best strategy.
 
To be honest, if the health care reform just addressed pre-existing conditions, slow pay and first denial strategies from insurance companies, and worked to help poor people afford insurance, I would be satisfied with it. That does not mean I don't think more can, and maybe should be done, but at least those would be a good first step for this year. It kinda feels like we are rushing to solve a big problem, and doing that is probably not the best strategy.

Mhm. I think any chances to the current health insurance system in America should be done in small increments. The problems mentioned above didn't occur overnight, and as much as I'd like to see efforts to address them taken as soon as possible, I'm sure how succesful attempting to solve them al in one swoop would be. If pre-existing conditions were included in most healthcare plans, if there were stricter rules regarding when companies can refuse to fund necessary treatment, and if steps were taken to help the poor receive affordable coverage through either a public option or an existing insurer; I think at this point, we could call that a victory.
 
Back
Top Bottom