View Full Version : The high cost of health insurance
frugalone
8-26-12, 10:12pm
OMG...I think I am in sticker shock. I had my orientation meeting on Friday at my new job. We went over the benefits and were given a "worksheet" so we could choose from the menu of benefits. I noticed the HR person glossed right over the sheet part and did not encourage us to look at the sheet during the meeting. I thought it was because she was going on vacation and had to finish up her work.
Well. I went home and looked at the sheet, and lo and behold, I am sick over the prices. :sick: For my SO and myself, an HMO equivalent to the last job I had (at a university, just like at this job) would cost us more than we pay in rent! I CANNOT pay that much money. The alternative? A PPO with a $1K deductible, or a $300 deductible.
To make matters worse, I am making more than $10K less at this job. I'm not even sure we can pay our household expenses, w/o SO getting a job.
Did the economy decline THIS much in the past three years? Is this NORMAL?
I cannot opt out of the plan w/o providing proof of other insurance...which we do not have and cannot get.
Believe me, I jumped thru hoops to get the poopy insurance we now have...which is income based, and guess what? NOw that I have a job we aren't qualified anymore for that plan.
Don't get me wrong, please. I am really grateful for this job. But somehow I thought a lot of my problems were going to be over once I was employed again.
Has this happened to anybody else?
Thank you!
Exactly how much per paycheck are you talking about?
How much would it be if you chose insurance for just YOU?
Is there any real reason your SO hasn't been working?
frugalone
8-26-12, 10:48pm
No, my SO doesn't work right now. I can't just get insurance for myself and leave SO out.
I'm talking $240 a paycheck for the HMO and $140 for the $1k deductible PPO.
frugalone
8-26-12, 10:52pm
EDIT: No, my SO doesn't work right now. I can't just get insurance for myself and leave SO out.
I'm talking $216 a paycheck for the HMO and $140 for the $1k deductible PPO.
If it were me alone it would be $37 for the HMO and $10 for the $1K plan.
Um...any idea why the cost of adding an SO (or kids, for that matter) is so high? It almost looks as though they don't want you to put your family on their plan, doesn't it?
EDIT: No, my SO doesn't work right now. I can't just get insurance for myself and leave SO out.
I'm talking $216 a paycheck for the HMO and $140 for the $1k deductible PPO.
If it were me alone it would be $37 for the HMO and $10 for the $1K plan.
Um...any idea why the cost of adding an SO (or kids, for that matter) is so high? It almost looks as though they don't want you to put your family on their plan, doesn't it?
Because the company subsidizes insurance for YOU a great deal as part of your benefits. You have to pick up much more (or all) of the tab for spouse/kids.
I'm the coldly practical type: sounds like your SO either gets a job or goes without insurance.
I've been with the same company since Nov. 2006. I'm single, no kids, no hubby. My insurance - I ALWAYS choose the PPO, as I loathe HMOs - has gone from $25 a paycheck to nearly $100. That includes dental and vision insurance. However, since our merger last year, which resulted in a larger pool of employees, the cost for adding spouse/kids, has gone down a good bit.
cattledog
8-26-12, 11:23pm
No, my SO doesn't work right now. I can't just get insurance for myself and leave SO out.
I'm talking $240 a paycheck for the HMO and $140 for the $1k deductible PPO.
That's about how much our insurance is- except ours runs around $480/mo with a $1000 deductible. This is a family plan. It's been about the same price for the last three years.
iris lily
8-27-12, 12:02am
Because the company subsidizes insurance for YOU a great deal as part of your benefits. You have to pick up much more (or all) of the tab for spouse/kids.
That's common. Probably until recently thh OP wouldn't have paid $37 at all--for herself. Her employer would have paid it all, but paid none for her spouse. But costs keep going up and employers will not eat those increases.
I pay $230 per paycheck to have DH covered by my insurance plan at work. An less expensive plan like the OP's PPO option is not an option for me. We'd take it, we are low consumers of health resources and I like high deductibles. It's nice that the OP has a choice.
The danger of the OP's SO going without insurance is that her joint assets are at risk for paying off a big medical bill for her DH. I would not put myself in a situation where my assets would be going to pay the medical bill of someone else.
The danger of the OP's SO going without insurance is that her joint assets are at risk for paying off a big medical bill for her DH. I would not put myself in a situation where my assets would be going to pay the medical bill of someone else.
Then OP's SO needs to get a job. That might be easier said than done in this economy, but it depends on where OP lives. Perhaps something part time would be enough to close the gap, depending on their circumstances.
frugalone
8-27-12, 12:15am
Iris lily is right. At my old job I would have been completely covered by my former employer's plan--with no cost to myself. I would have paid only for adding other people to the plan. So that seems to have changed.
I have excellent insurance from my employer, a major US-based non-profit. We have a $100 individual/200 family deductible, then pay a 20% copay up to $1000 individual/$3000 family maximum out of pocket. After that everythign is supposedly covered 100%
My employer pays 100% of my insurance cost and the bulk of the cost for my family of 4, about $750/month for both health and dental insurance (though the dental plan is not great) for all of us. I kick in about $150/month for a portion of my family's coverage. I think it is pretty common for employers to ask the employee to contribute toward the cost of covering family members, and also increasingly common to ask for some portion of employee coverage as well.
This is for an international policy that we can use anywhere in the world. So if we need cancer treatment, we can go to MD Anderson or Mayo, or stay right here in Beijing. I know that good insurance is one of the perks of my job, which is one reason I'm glad to have it (both the job and the insurance). But I sympathize with those who have to pay a lot for comparatively crappy coverage. Hopefully things will get better as health care reform kicks in and the size of the pools increases.
I know it is small consolation, frugalone, but please don't be too despondant about this. While it is still a struggle, you are in a much better position than you were a couple of weeks ago. YOu made it through some really rough times already -- just keep putting one foot in front of the other and I'm sure things will continue to improve.
lhamo
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 1:50am
I quite possibly may have the worst health care plan out there. I'm currently paying $280 a monthy for the PPO to cover MYSELF (that's it, just myself). It does not include dental or vision it is just medical. Even I'm fed up with it and will probably just go with the HMO next time. When I say I could almost get a plan myself purchasing as an individual for that price, well maybe I could, I have no preexistings. The benefits where I work are quite frankly atrocious. It would take ridiculous prices to top my rent though, that's like 1k a month.
To make matters worse, I am making more than $10K less at this job. I'm not even sure we can pay our household expenses, w/o SO getting a job.
Did the economy decline THIS much in the past three years? Is this NORMAL?
I feel the exact same way. I took a paycut, I didn't negotiate for more and in retrospect I easily could have (they even asked: are you sure that's enough? and like a fool I said yes), but I got emotionally desperate for a job (I wasn't anywhere near out of money I just went into sheer mental panic is all). Then oh well a paycut I know what it is, I accept it, I was more or less at peace with it. But THEN .... the shocker of how bad the benefits were. The paycut was way way way more of a paycut than I had anticipated when I got the whole picture. Health care vastly more expensive, employer 401k benefits pretty much non-existent when before I had had some etc.. Live and learn what you are getting into :|(. Of course unemployment is still double digits here. So yes sometimes I think everything has declined and sometimes I feel deeply hopeless about it all, since I figure oh well maybe all we can anticipate is things getting worse and worse all the time. I can live on what I make though (and saving 20% for retirement, so things can't be that bad I guess). I guess I also get grumpy because I'm ridiculously underchallenged at my job (that was another shocker I really didn't anticipate - live and learn indeed).
I'm currently paying $750/month for myself and my spouse, healthy-rarely-visit-the-doctor types, using the cheapest insurance plan that Massachusetts allows. This allow for a once a year free teeth cleaning, but no other dental coverage and a once a year vision exam that is partially paid for. I am paying entirely out of pocket, no employer is subsidzing me. Just for comparison purposes.
It is well within the norm, I'm afraid, frugalone. R&D for those expensive "miracle treatments" and pharmaceuticals to do this that and the other....they come with a pretty high price tag on my insurance bill. Even though I never need much more than an annual checkup, mammogram, and a skin cancer or blood pressure check now and then.
I know you didn't ask, but perhaps your SO would be willing to get a part-time job to cover his part of the health insurance, at least? Unless he is disabled or...? In which case perhaps he could explore some other type of insurance?
I pay $350.00/month out of pocket for my insurance. If I added my husband to my policy it would be well over $1000.00 for the coverage I have, but luckily he has coverage through his employer. This is how we look out for each other -- we don't make one person pay all the bills, but rather take responsibility for our own expenses.
Wishing you luck with this.
Sad to say, medical insurance costs keep going up -- and it's not just the monthly premium. Over the past few years, medical/Rx copays and the annual deductible amount went up as well -- even in large groups such as my previous employer. In fact, that employer actually applied a stiff surcharge if you requested entire-family coverage while your partner was also covered by insurance -- around $250 a month, IIRC. I went on my wife's insurance as soon as I was eligible. Doesn't apply to the OP's situation, since her husband currently does not have insurance, but it's illustrative of how the landscape has changed.
One option you might have (if you haven't already) is to contact an insurance broker. These people work with several insurance companies and often can find the best coverage (n.b., not necessarily cheap, but most efficient) for people who may be hard to insure due to illness or other conditions.
fidgiegirl
8-27-12, 9:07am
frugalone, is your "SO" a "DH"? I assume yes for you to even be considering adding him. Unless I misunderstand and people can add unmarried partners to their benefit plans (which I suppose people could in some employers per "domestic partnership" - not an expert on bennies, here).
I ask not to pass any judgment on your marital status but if you are unmarried wouldn't it be easier to break that household link (even mentally) and have him stand on his own situation for getting insurance? Perhaps I'm naive at this!
Regardless of married or unmarried, can he stay on the old plan since he remains unemployed?
My employer covers 100% of the premiums for my medical and dental insurance (no vision), but if I want to add my SO to the plan (and fortunately, our plan allows for domestic partners, not just spouses) it is $484 per month. When we were both unemployed we were required to buy insurance because we live in MA and it was just under $1000 for the two of us each month. Insurance costs are a killer.
cattledog
8-27-12, 10:06am
Iris lily is right. At my old job I would have been completely covered by my former employer's plan--with no cost to myself. I would have paid only for adding other people to the plan. So that seems to have changed.
You were fortunate at your last job. In my ~20-year career, I've always had to pay something from my paycheck. Even back in the early 00's, it cost me about $80-100/paycheck for single coverage.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 10:16am
I've always had to pay something from my paycheck. Even back in the early 00's, it cost me about $80-100/paycheck for single coverage.
Some companies have the cheapest HMO free for the employee only (sometimes this is a very limited provider network). Only I prefer PPOs. I've never worked at a company where the difference between the PPO and the HMO was so much as this one, so that the PPO is highly highly discouraged (almost as in, you'd have to be crazy to go with that option). I don't use much medical care, I just like the freedom of PPOs I guess (not asking "mother may I?" if you ocassionally want to see a specialist), but it's coming at too high a price lately.
Gardenarian
8-27-12, 1:38pm
Well, you guys have to tell me where you are getting your insurance!
Dh and I pay for our entire insurance - it's around $1700/month for me, dh, and dd. We went to an insurance broker and he said he really couldn't get us a better deal. This is with Kaiser, and we still have to pay $30 to see a doctor, and have no dental or vision.
Gardenarian, I'm with Kaiser too, and this is one of their cadillac plans, grandfathered in from having been with them so long. No deductible, but also no dental or vision. Maybe it's age-dependent? I'm 50.
My family has to pay directly for our own health insurance. ~$900 a month "covers" the three of us, 2 late-40s adults and one 15-year-old girl. It provides no dental, no vision care. The per-person deductible is $5000/year, and a $15,000/year family-wide deductible $400/person lab/x-ray yearly deductible. You get several "covered" "normal" doctor's visits a year, which have a huge co-pay. After that, all the visits come out of your pocket until you hit the deductible. Once the insurance starts paying for things, they allegedly pay 80%. The plan also pays for prescription drugs, with a byzantine set of co-pays and amount covered for each sort of drug.
For context.
awakenedsoul
8-27-12, 3:21pm
Can you get catastrophic insurance? I'm 47, and I pay Anthem Blue Cross $125.00 a month. I use the Zellies preventive system for dental care, and I practice a lot of self care. (Yoga, eye exercises, herbs, home physical therapy, etc...)I've almost always had to self insure. As a dancer, this has worked for me.
I hope you find an affordable solution.
We're married.
No, he can't stay on the old plan since it is based on total household income. I know, we thought about that, actually.
frugalone, is your "SO" a "DH"? I assume yes for you to even be considering adding him. Unless I misunderstand and people can add unmarried partners to their benefit plans (which I suppose people could in some employers per "domestic partnership" - not an expert on bennies, here).
I ask not to pass any judgment on your marital status but if you are unmarried wouldn't it be easier to break that household link (even mentally) and have him stand on his own situation for getting insurance? Perhaps I'm naive at this!
Regardless of married or unmarried, can he stay on the old plan since he remains unemployed?
Yikes!
Some of you are really paying through the nose, and it's highly unfair.
At least health care reform has done away with that preexisting condition stuff for group plans. Which is good.
I think a part-time position for SO will be the best option. Also, we have a flex care plan and my sis suggested I use that for the $1k deductible. I'd be paying for it no matter what, so it may as well be pre-tax.
Thanks for your input!
fidgiegirl
8-27-12, 8:19pm
WAIT! frugalone, unless you will FOR SURE spend $1000 in medical visits, DON'T take flex money - or at least not $1000! You'll never get it back if you don't end up needing to go to the doc, as flex money expires after the calendar year ends. Any tax savings will not be greater than flushing it down the drain if it's unused.
Now if you or SO have medical conditions (diabetes, etc.) that will guarantee you'll spend your deductible, go for it. For example, my friends have a kid who gets hearing aids and they max out his portion of the deductible every year, so it's worth it to them to do flex. But if you are relatively healthy and just go to the doc as needed, I would NOT take flex monies, or at least not $1000. Maybe others have more to say about it. I'm not sure if I've explained it very well.
I am a diabetic, actually. Luckily it is pretty much controlled by diet (I am not on the needle and hope never to be).
I used to have flex plans and always ended up spending $1000 per year, between meds and doctor's visits. I will surely look things over carefully before making that election since it is a "use it or lose it" proposition. I've noticed our insurance company is now offering some basic prescription drugs at $0, which maybe a real boon. As it is, we are on some of the cheaper meds out there. There may be some costly dental work in our future, though (UGH).
Wait a second: Can't you use the flexible spending account to pay for the health care premiums?
EDIT: Apparently not.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-12, 8:38pm
Work health care contributions should already be before tax. In other words they lower your taxable income, which of course doesn't save you as much as they cost, but it's a crumb. :)
It is looking more and more like we should get the HMO. I feel so defeated...
fidgiegirl
8-28-12, 5:48pm
It is looking more and more like we should get the HMO. I feel so defeated...
Why (not the defeated part - the HMO part)?
Because when we looked at the $1K deductible thing, it is not a very good plan. And neither is the $300 deductible plan. It's kind of a default.
HMOs are not all the same.
The worst health insurance I ever had was an HMO, about 18 years ago.
But in more recent years we had a differet HMO, in a different state, and it was excellent.
It's likely that you can try it for a year and then switch at annual enrollment time - so maybe it's worth trying the least costly option?
try2bfrugal
8-29-12, 11:14am
We spend over $1K a month for family PPO insurance under COBRA for the cheapest, least coverage policy we had to choose from. When COBRA ends our payments will be the same but we will have even less coverage and a huge out of pocket family maximum per year (10 - 20K), unless health care reform sticks.
rosarugosa
8-29-12, 8:13pm
I pay $120 medical and $22 dental bi-weekly for my employer-sponsored coverage. It's a good BC/BS PPO plan and a decent Delta Dental plan. Medical has a $400 per person deductible which doesn't apply to annual physical and related screenings. Annual out-of-pocket per person maximum of $1500 for medical, not counting prescriptions.
frugalone
8-29-12, 10:07pm
We do have the option of changing every year, which is good. I'm rather disappointed at the thought of paying for everything out of pocket. I mean everything. The cheapest plan really stinks.
We do have the option of changing every year, which is good. I'm rather disappointed at the thought of paying for everything out of pocket. I mean everything. The cheapest plan really stinks.
In truth, I'd love paying out-of-pocket for everything minor, to reduce billing/paperwork costs. If it actually worked that way.
But let me tell you a story.... I went into my physician about 2 months ago because I feared I was developing carpal tunnel. I dropped in, talked to the doctor for 10 minutes, she verified I indeed had issues, gave me some strategies to try to deal with it, and sent me on my way. So, this was the sort of visit that I end up paying out-of-pocket. Except....
... Except they reported the visit to my insurance carrier, as they always do, so my out-of-pocket expenses get tallied against my mega-deductible.
OK, so that cost my doctor's office staff time, and the carrier time to process the non-claim.
But it's worse. The diagnostic code for carpal tunnel triggered some Demons From The Plane Of Subrogration deep in the basement of the insurance company's offices. I received a week later a 14 page form full of fine print, because they wanted to see if this was the result of an accident, or a workman's comp claim possibly, or several other delightful possibilities, all of which would mean that *they* wouldn't have to end up paying for any eventual carpal tunnel release surgery.
I sent in the form - "no, I'm not employed, you know this, that's why I buy your expensive lame-o insurance with my own darned money - my hand just hurts, probably from cooking too much."
They then sent several forms to my doctor's office, and ended up spending my poor doctor's staff person's time dealing with this special hell.
All because I dropped in for a 10 minute chat.
Grrrrr......
frugalone
8-29-12, 10:31pm
Jeez, that stinks! If only it were that simple...What annoys me, too, is the way that insurance companies and mail order drug companies stick their noses into our business. We actually had issues with a doctor because the mail order prescription drug place called her office to "inform her" that we had certain prescriptions. Um...she wrote the 'script...did they honestly think she didn't know that?!
I would love to be free of the whole business but as we all know, it doesn't work that way in the U.S.A.
fidgiegirl
8-29-12, 10:32pm
frugalone, feel free to post the numbers, and if you want, we can help analyze. It's complicated and difficult, I think, to choose the best plan. Or if not, that's ok too!
frugalone
8-29-12, 10:49pm
Thanks, fidgie. I would do it but there are these long lists of what is covered and what isn't covered. It's just too complicated to post on the board.
I will say, however, that the cheapest plan requires paying anywhere from 30 to 100% of costs of such things as lab tests, therapy of most types, and even hospice care (talk about insult to injury) AFTER that deductible is met.
I really wish I didn't have to make this decision...at least so quickly. I could see where, if a person was fairly young and had no health issues, the cheap plan would work. But anyone who is middle aged and getting older is getting the shaft.
frugalone
8-29-12, 11:20pm
The costs are: $460 per month for the $300 deductible PPO, $439 for HMO and $250 for the $1K PPO. Plus we want to add in $80/month for dental (which we need).
It hurts me just to type these figures. I really cannot afford ANY of them.
IshbelRobertson
8-30-12, 10:17am
Drat... I typed a reply on my Ipad, and promptly lost it, so back to the trusty PC...!
What I've read here just makes me grateful for the UK's creaking, but still working, National Health Service! I have a couple of chronic conditions and because of that, no longer pay for any of my prescriptions, whether for the conditions on the 'exempted' list or any others. This saves me something like 200 GBP per month. Prescriptions here cost about 8 GBP per med.. so most doctors prescribe x2 for patients who may need long-term meds such as inhalers.
We DO pay for the NHS, through our national insurance contributions (taken at source of income). We do not pay for hospital visits, GP visits, referrals to specialists or ambulances (if required).
My husband's employer provides us with more than adequate private medicine, and whilst he and our family use it, I am still happy enough with the NHS. However, if there was a long waiting list for a procedure in the NHS hospital, then I'd probably use the private insurance.
I pay $1130 per month for my wife and I. And that is after taxes.
We DO pay for the NHS, through our national insurance contributions (taken at source of income). We do not pay for hospital visits, GP visits, referrals to specialists or ambulances (if required).
Am I correct in my understanding that you are not paying enough for the NHS?
I thought it was odd to see the NHS so prominently featured in the Olympic's closing ceremonies, although it began to make sense when I later heard about it's efforts to expand into other countries, hoping to make a profit outside the UK in order to further subsidize it's home operations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2012/aug/23/nhs-overseas-franchise-health-service
IshbelRobertson
8-30-12, 2:01pm
Like the rest of the world, we are an ageing population, with ever increasing calls on our health resources. Any way of making money to keep our system going by exporting expertise to places like the Gulf are fair.
We also have a huge problem with health tourists, wh abuse our services and then return home.
What does the NHS cost? Is it a percentage of one's income? What if someone isn't working, is on the dole? How does it work then?
I was very disappointed that Bill Clinton was unable to implement an NHS-like program in the U.S.
fidgiegirl
8-30-12, 6:00pm
Is there an out of pocket max? What I USED to use to help me decide . . . I don't remember exact numbers but for example between two plans there was, say, a $2500 max out of pocket, but $200/month premium. OR I could do a $5000 out of pocket max but no cost to me, saving $2400 in premiums. So really, if we had a big disaster, it would practically be a wash, get it? So I opt for the cheaper per-month plan. (I am fortunate to have pretty good plans available to me and am doubly grateful after this thread.)
But we went with a high deductible + VEBA (similar to HSA) last year. Never again. Especially after reading this thread.
The coinsurance (insured responsibility) is 30% of the allowable charge (as long as you're in network in the PPO), the coinsurance maximum is $1,500, an the lifetime max is unlimited. Oh, and the deductible is $1,000 PER PERSON, not per household.
Is this what you mean by out of pocket max?
rosarugosa
8-30-12, 7:52pm
Hi Frugalone: Is that coinsurance maximum the same for all three plans?
I don't know the HMO provisions, but it seems like the $1000 dedt plan is a much better deal than the $300 dedt plan if the only difference between the two is the dedt. amount. Here is my rationale:
460 x 12 = 5520, and maximum dedt potential is 600
250 x 12 = 3000, and maximum dedt potential is 2000
So you would be paying a guaranteed extra 2520 per year in premiums to avoid the potential of exposing yourself to 1400 in additional dedt payments. If one or both of you had a good year with minimal expenses, you might not even incur full payment of both deductibles, but the monthly premium is a guaranteed recurring monthly expense.
Oh dear, I should have been more clear. That is for the $1K PPO.
For the $300 PPO it is 0 coinsurance, no coinsurance maximu, and an unlimited lifetime max.
For the HMO, there is no deductible, no coinsurance, no coinsurance max and an unlimited lifetime max.
And the $300 PPO costs more than the HMO.
Hi Frugalone: Is that coinsurance maximum the same for all three plans?
I don't know the HMO provisions, but it seems like the $1000 dedt plan is a much better deal than the $300 dedt plan if the only difference between the two is the dedt. amount. Here is my rationale:
460 x 12 = 5520, and maximum dedt potential is 600
250 x 12 = 3000, and maximum dedt potential is 2000
So you would be paying a guaranteed extra 2520 per year in premiums to avoid the potential of exposing yourself to 1400 in additional dedt payments. If one or both of you had a good year with minimal expenses, you might not even incur full payment of both deductibles, but the monthly premium is a guaranteed recurring monthly expense.
fidgiegirl
8-30-12, 10:15pm
So the $300 plan never kicks in at 100%? Not even after a certain amount of total out of pocket expenditures?
I am realizing through this thread that I don't even know the difference (HMO/PPO), and do not know which kind I am on, either! Wild!
IshbelRobertson
8-31-12, 2:02am
I!m off on holiday in about an hour, so don't really have time to reply in detail, but if you google 'how the Uk national health service is funded'. I am sure there will be lots of links. It is not tied to your employment. Everyone is entitled to use the service (with a few exceptions).
It is not tied to your employment. Everyone is entitled to use the service (with a few exceptions).
Wouldn't that be nice!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_%28England%29
Yep. We need this very badly.
Every complex system has its faults or unintended consequences. But it sure seems to me that the UK National Health system is more humane and rational. Our friends have received excellent health care and wish it was even more comprehensive.
I bet the biggest reason for many (not all) US citizens to be against it is the documentation and recordkeeping to register everyone for National Health to secure the $$ everyone pays.
Every complex system has its faults or unintended consequences.
I bet the biggest reason for many (not all) US citizens to be against it is the documentation and recordkeeping to register everyone for National Health to secure the $$ everyone pays.
Not sure how it works elsewhere but in Ontario, at present, you get a health card by sending in a birth certificate and then renew every 5 years at a government services terminal or office just as you do your drivers licence. Certainly no more work on documentation and record-keeping than renewing a drivers licence and then only needed every 5 years so not sure, once the initial signup takes place, that it would be an issue for anyone.
DH and I have the old healthcards which we got so long ago that I cannot remember what was involved probably sometime in the 60's. There is talk about taking these out of circulation since we never need to pay to renew them.
It is the idea of being registered. Many here have no drivers license, birth certificate, or other documentation or file tax returns. To pay for health insurance and keep the records, usually requires some form of registration and then payment of insurance. It is a big excuse offered by those who do not want the government run system.
It is the idea of being registered. Many here have no drivers license, birth certificate, or other documentation or file tax returns. To pay for health insurance and keep the records, usually requires some form of registration and then payment of insurance. It is a big excuse offered by those who do not want the government run system.
Yet I find it amusing that many of the very same people who devote so much energy to avoiding this sort of government tracking are the same who are spending millions to pass laws to mandate photo IDs before one can perform the basic American right: voting. I guess it's okay as long as it's "them" and not "us" being tracked.
I'd love to see a public program that was fair to all, including the medical profession and medical manufacturers. Alas, I think this is all far too politicized now to see things clearly. I'm not sure anyone would ever agree on the definition of "fair."
Another data point: http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-09-02-PNI0902biz-insider-alltuckerPNIBrd_ST_U.htm
Story is about an Arizonan who, even though she had insurance, is billed for $23,000+ for her antivenom shots.
Cost of same shots in Mexico? $100.
I've never heard anybody object to having a Social Security number, so why not use that for registration for health services?
I've never heard anybody object to having a Social Security number, so why not use that for registration for health services?
Identity theft is one reason. If I'm not mistaken, Medicare card IDs are your social security number, and there's a movement to change that.
Lainey, not sure about that, but I do know at the last place I worked, people were using their SSN's as their company ID numbers. They put a stop to that and started assigning a different series of numbers for security reasons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.