"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown
hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like auto
insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more than a
$500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are ahead of
the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health insurance policy
will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200 deductible. Pay for
probably one office visit a month for the savings.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?



Uninsured motorists.... next time, read the thread.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:43:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Good GAWD! It's not just about "saving money." We're talking about
people's
health. Sometimes there's a correlation but not always. How would you like
to walk around with an ingrown toenail for a couple of months until it
festered to the point of amputation?

As I said above, I would take care of something that minor myself.
To start with it takes a total lack of grooming to get in ingrown
toenail in the first place. You learn about that in boot camp or any
decent first aid course..


And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like
auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more
than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are
ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your rates
a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or whatever. Lots
of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:45:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So now you're going to expect people to diagnose their own health
issues???
How about prostate cancer or breast cancer. All these require regular
screening

Yes people can recognize they have a problem themselves. You do breast
exams yourself don't you? Nobody ever said you shouldn't go to the
doctor when you have something that needs a better opinion. The only
question is who pays. If you were not spending $1000 a month for a
cadillac plan you could afford these occasional visits yourself.
If you pay the doctor directly it is a hell of a lot cheaper than
having the insurance company or the government brokering the
transaction.


Actually, recent studies have shown that breast exams don't detect cancer on
a regular basis. Do you do prostate exams yourself?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:34:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


As I said above, I would take care of something that minor myself.
To start with it takes a total lack of grooming to get in ingrown
toenail in the first place. You learn about that in boot camp or any
decent first aid course..


And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.

They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.

Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:48:42 -0400, wrote:

A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates
a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or whatever. Lots
of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's where you're going.

--
If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?


?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:19:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

And, for those who haven't in boot camp? I've never seen a mention of it
in
any first aid class I've taken. Do they provide scalpels and topical
anesthetic.
They have both at any drug store ... or feed store for that matter.
That is the last place I bought scalpel blades, a whole lot cheaper
than Walgreens. Same blades, in the same package.
Honestly, I think I'd rather have a doctor operate that you.


Then pay your money and stop complaining about how much it costs.

She should take her boots off at least once a week to inspect for
potential problems.

On 4/12/10 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:20:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?


?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--

The $1000 a month is what my current bill would be if I took the low
deductible PPO from IBM.
I chose the $3000 deductible plan that they pay for (their side $2000
a year for either according to them)

BTW that is also the cap for the "exchange" in the Obama bill as I
recall.



If I understand your post here, entrée to a low-deductible PPO runs
$14,000 a year, with IBM paying $2000 towards that and the retiree
paying $12,000?



--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 4/12/10 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:11:59 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/12/10 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:20:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you can't afford an office visit how will you ever afford a $1000 a
month premium?


?? Where are you getting these numbers? No, don't tell me.

--

The $1000 a month is what my current bill would be if I took the low
deductible PPO from IBM.
I chose the $3000 deductible plan that they pay for (their side $2000
a year for either according to them)

BTW that is also the cap for the "exchange" in the Obama bill as I
recall.



If I understand your post here, entrée to a low-deductible PPO runs
$14,000 a year, with IBM paying $2000 towards that and the retiree
paying $12,000?

The $12,000 is a fact (rounded up a bit since the real number is $960
a month).
The $2000 IBM contribution is just what we have reported to us from
the various channels.There is always a fairly active discussion over
on the ibmretiree BB at Yahoo but it is like rec boats. Politics has
taken over.


I'm not questioning the number...it's similar to what our local's health
plan costs the members. I'd have to check, but I think it runs $6.00 an
hour for each hour worked, plus, optionally, $2.00 an hour for a
"reserve" that covers the member and family when work is scarce, so the
total for that is about $1200 a month. There's no employer contribution.
The system accommodates a multi-employer system, but, of course, in hard
times, some members and families will lose coverage if they are out of
work for long periods.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym