The health insurance companies just love me!

Yeppers, they sure do!! Just look at my record:

I started my first real job in my career after college in Feb, 1981. My total payment per month for health insurance was about $85. My company matched that amount for a total of $170 per month for the 42 months I stayed with that company. Grand total paid in: $6,800.00

From 7/84 to 5/86, I was in graduate school. No health insurance.

From 6/86 to 8/96 (122 months), I was employed at a second company. I paid about $100 per month for my health insurance and my company paid about $150 per month for me. Total: $250 per month. $250 * 122 months = a grand total of $30,000 paid in during this time.

From 8/96 to 8/05 (108 months), I was employed at a third company. I paid about $150 per month and my company contributed about $250 per month for a total of $400 per month for my health insurance. $400 * 108 months = $43,200 paid in. WOW!

I was unemployed or under-employed from 8/05 until 3/06. No health insurance.

From 3/06 until today, I have been employed by a great small company. They pay ALL the premiums for their employee's health insurance, about $500 per month for each one(family coverage is paid by each employee). $500 per month * 21 months = $10,500.

If you add it all up, it comes to $90,500 for my health insurance over the last 26 years. :wow:

So, you ask, how much did you cost them? Well, I've never had an accident, never given birth during this time, and my most serious illness was a bout with mononucleosis. No time in the hospital at all. And I've actually averaged about 1 doctor visit per year. At an average of $60 per visit, 26 * $60 = $1560.

And that is why they just love, love, LOVE me! I am the person that they "cherry pick". I am the face of their profits. And I am the reason they will fight single-payer health care to the DEATH!!!

And do you want to know what I think about all this? I think that my money was WASTED!!!! If I and my companies had paid that money into a government-protected health fund (a la Soc. Sec.), it would have gone to help those of you who had no such resources. It would have paid for your diabetic child's insulin instead of some ass-kissing insurance co. branch manager's vacation home in Vail. It would have paid for your cancer therapy instead of some bloated CEO's second yacht. It would have paid for your Grannie's dental care when she needed dentures, instead of a new 40 story insurance building with marble tile in the executive washrooms.

I could go on and on, but you get my point.


ARE YOU LISTENING, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES???? Dennis Kuchinich got the point. How about the rest of you?
If you haven't gotten the point yet, let me spell it out to you:

INSURANCE IS NOT THE ANSWER, IT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Single-payer universal health care now!

Recommended :kick: #5

I can't even begin to calculate how many millions you would have on hand right now.

then she would've been crushed financially and may not have been able to receive treatment that would allow her to be alive today.

Insurance exists to provide coverage for expenses that we cannot reasonably be expected to cover. I can keep a savings account to cover the price of a new car is my existing one seizes up and stops working tomorrow, I can save and invest money to cover my living expenses for 9+ months in case I lose my job, but I cannot save up the million + dollars that might be needed to save my life if I were diagnosed with an aggressive cancer.

Tax-deferred medical funds only work if you can pay into them for a good long time before you need the money and if the cost of medical care doesn't rise faster than the rate of inflation.

No person is an island. If the people in my community don't get care for communicable diseases then I am exposed to those diseases. Overall, the quality of my life depends on the quality of life of members of my community. Putting my money in tax-deferred medical funds could cover my medical expenses so long as I don't get sick before there is enough money in the fund (and provided the stock market doesn't crash) -- but it does not take care of my community, and thus, does not take care of my long-term well being.

P.S. I am a health insurance companies dream, too and MY $$ is being wasted in the pockets of the filthy rich corporate elite.

P.P.S.S. I was talking to an employee at my local State Farm office - through which I purchase my car and home owners insurance - and the employee at the insurance office did NOT have health coverage. She and her husband were in dire financial straights because they had just had some major medical bills to cover. This is my new litmus test as to whether I will buy insurance from an agent -- does that agent cover the cost of their employees health insurance. Until we have national insurance, I will keep asking.

Yep, tax-defered medical accounts are just a laughable idea especially at my income.

There are many people like the OP who pay tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands into these 'plans' their whole lives but have quite literally nothing to show for it.

The corporations love that.

Get your retarded plan and good luck. Hopefully you won't need to be on the 3 meds that run you close to 2700 a week not including the medical monitoring that goes along with them. And by the way there a millions of people like me too.

I never said that you should do what I suggest. I never said that it is the "best" or "only" solution. You have chosen to see what is not there out of what... some sense of self-pity?

All I've said is that people are throwing money away. And as the OP said; it lines the pockets of the people who would cut you off in a second if they could. Or are you on medicaid and not paying into a corporate pool?

Nonetheless, I'm sure there are variations of insurance/secured loans/deferred funds that could cover many needs and, for some, become a source of financial security as the years wear on.

I'm sorry for your condition, but it in no way makes me a whiner.

"You have chosen to see what is not there out of what... some sense of self-pity?"

Am I suppose to know what the hell your talking about?

And while your at it what the hell does this mean?

"I'm sure there are variations of insurance/secured loans/deferred funds that could cover many needs and, for some, become a source of financial security as the years wear on."



"Or are you on medicaid and not paying into a corporate pool?"

What's it to you? What difference does it make to you?

than disgust at how corporate execs get rich off of people who shell out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they might have used for other purposes... including their own health care.

I'm just not sure what your problem is with my suggesting there should be some other way for people to avoid paying ridiculous premiums to line the pockets of corporate insurance companies. If you somehow think that your situation means no one deserves to save their money, that's very sad. I just don't understand your motivation to attack the idea of a tax-deferred medical fund. Perhaps that is a risk that some people would be willing to take. Perhaps there could even be secured guaranteed loans attached to those investments with rolling deposits in case of larger emergencies.

That's what this meant;
"I'm sure there are variations of insurance/secured loans/deferred funds that could cover many needs and, for some, become a source of financial security as the years wear on."

If you really can't understand that, then perhaps I'm wasting my time even trying to explain.

As it is, most companies will extricate themselves from any major claims as it is... so for some paying into an insurance program is either frought with difficulty or ultimately futile.

It seems to me that you either have an immensely benificent HMO/Insurer, or you have medicaid/medicare. That's why I asked.

Does that clear up my point, or do you still have questions?

It's so 'retarded' that I'm paying less into it per month than I would pay a HMO/Insurance company, and I supplement it 'in case of emergency' with an insurance plan with large deductibles (that the fund can cover) and low premiums. Eventually, the premiums will vanish and the deferred fund will turn into a particularly nice retirement if we avoid catastrophes. If we have a major event, we're covered one way or another.

Hell, if I could package this formula I'd put the insurance companies out of business.

That's pretty "retarded", isn't it?

try Progressive insurance. I switched a few years ago from a Red insur co to Blue Progressive.

at today's charges for some of the treatments..
Luckily no one in our family has had any expensive medical stuff happen lately, but in 1979 , due to an insurance error, I received the HOSPITAL-ONLY bill for our son.. $339,000 & change..that did not include, doctors, anesthesiologists, physical therapists , labs, xrays etc..That was JUST the hospital bill..

I shudder to think what that particular bill would be TODAY..

Insurance has morphed from a mutual cooperative vehicle, into a bloated ATM for the CEOs who run the things.

In the "olden days", insurance was cheap BECAUSE there would always be young and healthy people paying into the SAME fund from which the older/sicker folks would be "removing" funds.. Unless a freaky illness or an accident befell them, the younger folks did not "get their money's worth" for many years, BUT, when they DID get sick, they were covered..

That's the way insurance is SUPPOSED to work.. A large, varied pool of people , ALL paying relatively similar amounts, into a pool ... "some" money is paid to the people who administered the payments, but the BULK of the money paid in, was invested in "safe & steady" ways, and the "overhead" was kept LOW..the pool of money was PAID out in benefits..

Modern technology has made it possible for companies to cherry-pick their "customers", so cleverly, that they can often make tons of money amd pay out very little in ANY benefits.

If you are an insurance company that only insures healthy, young people, you are gonna make a TON of money..and if the older/sicker folks want to buy your insurance, you can then "justify" charging them a BUNCH of money because there are no "non-sick" people's money going into the pool, so you are putting the whole burden on the people who can often least afford it. If they cannot afford to buy your "product", you just eliminate the hassle of even having to talk to them..they are then relegated to "state" care, and are totally "off your books"..

THIS is the goal of the modern insurer..

look at the average annual return of the stock market for the last 75 years and you won't come close to millions.....maybe one million, but that's assuming there are NO withdrawals for medical expenses.

into insurance over many years that they don't always take advantage of.

Second; I'm very curious to know just how it is that one's mutual or other funds cannot grow at that rate of investment.

Are you a professional in that field?

that money would not last long for those with chronic health issues... and then they would wind up right where we are: living on disability insurance, which is below 125% of the "poverty level".


There are only two kinds of dialysis patients- the very rich and the very poor.

You'd pay in 150 bucks or whatever a month, depending on your income, and you'd also have thrown a ton of money into the system that you didn't get back.

There are plenty of people who have had tons of chronic problems your age, who have been insured through work. Their medical bills outstrip what they've paid into the system.

That's what single payer would do, and it's why you need EVERYONE paying into it for it to work. You NEED the healthy people paying in money even though they're not using that money, so that everyone particularly the poor and sick, get the help they need.

Yes the insurance companies are sucking out profits and wasting money on marketing and bloated beurocracy themselves, but you'd have the exact same issue with single payer as here, just a touch less, and everyone would be covered.

Never did I expect any "return on investment" other than medical bill coverage if I did get sick. Those dollars were paid in good faith toward health care. The insurance companies siphon off as much of those dollars as they can and use them for anything but paying for people's healthcare. The less real healthcare they pay for, the more of those dollars can be used for billion dollar buildings, CEO stock options and management perks. And I would not care if you, my friend, or your family got to receive all or part of that money, instead of the WASTE I have mentioned. I am not bitching about all the money I've paid, I'm bitching about HOW it has been spent. Sorry to rant, but this just irks me to no end!

Excellent deduction! I have thot the same. Don't mind paying for health coverage. Thank God if you don't need to use it, but you have it. The thing is, as you state, the $$ not used by those with few claims isn't benefitting others that are hurting.
P_P

they contribute via their taxes instead of being bankrupted by medical emergencies. I pay 44.00 dollars a month in a premium, the top amount levied per individual. I also pay through a federal GST tax which, for those on the lower income scale, is partially refunded based on one's tax return.

off monies that would normally go towards those that would get sick, is that they will pay for what they feel like paying for or they will up your premiums or flat out drop you. This is not protection that is viable for the people as it is really meant to protect insurance company profit margins with a minimal expense to them rather than grant the medical needs the consumer had paid for with or without employer help. Insurance as it stands now is a cancer on the medical industry and it does kill making it against the oaths doctors have taken.

Yes, you have the answer to the problem.

Insurance is not the answer, it is the problem! I agree with you.

I would also like to see monies paid into a fixed program like Social Security which works so well for so many. I know it would work beautifully for all of us.

Thanks

how much I have used. I used my own figures to illustrate the enormity of the situation. Multiply my $90,500 by millions of other healthy people who put money into the "healthcare industry", and expect only to be covered if they become sick or injured. My gawd, that's a fricken lot of money! And how much of it is really used to help my fellow Americans? Answer: AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE! GRRRRR.

instead of the bulk of the money going to the insurance companies it would have gone into your HSA account and you would have it invested and earning a tax deferred return.

At that time, and I do not know if things have changed since the late 80's/early 90's, I was told that the money would be pre-tax dollars, directly deducted from my gross pay, and deposited into a Health Savings Account to be used for any qualifying non-covered medical expense, such as co-pays, eyeglasses (not covered), money paid toward deductible amounts, etc. Any money left in the account at the end of the year would be FORFEITED. That's right, STOLEN. Such a deal!! Needless to say, I did not take advantage of that little perk, since I spent little money on health care anyway. Health Savings Accounts make sense if 1. you spend a lot of money out of pocket per year for non-covered items, and 2. if your salary is such that you need another tax benefit. In no way do they benefit low wage earners with little or no health insurance.

You are talking about FSA, that's part of the revenue code. Differnt thing.

You're exactly right! I guess I've been out of the loop too long. They used to call those things healthcare savings accounts, but now they are Flexible Spending Accounts, and ARE different than the Health Savings Accounts. This is what I was offered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_spending_account#Pre-funding

and I thought it was a rip-off, at least in my case. Thank you for providing the correct information here!

Could be that's why the OP is a Democrat.

accomplished while allowing those who want to opt out and take advantage of private insurance options to do so. There is nothing wrong with using tax dollars to provide for such, and there is nothing wrong with charging people by income and not forcing the healthy to give up money saving options. There can always be debates on how much to "get the rich," and who is and is not the "rich." But a plan to cover everyone doesn't have to "get the healthy."

So insurance funds offer a slightly better private deal to customers without health problems and a decent wage packet. As these people age, and start to move into less profitable actuarial territory their premiums go up and they chose to "opt back in" just as they begin to actually require something back.

Can you see a slight problem here? I can. It's business as usual for the insurance companies. They will still only insure people who contribute more than they take, and the public system is somehow left to fund itself with an income that is less than its expenses. Public health care suffers and ultimately collapses under its own weight.

I'm watching it happen right here in Australian hospitals. Custodial staff and maintenance budgets were one of the early places cut to free up revenue for the medical side. Neurosurgery Intensive Care in a very large Sydney Hospital had dust several millimeters thick on the windowsills. I saw it for myself, when visiting my mother after she had a meningioma the size of a kransky removed from her brain. Carpets and seating in waiting rooms were threadbare and so impregnated with dust that pounding them would raise a cloud. Spills would be half-heartedly mopped up or left for the cleaner to come around once per shift. Later in another ward, the family of the patient in the next bed were so horrified that their next visit they came armed with brand new mops, buckets and chemicals and they scrubbed that ward from top to bottom.


Supported from general revenue, public health care becomes a lovely little election "issue" for the right to beat the left with. All those privately insured people hear that they're being slugged twice and vote to smash the public system just a little bit further.

out of paying.

:)

Never stopped to think about it like that, but it certainly makes all the sense in the world.

Great point.

Hillary does NOT have a HealthCare Plan.
She has a Mandatory Private Health Insurance Plan.

BIG difference.
Use your vote wisely.

Without her the Supreme Court is Lost.
Without her the maggots will rule.

Without her the ability to have a leader dictating to us what our needs are and how smartly she will address them - that ability might go to Kucinich or someone - a man who doesn't want to lead as much as he wants to listen to most Americans and together help us return this country to greatness.

:rofl:

when they were pushing mandatory auto insurance in my state. Guess what,folks? It NEVER goes down, it only goes up!

Any idiot knows that for-profit medicine is the problem with the US health care delivery system. This even includes the idiots who are running for president and pretending that it's possible to fix this national disaster by making a few minor tweaks around the edges. For most politicians, with a few notable exceptions, those tweaks never include eliminating the for-profit medical insurance parasites from the equation.

The issue is that many (most?) of the corporations that fund presidential campaigns don't want single-payer because a) they're members of the for-profit medical system; b) they trade in the securities of those entities; c) they make their money by providing goods or services for the insurance industry; or d) they're ideologically opposed to what they consider "socialized medicine." I think the latter group is pretty small; corporations are largely amoral and their only ideology involves making more and more money.

The root cause that perpetuates the problem -- as it is with just about anything else in politics that makes absolutely no sense -- is private financing of campaigns. Consider the "big two" democratic candidates.

Through the first nine months of this year, Hillary has raised about $91 million for her campaign, mostly from corporations, lobbyists and business-oriented political action committees (PACs). Obama has raised about $80 million during the same period, again mostly from corporations, lobbyists and business-oriented PACs.

Both have accepted more money from the finance/insurance sector than from any other industry: Clinton has raked in $12.2 million, while Obama has taken $9.7 million.

That grouping is important because not only is the insurance industry heavily invested in Clinton and Obama, but so are the firms that invest heavily in the insurance industry.

So, following the money, I can infer that the top two dem candidates are so heavily invested in the idea of expanded coverage rather than in a universal-access, single-payer, parasite-free system because the insurance and financial industries are so heavily invested in them.

Public financing of campaigns would fix a multitude of problems, including this one. Under the present bribocracy, however, it's going to be some form of for-profit medicine until either the system implodes because nobody can afford it anymore or because overwhelming numbers of people finally get pissed off enough to force politicians to step up and do the right thing. And, with impeachment and funding the Iraq occupation as case studies, you see how well that's working out.


wp


Note: All numbers from opensecrets.org

This deserves a LTTE.
Very well done. Kudos.

If Kucinich stood at a podium at the next debate and painted the picture just as you have here, I bet many more people would see the light and start getting damned angry about the way the insurance companies are screwing the American people - both the healthy and the sick.

in the last 7 years. i either have to find an employer or use my wifes insurance. under anyone`s plan but dennis`s i could not afford to pay for insurance.

the democrats are not listening to the american people, they are listening to their contributors.

For profit health insurance companies strive for a loss ratio of about 60%. That means that they use actuarial tables to estimate their exposure and use every tactic possible to try to pay out only 60% of the money they take in. All of those middlemen have to make their boat payments, for crissakes. Through aggressive underwriting (digging up dirt about applicant's medical histories to deny coverage), aggressive investigations (when a claim is filed to check for false statements or pre-existing conditions) or limiting coverages, they try to limit how much actually goes out.
'

... to give to this thread.

:applause:

How much did your insurance company pay to treat your mono?

Was the average of $60 per doctor visit per year the portion your various insurance companies paid?

How much did "they" pay to treat the less serious ailments you didn't mention?

Your detailed account of contributions is impressive but that of your "cost" to the insurance companies not nearly so.

As I'm sure you know, one of the more important aspects of insurance is the concept of "shared risk." Regardless of whether your health history is the result of genetics, nutrition, exercise, smart health choices or luck, you (and your employers) paid lower premiums to be part of a pool of insured. A few "won" the bet that they'd cost the insurance companies more than they contributed; some like you "lost" that bet; some more-or-less broke even.

BTW, I realize that the health care system in the United States is seriously flawed and would support a single-payer system, but I also think your argument is somewhat incomplete.

quote: How much did your insurance company pay to treat your mono?

Mononucleosis is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus and there is no cure. When I started feeling bad, I went to my doctor, who drew a blood sample, sent it to the lab, and it came back positive for Epstein-Barr. This was the summer of 1990, so my doctor was charging about $50 for the office visit ($10 copay) and IRRC the lab test was about $75 (80% covered). So, $40 + $60 = $100.

quote: Was the average of $60 per doctor visit per year the portion your various insurance companies paid?

Yes. I went to the same GP from 1981 until 2005 when I moved to another city. His office fees ranged from a low of $45 in the early 80's to a high of $85 the last time I saw him in 2004. My copays ranged from a low of $10 to the present $20.

quote: How much did "they" pay to treat the less serious ailments you didn't mention?

What ailments? I usually get a cold about every two or three years. I got athlete's foot once. And another infection that I won't mention, but all these can be handled with over-the-counter remedies. Insurance does not cover those costs. The only real infection I got that had to be treated by a doctor was a bad staph infection, and that was cured with one office visit and a prescription for antibiotics. Those costs were included in my total.

quote: your health history is the result of genetics, nutrition, exercise, smart health choices or luck,

Yes, I've be very fortunate. Luck probably had the most to do with it, LOL. But consider this: I've been a vegetarian on and off for the last 35 years, and I enjoy being active. I even had a short career as a mountain bike racer, old ladies division, LOL. I think that those choices were wise ones.

quote: I realize that the health care system in the United States is seriously flawed

And THAT is the point of my post. Any system that values the fricken almightly dollar over the basic human RIGHT to be treated with compassion and dignity is at BEST "seriously flawed". And if that statement makes me a socialist, a communist, or whatever, well, I've been called worse.

insurance for almost as many years with a family, so my rates were higher by at least twice that level. Then in 1992, catastrophic illness hit and my wife dies after ten months. I ended up paying some $20,000 as our copay which was bad enough, but the total had I paid the full amount on our own without insurance would have wiped us out. I know your point and I agree had we been in a single payer system run by the Federal Government would provide across the board health care for all. Even with what I have had over the years, the for profit insurance companies make out far better than many people they cover and that is just wrong. The time is long past for the U.S. to provide universal health care.

My health insurance company...not so much.
That's the way insurance works.

My work history with "benefits" goes back to the 80's, and I couldn't possibly total up a figure since then. However, I don't need to be Einstein to accurately predict that you (and I) are the ones health insurance companies love and would love to keep loving. I paid a shit load.

When you think that some of these insurance companies in the 90's had to pay out for major catastrophes such as hurricanes (because they dealt with not just health insurance, but life and casualtly)... while they took a hit on the natural disasters, they STILL made hand over fist profits, offset due to their health industry.

We're all getting screwed pretty well keeping with the way things are and what is crazy is that the risk pool for the uninsured is grave. We end up paying indirectly because every ER visit for unmanaged, uncovered care ends up in the ER, the most expensive doctor's office that can't turn you away. To boot, many American's out of pocket expenses are increasing, while the high risk patients have poorer than ever clinical outcomes. Current "health" coverage doesn't maintain anyone's health.

Truth is, if we adjust taxes across the board in this country, we could shift our dollars into our own nation building and a place our grandchildren might be proud of. Why the hell do we only pay taxes on the first $97,000.00 a person makes anyway? Pay a fare share, cover everyone, as it's the right of all citizens to be healthy. Change the direction of industries in this country. Do it soon...

The invest that money you pay in premiums so I am reasonably certain that the money they made from you is much more than 90K.

They definitely don't like me and they very likely would refuse to sell it to me except under an employer's group plan. That pretty much eliminates any kind of long term self-employment or entrepreneurship for someone like me. I'm forced to be someone else's employee even if I had the ability to be successful on my own.

:sarcasm: Yay freedom! :sarcasm:

Those that argue that it is possible to *save money* by mandating everyone pay for-profit insurance companies to cover whatever outrageous sums for-profit hospitals and for-profit pharma companies demand are soft in the head.