The Grand Island Independent Forums

whodunnit…don’t let the trolls here intimidate you into leaving. This part of the forums is often good for thought filled discussion when people who actually have thoughts, are here. When the trolls above run out of legitimate dispute for a discussion they often resort to meaningless attacks on content instead of productive dialogue of substance.

I often lurk in the Husker forum but having no information or opinion of substance, I don't post there. I know from what I read over there you sometimes have to have a thick skin to participate. I suspect if you can survive over there you can enjoy discussion here...not everyone here with an opposite opinion is a troll.

Lisa,

Under the law, you cannot be denied treatment in an emergency room. In a fully insured plan, the managed care plan would be subject to the Managed Care Emergency Services Act. As for other procedures, those are subject to the policy. Additionally, if it is a fully insured plan, it is subject to various rules about access to services within a certain geographical area if it is an HMO or PPO. Chances are that you have an ERISA plan where emergency room services still can't be denied but the employer, who self funds the plan, can set up certain critera. If you need someone to blame, look at the federal government who created ERISA.

Universal care, in my opinion, would not solve this issue since the same people who create and administer ERISA and Medicare would still be in charge. Ask doctors and other providers how much they love the reimbursment levels from Medicare and you'll get some evil looks. Moreover, if you think consumer protections will be increased, think again. The Department of Labor is already overwhelmed with investigations for issues arising from ERISA and good luck getting much if any response that doesn't go through five or more layers of red tape at CMS.

The problem is that no one seems to want to take the time to check out and compare different policy's. I keep hearing people claiming how high individual plans are, but my personal experience tells me that isn't true.

My fiance and our daughter moved in with me recently and since she left her job and lost the amazing benefits they had, I started looking for coverage for her and our daughter. I looked into adding our daughter to my employers policy and getting her an individual policy to cover her until the end of the year when we would be married and able to add her to the company policy as well.

What I discovered was that there is VERY diverse options and costs. I talked to several insurance agents and companies, compared their coverages to their costs, and ended up finding a policy that covered both of them for less money then it would have cost for just my daughter on the company plan. Its a high deductable family plan with a HSA account. Yeah theres some out of pocket cost, but with the HSA account, we get a tax break too. I'm seriously thinking of switching myself at the end of the year.

Everybody thinks they should get something for nothing. That is pure fantasy. Your going to pay it one way or the other. You can pay higher premiums for insurance that covers everything, or you can pay smaller premiums and expect to pay more on the back end.

Oh, and for those wondering, the deductable I got is $3000 and yes, I checked, St Francis is covered under the PPO.

I see Marion is trying the scare tatics she accuses someone else of using, in her newest contribution to the Letters to the Editor, that is prevalent in proponents of forcing health insurance on everyone.Health care costs keep going up…well Marion how does having INSURANCE keep health CARE costs from going up? Are you proposing price and income controls on health care professionals and facilities?

People are going bankrupt because of health care cost…people are also going bankrupt because of the cost of Government, mismanaged debt, poor personal choices and circumstances beyond their control. People are going bankrupt for a number of reasons, not just because of health care cost. Every American should be able to choose PERIOD and not forced into making a choice.Marion, are you really that ignorant of how business works? Every business I know faces competition of some sort. The problem with your public option is that it creates unbalanced competition. You see, government owned business does not have to be concerned with that dirty word PROFIT. They are not concerned with capital (income) because they have a never ending supply, if they need or want new equipment and or facilities they simply raise tax to pay for it. If they have unexpected expenses they have the option to raise taxes, in other words they do not have the worries of income to pay for business expense.Maybe I am misreading capt’s post but from what I understand in what he posted there is plenty of competition in the INSURANCE business and plenty of affordable options without a public option…soooo why is it necessary? If anything a public option could increase the cost of INSURANCE because companies offering policies will have a priced fixed by Government they will not have to go below in order to compete.

The only way we can get quality and affordable health CARE is if Government FORCES everyone into buying INSURANCE? I fail to understand how INSURANCE of any kind is a guarantee of QUALITY or AFFORDABLE health CARE.

The problem with the "public plan" option, especially from the insurer perspective, is that nobody knows what it will look like, no one knows who will run it and no one knows what it will insure and no one knows if it will leverage providers/pharmecuticals to undercut current market. The other concern is there will be some anti-selection issues, meaning that the government plan will look better than the private plans and most will abandoned their private plans. Once that happens, the private market place withers on the vine and you are left with, guess what, a government run/sponsored health plan.

Great point brt…I believe that to be the BIG reason the “public option” is being pushed for. It may not affect us to a great extent now but by accepting Government intervention to that extent now we have sealed the fates of future generations to become Government dependents.

What is the point here? Is this offered as some sort of support for a government run health plan? If so...ummm...have you met our government? Jesus H. This girl's grandchildren would be dead by the time they made a decision.

I took a look at a variety of insurance plans and about fell off my chair.

I don't think "competition" is a word insurance providers are familiar with.

Personally, I don't care to get any insurance that requires me to pay approx. $6000 out of my own pocket (premiums plus deductible) before they begin to pay one red cent for anything. I guess my choice would be to continue to pay for my medical care out of my own pocket. I have found that method to work quite well over the last few decades, and no insurance company took $100,000 from me either.

That because of the current system, a girl died because insurance didn't want to pay for what the doctors deamed necessary to save the girls life.


It's an example that the current system is broken and it costs lives.


Yes I have. Why do you ask?


So....with an example of what happens in the CURRENT system......you choose to KEEP this system and the results over what you ASSUME and GUESS will happen if changes are made. You want to do nothing. You want the insurance companies to decide for you.

What's unfortunate, is that NO plan has been put forth that would put the government or bureaucrats in positions of making decisions for the doctors.....something that insurance companies do NOW so they can find ways to keep profiting (taking more in than they put out to help those they supposedly insure).

Having only heared the insurance-industry-backed speakers and their followers make the same assumptions as you (even though the fairy tale you base it on hasn't even been proposed), maybe you should consider there are other options out there that cost a LOT less per person, and have far better results than this nation gets. Read this and get back with me:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ht/?page=1

It's 2:30 in the morning...I have been going since about 5 am -- yesterday, so I am going to keep this short.

I know you don't know me, but please do not assume I am some unread rube from BFE. I am familiar with both the Dutch and the French systems. Since you don't know me, linking that article may have sounded like a good idea to you. I assume you did so to support your point. Bad move really.

While I may have made a sarcastic comment about the government improperly running healthcare, that is not my main objection to what Obama is proposing. In fact, I can use the same article you linked to support why I don't want anything resembling the French or Dutch systems. I quote:

Your Article

You should not make the assumption that because I disagree with you about healthcare that I am either right wing or republican. I consider myself neither. Two things that describe my political philosophy are 'free-market' and 'small-government'.

Couple the fact that these wonderful healthcare systems in Europe require heavy market regulation with the fact that these are two of the most heavily taxed nations and you begin to see why I am not agog over them.

Show me a national healthcare plan that does not raise my taxes nor require market control and then we can talk.

Lisa - maybe you ought to read THIS and get back with me:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 8165656854

If I had the money to self-insure, I would... But I was looking for something to protect me from major expenses. So for less then $200 a month, I get to cover both my fiance and our child and take advantage of the discounts the insurance companies can get. Plus, there is a tax benefit to the money that we put in the HSA account.

Yes, this means I'm paying out of pocket for the coverage as well as the deductable. But I know I'm only facing a $5400 hit at the most. That's less then $2400 for the coverage and a $3000 deductable. That doesn't seem to bad to me.

Free health care is a pipe dream... there is no such thing as something for nothing... As has been pointed out, France has a more or less good program, but it also pays SUBSTANTIONALLY more taxes then we do. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of taxes. Can you guarantee me that it won't cost me more under BO's plan? Because I sure don't trust him or the plan... especially when the first page on his plan already shows him lieing to people about being able to keep a private plan...

<Crickets>