temporary health insurance for a recent graduate
P
health issues. I have started looking for full time jobs, but until I get
coverage through my employer I want to have some sort of coverage for
catastrophic matters. I cannot come under my parent's coverage(as they are
self-employed so have to get their own). I can work for some place(WalMart,
McDonald) full time to get coverage, but I would rather spend all my time
searching for jobs than working at those places just for the sake of health
insurance. Working full time at one job will reduce the available time to
job searching.
I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but the more agents I
talk to the more confused I become as to which plan to choose. Some offer a
premium of 100/month and some as low as 30/month(which have a high
deductible of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage) if I
get a position(as told by the plan agent).
Is it better to get a premium of 100/month or the one with 30/month would
be fine? I generally visit the doctor once a year, don't have glasses.
I would appreciate any advice and I am presently in Florida, U.S.
Gordon
news:141kpse7ti1ck$.1yucnhfn...@40tude.net:
As a young man (or woman, you didn't say) in good health you are
probably not going to have any health problems that will need
critical care. I would almost argue that you don't need health
insurance.
What you need to do is figure out what you want your insurance
to cover. Comprehensive coverage (that pays for everything)
will come with a high price tag. On the other hand, if you
are willing to pay for some of the basics, you can get catastophic
coverage (major medical) that pays for only the realy big bad
expensive stuff.
Rod Speed
> I have just graduated, am 24 yrs old with a
> Body Mass Index of 20, no health issues.
What matters more is whether you smoke and do drugs or not.
> I have started looking for full time jobs, but until I get coverage
> through my employer I want to have some sort of coverage for
> catastrophic matters. I cannot come under my parent's coverage
> (as they are self-employed so have to get their own). I can work
> for some place(WalMart, McDonald) full time to get coverage, but
> I would rather spend all my time searching for jobs than working at
> those places just for the sake of health insurance. Working full time
> at one job will reduce the available time to job searching.
> I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but
> the more agents I talk to the more confused I become as
> to which plan to choose. Some offer a premium of 100/month
> and some as low as 30/month(which have a high deductible
> of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage)
Wrong at that age and you only want catestrophy coverage.
> if I get a position (as told by the plan agent).
Not clear what this is about.
> Is it better to get a premium of 100/month
> or the one with 30/month would be fine?
The cheap one would be fine if you just want catastrophe
cover and arent into high injury rate sports etc.
> I generally visit the doctor once a year,
Why do you even visit the doctor that often at that age ?
And it makes no sense to cover that with insurance anyway.
clams_casino
I fully agree. If you are a healthy young male, your likeliness of
having a significant medical problem is nearly negligible (other than
perhaps via traffic or job related accident, which should be covered
elsewhere)
If you feel uneasy about having no coverage, I'd suggest the low premium
/ high deductible coverage if that helps you to sleep better.
Goomba38
> I fully agree. If you are a healthy young male, your likeliness of
> having a significant medical problem is nearly negligible (other than
> perhaps via traffic or job related accident, which should be covered
> elsewhere)
>
> If you feel uneasy about having no coverage, I'd suggest the low premium
> / high deductible coverage if that helps you to sleep better.
What insurance other than medical would cover him if he had a major auto
accident and he was at fault? Everyone should cover themselves for such
major hospitalization if nothing else, IMO. It should also cover that
odd appendix and the like.
The low premium, high deductible is ideal for a man this age.
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
That covers the basics, Gordon. I have to add a few things, based on
the system the way it is now.
Number one, I would be only looking for catastrophic coverage with the
possibility of adding features later. As you point out, the chances
are that nothing (short of a traffic accident which would be covered
under auto insurance) will happen in the short term.
Number two, at that age especially, I would ONLY be looking at plans
that are valid in a number of states, meaning truly transportable.
BC/BS plans can be state specific, small insurers may only be licensed
in one or two states and have minimal reserves. With the possibility
of having to move because of job opportunities, it is important that
the insurance can follow. That leads into #3-
Number three, I would KEEP MY OWN insurance, no matter how much the
cost or trivial the payouts, EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER OFFERED INSURANCE.
Why? At age 24 a person can find a policy that is multi-state,
non-cancellable, and has a low rate. Once the first year of payments
have been made, there is generally no exclusion for "pre-existing"
conditions. Why is this important? Let's say the OP develops
diabetes or a heart condition is detected at age 26 and he or she is
only covered by the employer's insurance. Now lets say the OP quits,
gets fired, or the company goes out of business within five years (the
chances of one of these happening is well over 50% IME). The OP is
now shit outta luck. There is no COBRA if the company goes out of
business, and finding a new insurance company that will cover the
biggies like diabetes, heart ailments, and depression will be
***IMPOSSIBLE*** at that time except at greatly inflated rates.
Insurers only want to insure well people.
The whole concept of employer supplied insurance is totally flawed
from the point of view of a worker. First, the savings vs having your
own policy, if in good health, are minimal. Employers know that
offering insurance allows them to offer less as a salary and, if their
hiring choice of employees is right, keep their contributory costs at
a minimum. Secondly, and because of this, use of the employer's
policy raises flags in most companies and in some small companies can
lead to termination (often for some trumped-up other reason). Third,
the insurance becomes a club that the employer can hold over the head
of the employee to keep them from asking for a raise or even quitting.
Fourth, it allows at least the gatekeeper (usually human resources) at
the company to pry into personal medical history. Fifth, companies
can and do eliminate insurance plans as dictated by their own
financial needs. Sixth, a single sick worker in a small company can
create a rate hike for all workers. Seventh, fighting with the
insurance company for fair payments of expenses becomes tantamount to
fighting with the employer.
What the OP needs to find is an insurer that is solid and has been
around for a while, has a policy that covers a large group and is
NON_CANCELLABLE, and is transportable across state lines. The OP
should then plan on keeping that policy until retirement.
Mark my words, there are thousands and thousands of people who have
depended on insurance from employers, found themselves out on the
street, had financial disaster, and lost a lifetime of savings, all
because they couldn't afford healthcare.
The final caveat is that the OP must be brutally honest in the
original application and list every doctor visited, every prescription
filled, and make absolutely sure that there are no problems not listed
on the application. It is a lot more profitable for an insurance
company to accept an application that lies, and then only do the due
diligence once a disease or event has occured, denying coverage, and
cancelling the policy at the worst possible time. It can even pay the
applicant to get an independent physical from a doctor (including
x-rays and full blood work), certifying that there are no apparent
problems as of the date of application.
Shawn Hirn
Goomba38 <Goom...@comcast.net> wrote:
Or an accident like spraining an ankle while playing tennis or some
other active sport?
Goomba38
>> What insurance other than medical would cover him if he had a major auto
>> accident and he was at fault? Everyone should cover themselves for such
>> major hospitalization if nothing else, IMO. It should also cover that
>> odd appendix and the like.
>> The low premium, high deductible is ideal for a man this age.
>
> Or an accident like spraining an ankle while playing tennis or some
> other active sport?
I wouldn't worry so much about those. I don't think a couple of xrays
and a 'script for pain meds for that sprained ankle will break the bank.
A major car accident can.
Logan Shaw
> I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but the more agents I
> talk to the more confused I become as to which plan to choose. Some offer a
> premium of 100/month and some as low as 30/month(which have a high
> deductible of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage) if I
> get a position(as told by the plan agent).
First of all, the insurance industry doesn't go to very much trouble
to make anything understandable. You pretty much have to learn what
the heck is going on by personal experience or by a lot of reading or
asking questions.
Nevertheless, there are some basic questions you can ask that help
you understand policies and compare them to each other. These are,
to me, the essential differences between insurance policies. The
questions are:
1. Does this insurance let you choose your own doctor?
2. Does the insurance pay for office visits and major
problems (like hospital stays or surgery), or does
it just pay for major problems?
3. Are there specific issues that the insurance excludes?
4. How much does it cost?
5. What is the lifetime maximum amount they'll ever pay out?
6. What is the deductible?
7. What is annual out-of-pocket maximum?
8. What is the co-pay percentage?
9. What kind of paperwork is necessary, what is the claims
process, and does the doctor submit the paperwork for
you or do you have to do it all yourself and then get
reimbursed by submitting a claim on your own?
10. What kinds of prescription drugs do they cover?
11. What is the rating of the company, i.e. what are the
chances it will have financial problems?
Regarding #1, there are generally three types of plans. With
a "traditional plan", you can choose any doctor, and the
insurance company pays for whatever services you choose.
With a PPO ("preferred provider") plan, the insurance company
negotiates a contract with a bunch of doctors, and you can go
see a doctor they've negotiated contracts (and discounts!)
with, or you can see your own choice of doctor but they cover
only a bit of that. And finally, with an HMO, the insurance
company runs everything and you get no choice at all about
what doctor you get.
About #3, some insurance companies will include or exclude
certain things from coverage. One area where this varies a
lot is mental health care. Let's say you suffer from major
depression or bipolar disorder or something. Some insurance
companies will let you go see the psychologist/psychiatrist
all you want, and some will only let you see them 5 times a
year or some crazy low amount. Other areas besides mental
health have the same sorts of variations too.
Regarding #8, basically the idea with a co-pay is that until
you reach your out-of-pocket maximum for a year, they'll pay
75% and you pay 25% or something.
Anyway, for a young person who is in good health, generally
speaking you just want catastrophic coverage. There are
two basic purposes to health insurance: one is to help defray
the costs of things you have to do regularly (like medication
you might be on, or a condition that requires you to see the
doctor every few months), and the other is to make sure that
if something major happens (like if you get cancer), they
will cover the $500,000 or whatever it may take to treat it.
Generally, as a young person with no known health problems or
risk factors for them, you benefit most by covering the major
problems and not worrying at all about the minor issues and
what kinds of doctor's visits are covered.
That means that insurance with a $5000 annual deductible and
a $2,000,000 lifetime maximum is probably preferable to
insurance with a $1000 annual deductible and a $1,000,000
lifetime maximum, if they're both the same price. You
generally don't care if doctor's visits are covered, you
don't care how much your co-pay on prescription drugs is,
you probably don't care about whether several random
miscellaneous things are excluded. Basically, all you care
about is the question, "If I get cancer and it takes a million
dollars to treat it, am I covered?". You can get a policy
that allows you to answer "yes", and you can probably do it
for a relatively low price.
- Logan
Shawn Hirn
Goomba38 <Goom...@comcast.net> wrote:
I thought auto accidents are covered by auto insurance for treatment of
any injuries. In NJ where I live, you can get a break on the price of an
auto policy if you can prove that your medical insurance will cover
injuries sustained in an auto accident. When I called my medical
insurance prover to ask about this, they gave me a big run around about
just answering my questions and when I called my auto insurance
provider, they said to call my medical insurance provider. Sigh.
Napoleon
>The whole concept of employer supplied insurance is totally flawed
>from the point of view of a worker.
The whole concept of health insurance at all is totally flawed. There
must be universal health COVERAGE not INSURANCE in this country. If
socialized medicine is good enough for the Republicrats, Shrub and his
ilk, then it is good enough for all Americans.
>Mark my words, there are thousands and thousands of people who have
>depended on insurance from employers, found themselves out on the
>street, had financial disaster, and lost a lifetime of savings, all
>because they couldn't afford healthcare.
But that is the American way. See, you must have a job to have health
"care" and then when you get sick and have to stop working, you lose
your job and then your health "care." God, it makes so much sense to
me! Why would anyone want to change the current setup? Sounds like a
win-win situation for everyone involved.
Health insurance has absolutely nothing to do with health care. Health
insurance is the most UNFRUGAL way to manage one's health. Better to
go without insurance than waste your money on that scam. An insurance
company WILL ALWAYS find a way to not pay out on ANY health claim.
That's the job of insurance.
You want good health coverage? The only way to get it is UNIVERSAL
COVERAGE provided by the goverment. That's it.
-N
Melissa
"P" <te...@temp.com> wrote in message
news:141kpse7ti1ck$.1yucnhfn9jrf.dlg@40tude.net...
Our oldest son got Catastrophic coverage a few years ago. He was working
summers at a Camp, and the chance of him being hurt were higher than normal.
He bought his through State Farm. I think he bought it for 4 months at a
time, and it cost about $60 a month. It didn't cover doctor visits or
smaller expenses, but had he been hospitalized, it would have kicked in if
the bills ran over $1500 or so. Thankfully, he never needed it, but it was
nice to know he was covered if he had gotten hurt. One trip to the
emergency room can easily run well over $2k.
Melissa
Chloe
news:478b6590$0$31768$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Best succinct advice I've seen on this thread. Not that the OP is likely to
face something like I have in my mid-50s unless he has an accident, but my
hip replacement last year cost upwards of $30K. And that was with the bills
"adjusted" by the insurance carrier.
The Real Bev
OTOH, there's always the odd ACL problem. High deductible is good.
--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
is not thus handicapped."
-- Elbert Hubbard, American author
Goomba38
> I thought auto accidents are covered by auto insurance for treatment of
> any injuries. In NJ where I live, you can get a break on the price of an
> auto policy if you can prove that your medical insurance will cover
> injuries sustained in an auto accident. When I called my medical
> insurance prover to ask about this, they gave me a big run around about
> just answering my questions and when I called my auto insurance
> provider, they said to call my medical insurance provider. Sigh.
I believe if you are at fault, your own insurance will pay for the
medical needs of the other party, but not necessarily your own?
Goomba38
> Health insurance has absolutely nothing to do with health care. Health
> insurance is the most UNFRUGAL way to manage one's health. Better to
> go without insurance than waste your money on that scam. An insurance
> company WILL ALWAYS find a way to not pay out on ANY health claim.
> That's the job of insurance.
>
> You want good health coverage? The only way to get it is UNIVERSAL
> COVERAGE provided by the goverment. That's it.
>
> -N
And how will you then explain to Granny that her universal coverage
won't provide her with dialysis because she's too old after 60 or so
years (as happens in countries with nationalized medicine) and what
about those long waits for joint replacements? How do we handle that?
What incentive does nationalized medicine give to doctors to excell
beyond the bare minimum? Will we pay for that gender reassignment
surgery because the man (who wants to be a woman) says they must have it
for pyschological reasons? Do we want to pay for self destructive
behaviors and how far should that go? Do I want to be assigned a doctor
who then acts as gatekeeper to my access to specialists? That's what
happens with universal coverage, of course.
It is very easy to spout off the universal coverage is the answer, yet I
don't see many suggestions or ideas on how to make it work.
Rod Speed
> Napoleon wrote:
>
>> Health insurance has absolutely nothing to do with health care.
>> Health insurance is the most UNFRUGAL way to manage one's health.
>> Better to go without insurance than waste your money on that scam.
>> An insurance company WILL ALWAYS find a way to not pay out on ANY
>> health claim. That's the job of insurance.
>>
>> You want good health coverage? The only way to get it is UNIVERSAL
>> COVERAGE provided by the goverment. That's it.
>>
>> -N
>
> And how will you then explain to Granny that her universal coverage
> won't provide her with dialysis because she's too old after 60 or so
> years (as happens in countries with nationalized medicine)
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> and what about those long waits for joint replacements?
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. My next door neighbour just
got one and the only wait was him having the balls to get it done.
> How do we handle that?
Nothing to 'handle'
> What incentive does nationalized medicine give to doctors to excell beyond the bare minimum?
The same incentive that doctors currently get with the current
nationalised medicine seen in the US, for politicians most obviously.
> Will we pay for that gender reassignment surgery because the man (who wants to be a woman) says they must have it for
> pyschological reasons?
Even the worst of the european systems dont
pay for stuff like that, or cosmetic stuff either.
> Do we want to pay for self destructive behaviors
You currently do, and no nationalized system has changed that.
> and how far should that go?
You get treatment for even attempted suicide that is stuffed up.
Just like you do with the current system.
> Do I want to be assigned a doctor who then acts as gatekeeper to my access to specialists?
> That's what happens with universal coverage, of course.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> It is very easy to spout off the universal coverage is the answer,
> yet I don't see many suggestions or ideas on how to make it work.
Dont see any suggestions or ideas from you on how to make the insurance system work either.
areyoug...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>It is very easy to spout off the universal coverage is the answer, yet I
>don't see many suggestions or ideas on how to make it work.
Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
it's a scam. That's a fact.
-N
P
>>
>
> As a young man (or woman, you didn't say) in good health you are
> probably not going to have any health problems that will need
> critical care. I would almost argue that you don't need health
> insurance.
>
> What you need to do is figure out what you want your insurance
> to cover. Comprehensive coverage (that pays for everything)
> will come with a high price tag. On the other hand, if you
> are willing to pay for some of the basics, you can get catastophic
> coverage (major medical) that pays for only the realy big bad
> expensive stuff.
Thanks for the suggestions.
The problem is there are some like http://tinyurl.com/323u9k
whose premium is 18/per month but the agent mentioned if I get these, and
get some ailment, then try to get under my employer's insurance(when I get
a job) my ailment will not be covered by employer's insurance as this
coverage is not credible coverage as it is temp coverage. So, it will be a
pre-existing condition(in case i get an ailment). So, the agent suggested
me to get something like http://tinyurl.com/2skdkg
which has a premium of 109 per month, but which is considered credible
coverage.
P
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:22:45 -0500, hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> That covers the basics, Gordon. I have to add a few things, based on
> the system the way it is now.
>
> Number one, I would be only looking for catastrophic coverage with the
> possibility of adding features later. As you point out, the chances
> are that nothing (short of a traffic accident which would be covered
> under auto insurance) will happen in the short term.
Yes, but there are some caveats in those as I mentioned above.
> Number two, at that age especially, I would ONLY be looking at plans
> that are valid in a number of states, meaning truly transportable.
> BC/BS plans can be state specific, small insurers may only be licensed
> in one or two states and have minimal reserves.
Which plans are truly transportable and affordable? Plans which allow you
flexibility have more premium or higher deductibles.
>With the possibility
> of having to move because of job opportunities, it is important that
> the insurance can follow. That leads into #3-
>
> Number three, I would KEEP MY OWN insurance, no matter how much the
> cost or trivial the payouts, EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER OFFERED INSURANCE.
> Why? At age 24 a person can find a policy that is multi-state,
> non-cancellable, and has a low rate. Once the first year of payments
> have been made, there is generally no exclusion for "pre-existing"
> conditions. Why is this important? Let's say the OP develops
> diabetes or a heart condition is detected at age 26 and he or she is
> only covered by the employer's insurance. Now lets say the OP quits,
> gets fired, or the company goes out of business within five years (the
> chances of one of these happening is well over 50% IME). The OP is
> now shit outta luck. There is no COBRA if the company goes out of
> business, and finding a new insurance company that will cover the
> biggies like diabetes, heart ailments, and depression will be
> ***IMPOSSIBLE*** at that time except at greatly inflated rates.
> Insurers only want to insure well people.
I agree, but it is expensive also if you later on decide to get married and
have children. Most people depend on their employer for health insurance.
> The whole concept of employer supplied insurance is totally flawed
> from the point of view of a worker. First, the savings vs having your
> own policy, if in good health, are minimal. Employers know that
> offering insurance allows them to offer less as a salary and, if their
> hiring choice of employees is right, keep their contributory costs at
> a minimum. Secondly, and because of this, use of the employer's
> policy raises flags in most companies and in some small companies can
> lead to termination (often for some trumped-up other reason). Third,
> the insurance becomes a club that the employer can hold over the head
> of the employee to keep them from asking for a raise or even quitting.
> Fourth, it allows at least the gatekeeper (usually human resources) at
> the company to pry into personal medical history. Fifth, companies
> can and do eliminate insurance plans as dictated by their own
> financial needs.
Agreed, but mergers between insurance companies can also lead to this.
>Sixth, a single sick worker in a small company can
> create a rate hike for all workers. Seventh, fighting with the
> insurance company for fair payments of expenses becomes tantamount to
> fighting with the employer.
> What the OP needs to find is an insurer that is solid and has been
> around for a while, has a policy that covers a large group and is
> NON_CANCELLABLE, and is transportable across state lines. The OP
> should then plan on keeping that policy until retirement.
Would you recommend any?
> Mark my words, there are thousands and thousands of people who have
> depended on insurance from employers, found themselves out on the
> street, had financial disaster, and lost a lifetime of savings, all
> because they couldn't afford healthcare.
>
> The final caveat is that the OP must be brutally honest in the
> original application and list every doctor visited, every prescription
> filled, and make absolutely sure that there are no problems not listed
> on the application. It is a lot more profitable for an insurance
> company to accept an application that lies, and then only do the due
> diligence once a disease or event has occured, denying coverage, and
> cancelling the policy at the worst possible time. It can even pay the
> applicant to get an independent physical from a doctor (including
> x-rays and full blood work), certifying that there are no apparent
> problems as of the date of application.
Amen, your words are very correct. I will remember that.
Thanks again.
P
>
> What matters more is whether you smoke and do drugs or not.
No, neither do I play sports which are more chances of injury. Don't have a
car and neither do I drink also.
>> I have started looking for full time jobs, but until I get coverage
>> through my employer I want to have some sort of coverage for
>> catastrophic matters. I cannot come under my parent's coverage
>> (as they are self-employed so have to get their own). I can work
>> for some place(WalMart, McDonald) full time to get coverage, but
>> I would rather spend all my time searching for jobs than working at
>> those places just for the sake of health insurance. Working full time
>> at one job will reduce the available time to job searching.
>
>> I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but
>> the more agents I talk to the more confused I become as
>> to which plan to choose. Some offer a premium of 100/month
>> and some as low as 30/month(which have a high deductible
>> of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage)
>
> Wrong at that age and you only want catestrophy coverage.
>
> Not clear what this is about.
It is about some plans like
http://consumerdirect.bcbsfl.com/wps/portal/cwsales/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd473DAHJmMU7xYc46kcii1jEewbDRXw98nNT9YOAMpHmQLVGFmb6UTmp6YnJlfrB-t76AfoFuaER5d6OjgBpqrdy/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN19CXzI4Ni8zOS9zYS5zcGZfQWN0aW9uTGlzdGVuZXI!?PC_7_B_286_spf_strutsAction=!2fviewPlanDetailsAction.do!3fdispatch%3dsuccess!26planId%3d25!26toScreen%3dQuoteResults#7_B_286
where the charge is 18/month but they are not considered credible.
The agent mentioned if I get these, and
get some ailment, then try to get under my employer's insurance(when I get
a job) my ailment will not be covered by employer's insurance as this
coverage is not credible coverage as it is temp coverage. So, it will be a
pre-existing condition(in case i get an ailment). So, the agent suggested
me to get something like
which has a premium of 109 per month, but which is considered credible
coverage.
Sorry, for the long links. Tried making it shorter but did not work. Hope
the long ones do.
>
>> Is it better to get a premium of 100/month
>> or the one with 30/month would be fine?
>
> The cheap one would be fine if you just want catastrophe
> cover and arent into high injury rate sports etc.
>
>> I generally visit the doctor once a year,
>
> Why do you even visit the doctor that often at that age ?
I did not realize visiting the doctor typically once a year due to high
temperature or cold can be considered very often. Well, I could have stayed
at home, rested and probably could have recovered in some 3-4 days but
going to the doctor helped me get better soon and not miss classes.
> And it makes no sense to cover that with insurance anyway.
Yes, obviously.
Thanks for your reply.
P
> Nevertheless, there are some basic questions you can ask that help
> you understand policies and compare them to each other. These are,
> to me, the essential differences between insurance policies.
Thanks for your useful suggestions. I was mainly puzzled by some plans
which have a premium of 18/month like
http://consumerdirect.bcbsfl.com/wps/portal/cwsales/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd473DAHJmMU7xYc46kcii1jEewbDRXw98nNT9YOAMpHmQLVGFmb6UTmp6YnJlfrB-t76AfoFuaER5d6OjgBpqrdy/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN19CXzI4Ni8zOS9zYS5zcGZfQWN0aW9uTGlzdGVuZXI!?PC_7_B_286_spf_strutsAction=!2fviewPlanDetailsAction.do!3fdispatch%3dsuccess!26planId%3d25!26toScreen%3dQuoteResults#7_B_286
whose features are
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BlueOptions
Limited Benefits - Hospital and Surgical
Plan 72
With BlueOptions Hospital and Surgical insurance policy, you get
“catastrophic” coverage for major illnesses and emergencies requiring
hospitalization or surgery. It’s perfect for healthy individuals who don’t
visit the doctor often or take many prescription drugs.
The Hospital and Surgical plan is a lower-priced option that offers
peace-of-mind, covering you and your family if you need hospitalization or
have a serious illness. This plan provides benefits for covered inpatient
and outpatient hospital charges and physician services for covered hospital
admissions, plus it includes:
Well child care physician visits
Emergency room trips, even if you are not admitted to the hospital or if no
surgical services are performed
Diagnostic services related to surgery (X-rays, ultrasounds and CAT scans)
Adult preventive screenings (mammogram, osteoporosis)
Pharmacy program with discounts on generic prescription drugs
Child only coverage for children ages one to 17
And, as with all BlueOptions health plans, you can choose an in-network or
out-of-network provider or facility, with maximum savings if you stay
within the network. The choice is yours.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
and others like
http://consumerdirect.bcbsfl.com/wps/portal/cwsales/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd473DAHJmMU7xYc46kcii1jEewbDRXw98nNT9YOAMpHmQLVGFmb6UTmp6YnJlfrB-t76AfoFuaER5d6OjgBpqrdy/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN19CXzI4Ni85NC9zYS5zcGZfQWN0aW9uTGlzdGVuZXI!?PC_7_B_286_spf_strutsAction=!2fviewPlanDetailsAction.do!3fdispatch%3dsuccess!26planId%3d27!26toScreen%3dQuoteResults#7_B_286
whose features are
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BlueOptions
Predictable Cost
Plan 3
Customers choose BlueOptions insurance policies for their maximum
flexibility, significant cost savings and access to excellent physicians
and hospitals. BlueOptions Conventional Plans offer comprehensive medical
coverage – including preventative care and pharmacy programs – at an
affordable cost. There are no referrals required, and you can maximize your
savings by using our extensive NetworkBlue provider network.
BlueOptions Conventional Plans include plans with low, predictable
copayments for covered office visits and low calendar year deductibles and
coinsurance. The choice is yours. Other features include:
A variety of deductibles to choose from
Low copayments for network physician office visits
Fixed copayments on other covered services from select providers
Coverage for well care and preventative care with no deductibles
Coverage for outpatient therapies (speech, physical, occupational, cardiac,
massage and spinal therapies included)
Comprehensive pharmacy program for generic or brand name prescription drugs
Plus, you can add maternity benefits and child only coverage is available
for children ages one to 17.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Choosing the 18/month plan endangers me in case I develop something within
the time my employer insurance comes in, but is quite affordable. The next
is expensive but considered credible coverage.
What would be a good choice in this case?
Thanks
P
> Our oldest son got Catastrophic coverage a few years ago. He was working
> summers at a Camp, and the chance of him being hurt were higher than normal.
> He bought his through State Farm. I think he bought it for 4 months at a
> time, and it cost about $60 a month. It didn't cover doctor visits or
> smaller expenses, but had he been hospitalized, it would have kicked in if
> the bills ran over $1500 or so. Thankfully, he never needed it, but it was
> nice to know he was covered if he had gotten hurt. One trip to the
> emergency room can easily run well over $2k.
>
> Melissa
Thanks. I will look into State Farm.
Rod Speed
Pointless bothering with a doctor for a cold unless you
need the doctor's visit to get the time off work etc.
> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
Goomba38
I think you meant it is a "business" rather than "scam"
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
>
>> Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
>> suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
>> it's a scam. That's a fact.
>
Well, I wouldn't call it a business. I would call it a gamble, and some
gambles are closer to a scam than a business.
As much as I detest the notion of government-sponsored health care, I
have to concede that if health care was treated as a not-for-profit
business, the cost of health care would certainly plummet.
--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.
Too_Many_Tools
I agree.
You are a fool not to be covered for catastophic...it can happen to
ANYONE.
I have know a number of young people whose financial futures were
destroyed by a major medical incident.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:09:46 GMT, Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn good posting...it should be given to every employee.
TMT
clams_casino
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
>>
>>> Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
>>> suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
>>> it's a scam. That's a fact.
>>
>>
>> I think you meant it is a "business" rather than "scam"
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it a business. I would call it a gamble, and
> some gambles are closer to a scam than a business.
>
> As much as I detest the notion of government-sponsored health care, I
> have to concede that if health care was treated as a not-for-profit
> business, the cost of health care would certainly plummet.
>
Some gamble - you are betting the insurance company you will have
significant heath care problems / bills. The insurance company is
betting you will remain healthy / not require significant medical
assistance.
h
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ba8fc16-752e-4dfc...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 4:37 pm, Goomba38 <Goomb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
> > I fully agree. If you are a healthy young male, your likeliness of
> > having a significant medical problem is nearly negligible (other than
> > perhaps via traffic or job related accident, which should be covered
> > elsewhere)
>
> > If you feel uneasy about having no coverage, I'd suggest the low premium
> > / high deductible coverage if that helps you to sleep better.
>
> What insurance other than medical would cover him if he had a major auto
> accident and he was at fault? Everyone should cover themselves for such
> major hospitalization if nothing else, IMO. It should also cover that
> odd appendix and the like.
> The low premium, high deductible is ideal for a man this age.
>You are a fool not to be covered for catastophic...it can happen to
>ANYONE.
But...if you're in the state of NY, you CAN'T get catastophic-only coverage,
just full, HMO-style insurance. The state says they're trying to "protect"
us, but if you're self-employed in NY you just can't get affordable/useful
insurance. The best quote I could find was $5,000 a year with a $3,000
deductible, and then, only after you're out of pocket $8,000 each year do
they begin to pay. They only pay 40% and they NEVER pay ANYTHING for office
visits, yet they say "you can see your own doctor". If I have to pay the
whole bill, then of COURSE I can see any doctor I want. What's the point of
insurance like that? I've only spent $1,500 on medical care since 1999 (10
stitches in the ER), and I've been putting the money I didn't have to spend
on premiums into my Roth IRA. Insurance is a total scam. That said, I'm
never sick, take no medications, and I don't believe in "check-ups".
m...@privacy.net
>You are a fool not to be covered for catastophic...it can happen to
>ANYONE.
Agree
But supposing you are able and willing to self insure
up to say 5-10k...... but can NOT get catastrophic
coverage beyond that due to insurance companies "cherry
picking" client..... i.e. getting only young ones with
no previous health problem?
Rod Speed
That is catastrophe only insurance.
> They only pay 40% and they NEVER pay ANYTHING for office visits, yet they say "you can see your own doctor". If I have
> to pay the whole bill, then of COURSE I can see any doctor I want. What's the point of insurance like that?
That it only covers catastophes, not routine visits to the doctor.
> I've only spent $1,500 on medical care since 1999 (10 stitches in the ER),
Thats pretty typical for someone of that age that isnt into high injury risk sports.
> and I've been putting the money I didn't have to spend on premiums into my Roth IRA. Insurance is a total scam. That
> said, I'm never sick, take no medications, and I don't believe in "check-ups".
Then all you need is catastrophe only insurance, and that is what that policy covers.
clams_casino
That was the whole premise for Hillary's heathcare plan. While there
will always be exceptions, most under 40 don't typically have enough
medical costs to exceed a typical heathcare plan beyond perhaps
occasional child birth costs, so their premiums can be used to subsidize
the older groups. With so many younger people opting out of medical
coverage, forcing them to purchase coverage could help to offset /
subsidize the higher costs of insuring the older groups.
Goomba38
>>
>>> Look to every other industrialized country in this world. There's your
>>> suggestions and ideas on how to make it work. Insurance doesn't work -
>>> it's a scam. That's a fact.
>>
>> I think you meant it is a "business" rather than "scam"
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it a business. I would call it a gamble, and some
> gambles are closer to a scam than a business.
>
> As much as I detest the notion of government-sponsored health care, I
> have to concede that if health care was treated as a not-for-profit
> business, the cost of health care would certainly plummet.
>
I doubt it would plummet in reality, perhaps just your immediate
recognition of what you previously paid directly to the care provider?
Your taxes would increase, and services often decrease as it becomes
more rationed. Many in nationalized care countries pay extra for the
care they want.
Goomba38
> But...if you're in the state of NY, you CAN'T get catastophic-only coverage,
> just full, HMO-style insurance. The state says they're trying to "protect"
> us, but if you're self-employed in NY you just can't get affordable/useful
> insurance. The best quote I could find was $5,000 a year with a $3,000
> deductible, and then, only after you're out of pocket $8,000 each year do
> they begin to pay. They only pay 40% and they NEVER pay ANYTHING for office
> visits, yet they say "you can see your own doctor". If I have to pay the
> whole bill, then of COURSE I can see any doctor I want. What's the point of
> insurance like that? I've only spent $1,500 on medical care since 1999 (10
> stitches in the ER), and I've been putting the money I didn't have to spend
> on premiums into my Roth IRA. Insurance is a total scam. That said, I'm
> never sick, take no medications, and I don't believe in "check-ups".
>
Health Savings Accounts would be one idea you might benefit from?
As for never being sick, taking no medications and lack of any check-ups
whatsoever..... can I ask how old you are? While it is nice to be smug
about those things at 25, as one ages it becomes almost inevitable that
you'll need a tune up or something tweaked.
clams_casino
true, but most won't be using $7-10K of medical until 60-70 +, with the
exceptions of perhaps heart attacks & some cancers.
I've been fortunately to have had company subsidized heath care for most
of my life. However, I'm not sure we ever used more in health care than
we ever paid as our portion of the annual premiums, deductibles, etc. I
doubt that we are atypical..
h
"Goomba38" <Goom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QpudnWmHLK7IrxDa...@comcast.com...
I'm well into my 50s.
Logan Shaw
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9ba8fc16-752e-4dfc...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> You are a fool not to be covered for catastophic...it can happen to
>> ANYONE.
> But...if you're in the state of NY, you CAN'T get catastophic-only coverage,
> just full, HMO-style insurance. The state says they're trying to "protect"
> us, but if you're self-employed in NY you just can't get affordable/useful
> insurance. The best quote I could find was $5,000 a year with a $3,000
> deductible, and then, only after you're out of pocket $8,000 each year do
> they begin to pay.
This is one of the reasons why the federal system works well in the US.
If you live in a state with a stupid law, you can move to another state
which has a different set of laws. In the case of NY, a significant
part of the population could even move across the water to NJ and still
keep the same job they already have if that's important.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
You're speaking as if you have an implicit assumption that "not-for-profit"
equals nationalized and government-run. I am not offering any particular
point of view here, but I don't think those two things are equivalent.
- Logan
Goomba38
>> As for never being sick, taking no medications and lack of any check-ups
>> whatsoever..... can I ask how old you are? While it is nice to be smug
>> about those things at 25, as one ages it becomes almost inevitable that
>> you'll need a tune up or something tweaked.
>
> I'm well into my 50s.
LOL, well, not to burst your bubble but... being a health care provider
I can say with a little bit of authority here that your time will come.
You should be getting check ups once in a while at least. Many diseases,
if caught early, are treatable and/or curable. Too many people felt fine
up until they keeled over dead, or the disease had wreaked havoc on them
to the degree that the "cure" is as bad as disease untreated.
But of course I understand the "ignorance is bliss" concept too. It just
tends to bite ya in the butt down the road.
P
>> I did not realize visiting the doctor typically once a year due
>> to high temperature or cold can be considered very often.
>
> Pointless bothering with a doctor for a cold unless you
> need the doctor's visit to get the time off work etc.
Yes, but if you have a viral fever(high temperature a visit does help).
>> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
>> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
>
> Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
Depends on how severe it is and mainly to ensure it is not a symptom of
some illness.
Rod Speed
> h wrote
>>> As for never being sick, taking no medications and lack of any
>>> check-ups whatsoever..... can I ask how old you are? While it is
>>> nice to be smug about those things at 25, as one ages it becomes
>>> almost inevitable that you'll need a tune up or something tweaked.
>> I'm well into my 50s.
> LOL, well, not to burst your bubble but... being a health care
> provider I can say with a little bit of authority here that your time
> will come. You should be getting check ups once in a while at least.
> Many diseases, if caught early, are treatable and/or curable.
Not many, actually, just a few.
> Too many people felt fine up until they keeled over dead, or the disease had wreaked havoc on them to the degree that
> the "cure" is as bad as disease untreated.
You can certainly claim that any who do that is too many, but it isnt
that common to not get obvious symptoms before it gets that bad.
> But of course I understand the "ignorance is bliss" concept too. It just tends to bite ya in the butt down the road.
Not necessarily.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> I did not realize visiting the doctor typically once a year due
>>> to high temperature or cold can be considered very often.
>> Pointless bothering with a doctor for a cold unless you
>> need the doctor's visit to get the time off work etc.
> Yes, but if you have a viral fever(high temperature a visit does help).
Nope, hardly ever and you certainly dont get one of those every year.
>>> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
>>> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
>> Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
> Depends on how severe it is
Nope.
> and mainly to ensure it is not a symptom of some illness.
The obvious way to check that is to see if it goes away as
colds always do and only bother with a doctor when it doesnt.
You certainly dont get those every year or anything like that either.
Goomba38
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:40:57 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>>> I did not realize visiting the doctor typically once a year due
>>> to high temperature or cold can be considered very often.
>> Pointless bothering with a doctor for a cold unless you
>> need the doctor's visit to get the time off work etc.
>
> Yes, but if you have a viral fever(high temperature a visit does help).
What is your experience with treatments for viral illnesses?
>
>>> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
>>> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
>> Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
>
> Depends on how severe it is and mainly to ensure it is not a symptom of
> some illness.
Usually cold symptoms are just symptoms of a cold. A pretty self
limiting illness for the most part.
Goomba38
You should be getting check ups once in a while at least.
>> Many diseases, if caught early, are treatable and/or curable.
>
> Not many, actually, just a few.
Many. And of course limiting the damage of untreated disease can only
help down the road. Consider the progression of undiagnosed diabetes,
hypertension, cardiac disease, multiple types of cancers....
>
>> Too many people felt fine up until they keeled over dead, or the disease had wreaked havoc on them to the degree that
>> the "cure" is as bad as disease untreated.
>
> You can certainly claim that any who do that is too many, but it isnt
> that common to not get obvious symptoms before it gets that bad.
But a slowly progressing disease is often ignored and adapted to the
point where the patient doesn't get the sense of "something isn't quite
right" here
>
>> But of course I understand the "ignorance is bliss" concept too. It just tends to bite ya in the butt down the road.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
I've seen it all too frequently and commonly. Particularly with
undiagnosed diabetes or hypertension. VERY common.
P
>and you certainly dont get one of those every year.
Off Topic, I just mentioned two reasons one may need to visit a doctor at
my age and did not claim them as the only reasons for every year. BTW, if
you have lived in a dorm you may catch such illnesses quickly from others.
>>>> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
>>>> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
>
>>> Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
>
>> Depends on how severe it is
>
> Nope.
Well, if you live in a dorm sometimes you need to visit the doctor just to
convince others you are taking proper steps. The medicines can ease your
running nose and reduce your sneezing while you are in class.
>> and mainly to ensure it is not a symptom of some illness.
>
> The obvious way to check that is to see if it goes away as
> colds always do and only bother with a doctor when it doesnt.
>
> You certainly dont get those every year or anything like that either.
I never said that one gets them every year(though if you are living in a
dorm your chances are high). Just because I mentioned two reasons does not
mean I claimed that they were the only ones due to which I had to go to the
doctor every year. There can be a muscle spasm, food poisoning, minor car
accident(if you are traveling in someone else's car), back pain due to
wrong posture or many other factors due to which a person my age might
require to visit a doctor. Again, this is not a exhaustive list nor do I
mention these occur every year to someone of my age, but some reasons due
to which a person of my age may need to visit the doctor. Agreed, people at
my age fall in the lower risk for insurance companies, but there are some
liabilities associated with us also and people at my age might need to
visit the doctor typically once a year. Some more, some less.
The purpose of starting this thread was to get some good ideas(which I got,
thanks to all who replied). I appreciate your help, but please don't
misunderstand me.
h
I have a very different take on medical stuff. I don't take medications and
would not ever consider the treatment options available for diseases like
cancer (chemo, radiation, etc.) It's quite pointless to go to have checkups
because I wouldn't follow the doctor's advice if they found anything, nor
would I be interested in any further tests. I exercise 90 minutes a day,
every day, I maintain a healthy weight, and I eat no more than 30 grams of
carbs a day. I don't smoke and I rarely drink more than one glass of wine.
I'm healthier now in my 50s than I was in my 20s. It also helps that I never
had kids, so my body wasn't ravaged by breeding. All the women in my family
drop dead at 91 (really, all of them on both sides!) and we never see
doctors. It's not that I'm being smug or blissfully ignorant, I'm counting
on genetics and lifestyle. My mom's 88 and hasn't seen a doctor since she
had me.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> You should be getting check ups once in a while at least.
>>> Many diseases, if caught early, are treatable and/or curable.
>> Not many, actually, just a few.
> Many.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> And of course limiting the damage of untreated disease can only help down the road.
Varys with the 'disease'
> Consider the progression of undiagnosed diabetes,
> hypertension, cardiac disease, multiple types of cancers....
Thats just 5, nothing like 'many'
And plenty of those wont be caught early enough to make a difference by 'checkups' anyway.
>>> Too many people felt fine up until they keeled over dead, or the disease had wreaked havoc on them to the degree
>>> that the "cure" is as bad as disease untreated.
>> You can certainly claim that any who do that is too many, but it isnt
>> that common to not get obvious symptoms before it gets that bad.
> But a slowly progressing disease is often ignored and adapted to the point where the patient doesn't get the sense of
> "something isn't quite right" here
Again, not that often.
>>> But of course I understand the "ignorance is bliss" concept too. It just tends to bite ya in the butt down the road.
>> Not necessarily.
> I've seen it all too frequently and commonly. Particularly with
> undiagnosed diabetes or hypertension. VERY common.
Nope, those do produce symptoms before you end up with fangs in your arse most of the time.
And 'checkups' dont necessarily get anything useful done that prevents fangs in your arse either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> and you certainly dont get one of those every year.
> Off Topic,
Nope, completely on topic when discussing what
sort of insurance makes most sense for you.
If you dont keep wasting the doctors time with visits to
the doctor to stuff like that that is a complete waste of
everyone's time, including your own, that reinforces the
fact that you only need catastrophe insurance at your age.
> I just mentioned two reasons one may need to visit a doctor at my age
But havent actually established any NEED with those two.
> and did not claim them as the only reasons for every year.
There arent any others that NEED anything like that frequency with a healthy individual at your age.
And you're wasting your money getting insurance that pays for that sort
of visit to the doctor anyway, you are much better off with catastrophe
insurance and paying for the doctors visits out of your own pocket if you
are stupid enough to keep seeing the doctor for that sort of medical problem.
> BTW, if you have lived in a dorm you may catch such illnesses quickly from others.
Irrelevant to whether there is any point in bothering with a doctor's visit when you do.
>>>>> Well, I could have stayed at home, rested and probably could have recovered
>>>>> in some 3-4 days but going to the doctor helped me get better soon
>>>> Nope, not with a cold it doesnt.
>>> Depends on how severe it is
>> Nope.
> Well, if you live in a dorm sometimes you need to visit the
> doctor just to convince others you are taking proper steps.
No you dont.
> The medicines can ease your running nose
> and reduce your sneezing while you are in class.
You dont need to visit any doctor to get stuff like that, just the pharmacy.
>>> and mainly to ensure it is not a symptom of some illness.
>> The obvious way to check that is to see if it goes away as
>> colds always do and only bother with a doctor when it doesnt.
>> You certainly dont get those every year or anything like that either.
> I never said that one gets them every year
You did say that you see a doctor every year.
> (though if you are living in a dorm your chances are high).
Irrelevant to whether there is any point in seeing a doctor about them.
> Just because I mentioned two reasons does not mean I claimed
> that they were the only ones due to which I had to go to the doctor
> every year. There can be a muscle spasm, food poisoning,
Fuck all need to see a doctor every year for stuff like that either.
> minor car accident (if you are traveling in someone else's car),
Fuck all get that sort of thing anything like every year.
> back pain due to wrong posture
Or that.
> or many other factors due to which a person my age might require to visit a doctor.
There are fuck all 'other factors' that see someone
of your age needing to see a doctor every year.
Presumably you're a mindless hypocondriac.
> Again, this is not a exhaustive list nor do I mention these occur
> every year to someone of my age, but some reasons due to
> which a person of my age may need to visit the doctor.
The total of all those dont see someone of
your age needing to see a doctor every year.
And it makes absolutely no sense to have that covered by your insurance even if
you are a mindless hypocondriac. You are MUCH better off financially paying for
the doctors visits out of your own pocket and only paying for catastrophe insurance.
> Agreed, people at my age fall in the lower risk for insurance
> companies, but there are some liabilities associated with us also
Yes, thats why catastrophe insurance isnt free at that age.
> and people at my age might need to visit the doctor typically once a year.
Nope, they might be stupid enough to visit a doctor that often, but no healthy
individual with your detail actually NEEDS to visit a doctor that often at your age.
> Some more, some less.
Virtually all MUCH less.
> The purpose of starting this thread was to get some good ideas
> (which I got, thanks to all who replied). I appreciate your help,
> but please don't misunderstand me.
No one has misunderstood you.
Napoleon
>I have a very different take on medical stuff. I don't take medications and
>would not ever consider the treatment options available for diseases like
>cancer (chemo, radiation, etc.) , I'm counting
>on genetics and lifestyle. My mom's 88 and hasn't seen a doctor since she
>had me.
I agree with you on the medical industry in this country. Quite
useless most of the time and outrageously expensive. I believe too
many people in the US are on unnecessary drugs. My aunt is on 5
medications and they are all prescribed to counteract each other. Sad.
I actually went to the doctors once (to get birth control, which
should be free and over the counter but will never be in this
repressed country), and the nurse asked me what medications I was on.
I told her none and looked at me as if I had three heads. She said
that was amazing and that everyone is on medications galore these
days.
Here's my frugal advice about health insurance - drop it if you can't
afford it and take the chance. Exercise, eat right, and try to stay as
healthy as you can. The internet is a great resource for looking up
minor medical ailments that do not require doctors. If you should get
a catastrophic illness, (which is genetically-based most of the time),
then deal with it then. If a hospital or doctor won't treat you
because you have no "insurance" then I guess you die - that's America
for you. So much better than socialized "rationed" care isn't it?
h
> afford it and take the chance. Exercise, eat right, and try to stay as
> healthy as you can. The internet is a great resource for looking up
> minor medical ailments that do not require doctors. If you should get
> a catastrophic illness, (which is genetically-based most of the time),
> then deal with it then. If a hospital or doctor won't treat you
> because you have no "insurance" then I guess you die - that's America
> for you. So much better than socialized "rationed" care isn't it?
I have accepted the fact that if I ever have a heart attack or need an
appendectomy I will probably die because I can't afford treatment. I
hesitated to mention this in my previous posts because it sounds crazy to
most people. If I'm injured in a car accident my auto insurance will pay,
but if something else catastrophic happens to me I've accepted that I will
most likely not be able to afford treatment. The only good thing about the
ridiculous health insurance/medical laws in NY is that doctors and hospitals
cannot sue you nor ruin your credit if you have an outstanding balance as
long as you are making a good faith attempt to pay the bill. So, if you run
up a $100,000 bill (public hospitals MUST treat all patients, even if they
can't pay) and you pay them something each month, they can't add fees,
interest, etc., nor can they report you as delinquent to credit bureaus.
Still, I really can't imagine that I'd ever agree to be hospitalized. I even
have a homemade "uninsurance" card in my wallet informing medical personnel
that except for auto-related injury, I lack insurance and am unable to pay
for any medical care administered to me while unconscious and therefore I do
not consent to treatment.
Jeff Thompson
news:5v4mkeF...@mid.individual.net...
>h wrote:
>> I've only spent $1,500 on medical care since 1999 (10 stitches in the
>> ER),
>
> Thats pretty typical for someone of that age that isnt into high injury
> risk sports.
Can you provide a cite? It seems highly unlikely to be typical for someone
"well into (their) 50's" to have spent $1,500 in eight years for medical
care. I'm not disputing the poster's claim to have spent that much but
rather your assertion that it's "pretty typical".
Sally Robertson
>
> I have a very different take on medical stuff. I don't take medications
> and would not ever consider the treatment options available for diseases
> like cancer (chemo, radiation, etc.) It's quite pointless to go to have
> checkups because I wouldn't follow the doctor's advice if they found
> anything, nor would I be interested in any further tests. I exercise 90
> minutes a day, every day, I maintain a healthy weight, and I eat no more
> than 30 grams of carbs a day. I don't smoke and I rarely drink more than
> one glass of wine. I'm healthier now in my 50s than I was in my 20s. It
> also helps that I never had kids, so my body wasn't ravaged by breeding.
> All the women in my family drop dead at 91 (really, all of them on both
> sides!) and we never see doctors. It's not that I'm being smug or
> blissfully ignorant, I'm counting on genetics and lifestyle. My mom's 88
> and hasn't seen a doctor since she had me.
"Ravaged by breeding"? Apparently it didn't much harm the other women in
your family, who by your own account all lived to be 91 and in at least some
of those cases must have been "ravaged" or we wouldn't be having this
discussion. In any case, given the perjorative choice of words you used to
describe having children, I think it's safe to say that you've done us all a
favor by declining to "breed".
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> h wrote:
>>> I've only spent $1,500 on medical care since 1999 (10 stitches in the ER),
>> Thats pretty typical for someone of that age that isnt into high injury risk sports.
> Can you provide a cite?
Nope, that's personal experience.
> It seems highly unlikely to be typical for someone "well into (their) 50's" to have spent $1,500 in eight years for
> medical care.
That was before he stated the age, I assumed he was
talking about the same age as the OP which was 24.
> I'm not disputing the poster's claim to have spent that much but rather your assertion that it's "pretty typical".
Its not that uncommon for someone of that age either. I never bothered with
a doctor at all at that age except for accidents etc, and even one of those in
10 years that needed a doctor wasnt common, even when I physically built
my house myself, I didnt get a single injury that needed a doctor.
The only time I saw a doctor was for the legally mandated checkup for the flying license.
Corse there are always some fools that go and see a doctor when
they get a common cold, but thats a different matter entirely.
h
"Jeff Thompson" <jt8...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u6zjj.11548$cz3.4449@trnddc06...
Yes, I've only spent $1,500 since 1999 because the only time I've been to
the doctor was to the ER for stitches (cut my right hand open, so couldn't
stitch it up myself). I think the other poster thought that I was the OP or
someone in their 20s, and I'd have to agree that's a "pretty typical"
expenditure for 20-something.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> <h> wrote in messagenews:478d997a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Whatever. Breeding does horrendous things to your body, even if you
only have one. My great-grandmother was a midwife, so the women in my
family definitely saw all the horrors of spawning and most didn't do
it if they could avoid it. My mother's was the first generation in my
family to have access to birth control, and she only had one. My aunts
had none. Most of my grandmother's generation would have been
childfree as well, if they could have been. My great aunt always said,
"I love my kids, but if I could choose again, I'd have stayed single!"
Back in those days, that meant no kids. Oh, and by the way, PLONK.
Sally Robertson
news:0f83a337-af73-42e8...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Whatever. Breeding does horrendous things to your body, even if you
> only have one. My great-grandmother was a midwife, so the women in my
> family definitely saw all the horrors of spawning and most didn't do
> it if they could avoid it. My mother's was the first generation in my
> family to have access to birth control, and she only had one.
Why did she even have that many if she thought it was so horrible and, as
you've implied, she was able to exercise control over having children?
> My aunts had none. Most of my grandmother's generation would have been
> childfree as well, if they could have been. My great aunt always said,
> "I love my kids, but if I could choose again, I'd have stayed single!"
> Back in those days, that meant no kids
In other words, "I love my kids but I wish I'd never married their father or
given birth to them." That sounds like a lovely family. Thankfully they've
apparently been pretty successful at proving Darwin right and eliminating
themselves from the gene pool and I applaud your own contribution in that
respect.
> Oh, and by the way, PLONK.
LOL! If you know how to killfile someone, you should know how easy it was
for me to defeat it. After all, you surely aren't dumb enough to post using
your real e-mail address . . or are you?
Rob Mitchell #14 and Home Office
> I have just graduated, am 24 yrs old with a Body Mass Index of 20, nohealthissues. I have started looking for full time jobs, but until I get
> coverage through my employer I want to have some sort of coverage for
> catastrophic matters. I cannot come under my parent's coverage(as they are
> self-employed so have to get their own). I can work for some place(WalMart,
> McDonald) full time to get coverage, but I would rather spend all my time
> searching for jobs than working at those places just for the sake ofhealthinsurance. Working full time at one job will reduce the available time to
> job searching.
>
> I have browsed the web and talked to a few agents, but the more agents I
> talk to the more confused I become as to which plan to choose. Some offer a
> premium of 100/month and some as low as 30/month(which have a high
> deductible of 2500 and which cannot be considered credible coverage) if I
> get a position(as told by the plan agent).
>
> Is it better to get a premium of 100/month or the one with 30/month would
> be fine? I generally visit the doctor once a year, don't have glasses.
>
> I would appreciate any advice and I am presently in Florida, U.S.
I found some information from a website, WWW.gorillabill.com . They
help folks with issues with health care coverage.
Here is a link to their site: http://gorillabill.com/V14_SelectHome.asp