Health Insurance: We don't need no stinkin' health insurance

[rolanni]

I preface this by saying that I have health insurance. I have it at the price of stories that will never be written and by working a day-job with which I share, at best, an uneasy truce. The health insurance recently saved Steve's life. Without it, we could not, we could never have afforded the roughly $110,000 billed to date for his heart-related condition. The more than $22,000 associated with his week-long hospitalization for pneumonia in October of last year would have already wiped us out.

Edited to add:  The state of Maine puts out a nice, comprehensive consumer guide to individual health care available to Maine citizens. 


Originally posted by ladyqkat at Dear GOP - the collective you are an Idiot

Content originally seen in this post by ramblin_phyl  and in this post by suricattus 

There is a move afoot in the nation -driven by the GOP - to repeal the new health care laws, to protect corporate interests, to defend against fear-mongering (and stupid) cries of "socialism!", and to ensure that people are forced to choose between keeping a roof over their heads or getting necessary health care.

This movement is killing people.

Think I'm overstating the fact?

Ask the friends and family of writer/reviewer Melissa Mia Hall, who died of a heart attack last week because she was so terrified of medical bills, she didn't go see a doctor who could have saved her life.

From another writer friend: One person. Not the only one. That could have been me. Yeah, I have access to insurance -- I live in New York City, which is freelancer-friendly, and have access to freelancer advocacy groups. Through them, I can pay over $400/month ($5,760/year) as a single, healthy woman, so that if I go to the hospital I'm not driven to bankruptcy. But a doctor's appointment - a routine physical - can still cost me several hundred dollars each visit. So unless something's terribly wrong? I won't go.

My husband worked for the government for 30 years. We have government employee (retired) insurance. It is the only thing of value he took away from that job. His pension is pitiful. He still works part time. My writing income has diminished drastically. Our combined income is now less than what it was before T retired fifteen years ago. Inflation has diminished it further. In the last 30 days I have racked up over $8000 in medical bills for tests and the beginning of treatment. Our co-pay is 20% after the deductible. And there is more to come. Our savings are already gone. I have the gold standard of insurance and I still can't pay all the medical bills.

Another friend lost her insurance when her husband lost his job. She couldn't afford medication and ended up bed ridden for three months at the end of over a year of no job and therefore no insurance until he found work again.

It's our responsibility. All of us, together. As a nation.

EtA: Nobody is trying to put insurance companies out of business. They will always be able to offer a better plan for a premium. We simply want to ensure that every citizen - from infant to senior citizen - doesn't have to choose between medical care, and keeping a roof over their heads, or having enough to eat.

We're trying to get this to go viral. Pass it along.

 

Comments

Re: I know this won't be popular...

[roseaponi.livejournal.com]

Agreed on all points :)

To clarify my opinion on the government's competence - I have very little faith in their ability to target the cause of the problem, because their track record on things they are already in charge of is so abysmal. Now, if they demonstate competence with those, that might be different. I know, the only way to get reform is through the government, but the government needs reform, which will be when the people come together and find enough common ground to begin the process.

The general uproar about the Evil Rich Insurance Companies seems simplistic. I believe the main problem is that the people in charge of a given system, whether it be the government or a private enterprise, tend to have two basic goals in mind: First, to further their own agenda. Second, to do as little actual work as possible.

So I think that Obama and co. saw the need for healthcare reform, saw the general attitudes toward big insurance companies, and saw an opportunity to make a big change to further their own agendas.

It could very well be that big insurance companies are evil and their profits are essentially blood money.

But what is being forgotten in our haste to fix the system? I just don't like this dash to embrace Obamacare and its vast promises - something doesn't feel right. It didn't go through due process, it's loaded with special deals for various states, it funds highly controversial practices, and in order to work, the entire nation has to buy in. I find it extraordinarily off-putting. The only thing I can think of that it resembles is a pyramid scheme.

Re: I know this won't be popular...

[(Anonymous)]

I'm puzzled about your comment about "due process". What makes this different from any other government program ? I normally associate "due process" with legal proceedings involving courts - which will certainly be involved judging from the headlines. I can think of certain other actions by major branches of government that did not involve enough due process, I would interested in knowing what was missing here more so than other major legislation.

I think the entire nation has to buy in because it affects everyone directly or indirectly. It isn't as if most of the 20 year olds won't need eldercare in a few decades.

I'm not generally in favor of breaking systems as a means of initiating repair. The current system is broken on many counts. The discussion is about how to fix it and the transition will be painful.

One could argue that health care is a security issue not just for the military (they need able recruits and to be able to care for returning vets) but for the economy - if we put so much GDP to such poor use, we are at an economic disadvantage due to the implied national tax of ineffective health care.

That aside, my view is that this was a once every few decades opportunity to begin addressing the problem. No, they couldn't begin to get it anywhere near right, much less ideal initially. They did manage to get the conversation started on a realistic (ie financial, outcomes and responsibility ) level.

Politics is an unsavory art at best. I am hoping that the most painful parts of the compromises necessary to get enough votes will be worked out and adjusted at the same time some unintended consequences are brought to light. It may be a forlorn hope. I applaud them for doing something, with some intention of mid-course correction, now. The impact of not taking action would be to make the current problems worse (we may disagree on this point). At least this is not an incremental solution which only postpones decisions.

Ideally, anyone putting forth new changes will have to justify why they are better. In doing so, they will reveal their biases of who benefits from "better" and who pays for it.

Separating political necessity from the original idealized solution is difficult for those of us sitting on the sidelines.