Shopsmith Forums

This entire discussion would be pointless if the US did what every other, and I do mean EVERY, developed country does. The worst part is that we already spend more tax money per person than any other country and we rank horribly in actual healthcare quality. For example: we are 39th in infant mortality.

We have the best trauma care in the US, that's it. All other healthcare metrics have us failing horribly. I see children die almost everyday from preventable causes simply because they lacked proper access to healthcare.

All other reasons aside and looking at it simply from a fiscal viewpoint, it would cost us much less (some studies estimate less than half what we pay) for a much greater quality of care / access.

[quote="db5"]I can give you a specific example that is related: I take a specialty medication that is filled monthly. In January 2012 the co-pay for that medication was $265. In January 2013 it was $750]

Your co-pay is not a function of pharmaceutical companies if you look the price of your medication has not risen, what has changed is the amount you have to pay. There could be several reasons for this, mostly they are due to the plan you are signed up for. Whoever provides your insurance has decided to shift cost from themselves to you in way that was not as transparent as it could have been.

mrhart wrote:8 years ago when I took this job, health care insurance was costing me $80 every two weeks for med, dental and vision on a family plan. Then it doubled. The new cost was $160 every two weeks. Then the next year it doubled again. they wanted over $300 every two weeks. I stepped my coverage down to the lower plan and avoided the increase, however sacrifiing coverage. The the next year it doubled again! Now I could not avoid $301.50 every two weeks for the lowest option plan. This is where I'm at today.
The shock of another increase won't be there, but the price tag will be.

Anyone know of any options to keep a family in heath coverage (decent) without going through their employer?

Because of tax reasons you have not choice, after taxes anything you find would cause you more in the end. If your employer provides insurance any private insurance you buy would have to be paid for with after tax dollars and you would not benefit from any payments your employer contributes to your current policy.

paulmcohen wrote:Because of tax reasons you have not choice, after taxes anything you find would cause you more in the end. If your employer provides insurance any private insurance you buy would have to be paid for with after tax dollars and you would not benefit from any payments your employer contributes to your current policy.

If your employer offers it, you could also look at going with a higher deductible plan and a flex spend/health savings account so that deductible get spaid with pre-tax dollars. I wouldn't expect to much of a gain though.

There are all manners of reality, and one can find so-called facts to support most any view. But some things simply need further explanation. While I don't particularly think Wikipedia is a the best source of information, it can provide a starting point when researching a given subject. If anyone really cares to fathom the actual causes of infant mortality here in the U.S., they will get an overview at -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

Clearly the myriad of reasons include a lack of health care, but much of that is simply out of poor choices and ignorance (about what is available for free).

For starters, here's one statement from the Wikipedia site -- "In the United States a primary determinant of infant mortality risk is infant birth weight with lower birth weights increasing the risk of infant mortality. The determinants of low birth weight include socio-economic, psychological, behaviorial and environmental factors."

Here's another: "Infant mortality due to low birth weight is usually a direct cause stemming from other medical complications such as preterm birth, poor maternal nutritional status, lack of prenatal care, maternal sickness during pregnancy, and an unhygienic home environments.[3] Along with birth weight, period of gestation makes up the two most important predictors of and infant's chances of survival and their overall health."

And still more: "According to the New England Journal of Medicine “in the past two decades, the infant mortality rate (deaths under one year of age per thousand live births) in the United States has declined sharply.” Low birth weights from African American mothers remain twice as high as that of white women. LBW may be the leading cause of infant deaths, and it is greatly preventable. Although it is preventable, the solutions may not be the easiest but effective programs to help prevent LBW are a combination of health care, education, environment, mental modification and public policy, influencing a culture supporting lifestyle. [9] Preterm birth is the leading cause of newborn deaths worldwide.[10] Even though America excels past many other countries in the care and saving of premature infants, the percentage of American woman who deliver prematurely is comparable to those in developing countries. Reasons for this include teenage pregnancy, increase in pregnant mothers over the age of thirty five, increase in the use of in-vitro fertilization which increases the risk of multiple births, obesity and diabetes. Also, women who do not have access to health care are less likely to visit a doctor, therefore increasing their risk of delivering prematurely."

Like free public education, health care is available, but some, for whatever reasons, choose otherwise. Just watch the Jerry Springer show for some prime examples.

I'll agree with a lot of your post, but that is simply one category in which we fail. Trauma care is the only category we actually do well, but we charge enough to bankrupt the average family.

There is free healthcare for anchor babies and extremely poor people. However, just like everything else in society it's those above poverty but not rich that suffer (I'm not saying poor people suffer, but they have much more assistance available than anyone else). The comparison to free public education is not valid since education is available to all who choose to use it, and healthcare is not.

joshh wrote:I'll agree with a lot of your post, but that is simply one category in which we fail. Trauma care is the only category we actually do well, but we charge enough to bankrupt the average family.

There is free healthcare for anchor babies and extremely poor people. However, just like everything else in society it's those above poverty but not rich that suffer (I'm not saying poor people suffer, but they have much more assistance available than anyone else). The comparison to free public education is not valid since education is available to all who choose to use it, and healthcare is not.

Josh I disagree. I know lots of people who choose to go without healthcare rather than use the govt or charity supported programs available to them for little to no cost. They think the free clinic is beneath them or too ghetto, or they don't want to wait a few weeks to get an appointment.

I have never seem the case of someone in actual need be shut out by the system. Especially a pregnant woman who has 10x the resources and opportunities at their disposal.

My grandmother used to be a nurse and still volunteers at a charity working with at risk pregnant women and new mothers. Her job is to council them but also to make them go get healthcare, which the charity pays for, and she still has to chase them down to get them to go. They also offer free preschool, and they still have a problem with families they are working with not enrolling their kids.

paulmcohen wrote:Because of tax reasons you have not choice, after taxes anything you find would cause you more in the end. If your employer provides insurance any private insurance you buy would have to be paid for with after tax dollars and you would not benefit from any payments your employer contributes to your current policy.

That sucks.........

Thanks though sir.

joshh wrote:This entire discussion would be pointless if the US did what every other, and I do mean EVERY, developed country does. The worst part is that we already spend more tax money per person than any other country and we rank horribly in actual healthcare quality. For example: we are 39th in infant mortality.

We have the best trauma care in the US, that's it. All other healthcare metrics have us failing horribly. I see children die almost everyday from preventable causes simply because they lacked proper access to healthcare.

All other reasons aside and looking at it simply from a fiscal viewpoint, it would cost us much less (some studies estimate less than half what we pay) for a much greater quality of care / access.

Everywhere that has socialized medicine including Medicare in US either rations care or is going bankrupt or both. The only reason we are 39th in infant mortality is we actually track it. Look at the list and see if you really believe that the countries that are about us have better care for infants. When people with means in the countries with "great medical care" need treatment they come here and pay. Bill Clinton would have died waiting for treatment in Canada (according to his own words). The same promises about lower cost were made for Medicare and it is bankrupt. When people get something for free they abuse it and costs end up skyrocketing. The solution to the problem is medical savings accounts AND catastrophic insurance that way people decided how they want to spend their money but in case of disaster they have insurance. In every case where people have to pay for treatment with their own money cost has declines dramatically and patient care has improved, look at Lasik and cosmetic surgery.

frank81 wrote:When I worked in insurance, the entity I was in charge of analyzing held most of our employer health business. So I will give you guys a basic overview of how that works, and how its priced, so we can all understand its not a conspiracy by insurance companies.

...

Thank you for bringing some sanity into the conversion.