- This topic has 520 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM #480226November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM #479420briansd1Guest
Even as Congress is debating health insurance reform, the insurance companies are implementing some changes.
I like the concept of co-insurance. Anything that causes patients to scrutinize and participate in the cost of their health care is good.
I believe that basic coverage should be free (or nearly free) but “luxury” coverage should be costly.
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
My 80 year-old dad is on Medicare and takes Proscar for prostate enlargement (BPH). But since that drug went off patent a couple years ago, he’s been taking the generic finasteride because his Medicare plan forces him.
There are other generic drugs so there’s no need to take costly brand name medicines, unless you want to and are willing and able to pay for it.November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM #479590briansd1GuestEven as Congress is debating health insurance reform, the insurance companies are implementing some changes.
I like the concept of co-insurance. Anything that causes patients to scrutinize and participate in the cost of their health care is good.
I believe that basic coverage should be free (or nearly free) but “luxury” coverage should be costly.
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
My 80 year-old dad is on Medicare and takes Proscar for prostate enlargement (BPH). But since that drug went off patent a couple years ago, he’s been taking the generic finasteride because his Medicare plan forces him.
There are other generic drugs so there’s no need to take costly brand name medicines, unless you want to and are willing and able to pay for it.November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM #479952briansd1GuestEven as Congress is debating health insurance reform, the insurance companies are implementing some changes.
I like the concept of co-insurance. Anything that causes patients to scrutinize and participate in the cost of their health care is good.
I believe that basic coverage should be free (or nearly free) but “luxury” coverage should be costly.
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
My 80 year-old dad is on Medicare and takes Proscar for prostate enlargement (BPH). But since that drug went off patent a couple years ago, he’s been taking the generic finasteride because his Medicare plan forces him.
There are other generic drugs so there’s no need to take costly brand name medicines, unless you want to and are willing and able to pay for it.November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM #480033briansd1GuestEven as Congress is debating health insurance reform, the insurance companies are implementing some changes.
I like the concept of co-insurance. Anything that causes patients to scrutinize and participate in the cost of their health care is good.
I believe that basic coverage should be free (or nearly free) but “luxury” coverage should be costly.
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
My 80 year-old dad is on Medicare and takes Proscar for prostate enlargement (BPH). But since that drug went off patent a couple years ago, he’s been taking the generic finasteride because his Medicare plan forces him.
There are other generic drugs so there’s no need to take costly brand name medicines, unless you want to and are willing and able to pay for it.November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM #480255briansd1GuestEven as Congress is debating health insurance reform, the insurance companies are implementing some changes.
I like the concept of co-insurance. Anything that causes patients to scrutinize and participate in the cost of their health care is good.
I believe that basic coverage should be free (or nearly free) but “luxury” coverage should be costly.
For example a generic drug prescription could be at a $5 co-pay but a brand name drug prescription would be costly enough to make the patient think again about demanding that drug — perhaps 50% co-insurance.
My 80 year-old dad is on Medicare and takes Proscar for prostate enlargement (BPH). But since that drug went off patent a couple years ago, he’s been taking the generic finasteride because his Medicare plan forces him.
There are other generic drugs so there’s no need to take costly brand name medicines, unless you want to and are willing and able to pay for it.November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM #479429AnonymousGuestBig picture people! Have you been to Norway?, Britian?, Canada??? The cost will wind its way down to every tax payer. The rich will not be the only to suffer. I do not have all the tax deductions that rich people have and pay a lot now just to keep my bills paid. I am not saying reform wasn’t needed but a socialized system will be paid for by everyone by more taxes. THAT I DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW.
November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM #479600AnonymousGuestBig picture people! Have you been to Norway?, Britian?, Canada??? The cost will wind its way down to every tax payer. The rich will not be the only to suffer. I do not have all the tax deductions that rich people have and pay a lot now just to keep my bills paid. I am not saying reform wasn’t needed but a socialized system will be paid for by everyone by more taxes. THAT I DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW.
November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM #479962AnonymousGuestBig picture people! Have you been to Norway?, Britian?, Canada??? The cost will wind its way down to every tax payer. The rich will not be the only to suffer. I do not have all the tax deductions that rich people have and pay a lot now just to keep my bills paid. I am not saying reform wasn’t needed but a socialized system will be paid for by everyone by more taxes. THAT I DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW.
November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM #480043AnonymousGuestBig picture people! Have you been to Norway?, Britian?, Canada??? The cost will wind its way down to every tax payer. The rich will not be the only to suffer. I do not have all the tax deductions that rich people have and pay a lot now just to keep my bills paid. I am not saying reform wasn’t needed but a socialized system will be paid for by everyone by more taxes. THAT I DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW.
November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM #480265AnonymousGuestBig picture people! Have you been to Norway?, Britian?, Canada??? The cost will wind its way down to every tax payer. The rich will not be the only to suffer. I do not have all the tax deductions that rich people have and pay a lot now just to keep my bills paid. I am not saying reform wasn’t needed but a socialized system will be paid for by everyone by more taxes. THAT I DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW.
November 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM #479441briansd1GuestI’ve been to Britain and Canada.
The Brits have bad teeth for sure. And they don’t look healthy generally speaking. Maybe it’s the rain. Or maybe because I’m from sunny Southern California.
The French seem quite happy.
Canada is a good country with good people. When you go there, you can just tell.
I know someone who had Leukemia in Canada and he was very well-treated and is in full remission. At 80+, he’s healthy as ever and drives down to vacation in USA twice per year. His son is a specialist MD in California and graduated from one of the best medical schools. He reviewed his dad’s care and had no problem with how his dad was treated in Canada — all for FREE.
November 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM #479611briansd1GuestI’ve been to Britain and Canada.
The Brits have bad teeth for sure. And they don’t look healthy generally speaking. Maybe it’s the rain. Or maybe because I’m from sunny Southern California.
The French seem quite happy.
Canada is a good country with good people. When you go there, you can just tell.
I know someone who had Leukemia in Canada and he was very well-treated and is in full remission. At 80+, he’s healthy as ever and drives down to vacation in USA twice per year. His son is a specialist MD in California and graduated from one of the best medical schools. He reviewed his dad’s care and had no problem with how his dad was treated in Canada — all for FREE.
November 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM #479975briansd1GuestI’ve been to Britain and Canada.
The Brits have bad teeth for sure. And they don’t look healthy generally speaking. Maybe it’s the rain. Or maybe because I’m from sunny Southern California.
The French seem quite happy.
Canada is a good country with good people. When you go there, you can just tell.
I know someone who had Leukemia in Canada and he was very well-treated and is in full remission. At 80+, he’s healthy as ever and drives down to vacation in USA twice per year. His son is a specialist MD in California and graduated from one of the best medical schools. He reviewed his dad’s care and had no problem with how his dad was treated in Canada — all for FREE.
November 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM #480056briansd1GuestI’ve been to Britain and Canada.
The Brits have bad teeth for sure. And they don’t look healthy generally speaking. Maybe it’s the rain. Or maybe because I’m from sunny Southern California.
The French seem quite happy.
Canada is a good country with good people. When you go there, you can just tell.
I know someone who had Leukemia in Canada and he was very well-treated and is in full remission. At 80+, he’s healthy as ever and drives down to vacation in USA twice per year. His son is a specialist MD in California and graduated from one of the best medical schools. He reviewed his dad’s care and had no problem with how his dad was treated in Canada — all for FREE.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.