Your Medical Plan $Changes/Increases for 2011?

[GH]

As a self employed person, the kind of health coverage I can purchase is full of loopholes, outs and restrictions.

My opinion. NOT participating in health coverage is the kind of civil disobedience required to FIX health care. Obama seems to believe that helping his clients by mandating coverage will fix things, but since his new law prices have skyrocketed.

Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.

In the mean time, with the downturn and corresponding increases, we were forced to ditch our coverage.

It is time to separate employment from insurance. Imagine if you were forced to work a W2 job to get groceries at a reasonable cost? Make group coverage available to EVERYONE. My understanding is that under Obamacare self employed will still not get the same coverage wage slaves get…

Think about this. You (or your company) spend $1,500 a month insuring your family ($18,000) a year or $180,000 over ten years. Take the $1500 and invest it even at a very low current rate of return say 2% and you can add another $30,000 or so to the total. That gives you 210,000 every ten years for medical catastrophes. I know the IRS will beat you to death for failure to pay into the insurance racket, but even then you are money ahead!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=anon123]went from $144/month to $114 a month for the same plan, a 20% decrease. shocked when i ran the numbers, since this is the first decrease in my life. single, no kids, ppo.[/quote]

anon123, if this is your ENTIRE premium for a HDHP, do you happen to be =<30 years of age?? If so, a lot of folks in your demographic (23-26 year-olds) just joined your ranks (to "flesh out" your premium-payor group)!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=anon123]went from $144/month to $114 a month for the same plan, a 20% decrease. shocked when i ran the numbers, since this is the first decrease in my life. single, no kids, ppo.[/quote]

anon123, if this is your ENTIRE premium for a HDHP, do you happen to be =<30 years of age?? If so, a lot of folks in your demographic (23-26 year-olds) just joined your ranks (to "flesh out" your premium-payor group)!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=anon123]went from $144/month to $114 a month for the same plan, a 20% decrease. shocked when i ran the numbers, since this is the first decrease in my life. single, no kids, ppo.[/quote]

anon123, if this is your ENTIRE premium for a HDHP, do you happen to be =<30 years of age?? If so, a lot of folks in your demographic (23-26 year-olds) just joined your ranks (to "flesh out" your premium-payor group)!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=anon123]went from $144/month to $114 a month for the same plan, a 20% decrease. shocked when i ran the numbers, since this is the first decrease in my life. single, no kids, ppo.[/quote]

anon123, if this is your ENTIRE premium for a HDHP, do you happen to be =<30 years of age?? If so, a lot of folks in your demographic (23-26 year-olds) just joined your ranks (to "flesh out" your premium-payor group)!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=anon123]went from $144/month to $114 a month for the same plan, a 20% decrease. shocked when i ran the numbers, since this is the first decrease in my life. single, no kids, ppo.[/quote]

anon123, if this is your ENTIRE premium for a HDHP, do you happen to be =<30 years of age?? If so, a lot of folks in your demographic (23-26 year-olds) just joined your ranks (to "flesh out" your premium-payor group)!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH] . . . Regular things like prescriptions, doctors visits, tests etc, should be paid for by individuals. The whole thing should work a lot more like car insurance, where the insurance company only gets involved where a big problem is involved, not for day to day needs.[/quote]

Absolutely, GH! But there are a LOT of people who think they need to make a dr. appt. for everyone in their family for a hangnail or the common cold. These are the ones “clogging the system” with low co-pays and a lot of time on their hands.

These types make it expensive for ALL of us!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy] . . . When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person. . . [/quote]

Patentguy, I agree. I previously posted about “unlucky” persons you just mentioned with “birth defects.” See:

http://piggington.com/ot_anyone_hear_the_npr_interview_about_the_person_getting_depend

The current crop of seniors (WWII and “Greatest Generation”) DID NOT have warnings on the sides of their cigarette packs early on, when they first became addicted. It was NOT WIDELY KNOWN that saturated fat clogged arteries and was a killer (my mom used to keep a can of lard in the middle of her stove . . . lol). It was a “cultural thing.” That’s why the plethora of pills now that you mention here. I choose NOT to live that way. I will find alternative therapies as I get older and my need arises for remedies to physical ailments. I will NOT go the “tackle-box-full-of-pills” route. That’s just not for me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy] . . . When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person. . . [/quote]

Patentguy, I agree. I previously posted about “unlucky” persons you just mentioned with “birth defects.” See:

http://piggington.com/ot_anyone_hear_the_npr_interview_about_the_person_getting_depend

The current crop of seniors (WWII and “Greatest Generation”) DID NOT have warnings on the sides of their cigarette packs early on, when they first became addicted. It was NOT WIDELY KNOWN that saturated fat clogged arteries and was a killer (my mom used to keep a can of lard in the middle of her stove . . . lol). It was a “cultural thing.” That’s why the plethora of pills now that you mention here. I choose NOT to live that way. I will find alternative therapies as I get older and my need arises for remedies to physical ailments. I will NOT go the “tackle-box-full-of-pills” route. That’s just not for me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy] . . . When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person. . . [/quote]

Patentguy, I agree. I previously posted about “unlucky” persons you just mentioned with “birth defects.” See:

http://piggington.com/ot_anyone_hear_the_npr_interview_about_the_person_getting_depend

The current crop of seniors (WWII and “Greatest Generation”) DID NOT have warnings on the sides of their cigarette packs early on, when they first became addicted. It was NOT WIDELY KNOWN that saturated fat clogged arteries and was a killer (my mom used to keep a can of lard in the middle of her stove . . . lol). It was a “cultural thing.” That’s why the plethora of pills now that you mention here. I choose NOT to live that way. I will find alternative therapies as I get older and my need arises for remedies to physical ailments. I will NOT go the “tackle-box-full-of-pills” route. That’s just not for me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy] . . . When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person. . . [/quote]

Patentguy, I agree. I previously posted about “unlucky” persons you just mentioned with “birth defects.” See:

http://piggington.com/ot_anyone_hear_the_npr_interview_about_the_person_getting_depend

The current crop of seniors (WWII and “Greatest Generation”) DID NOT have warnings on the sides of their cigarette packs early on, when they first became addicted. It was NOT WIDELY KNOWN that saturated fat clogged arteries and was a killer (my mom used to keep a can of lard in the middle of her stove . . . lol). It was a “cultural thing.” That’s why the plethora of pills now that you mention here. I choose NOT to live that way. I will find alternative therapies as I get older and my need arises for remedies to physical ailments. I will NOT go the “tackle-box-full-of-pills” route. That’s just not for me.

[Author]

Posts