|
No Butt Stuff posted:
Lol. I make a solidly middle-class salary of about 55K a year. I can afford to sock 40 bucks a month in my company sponsored HSA, and do that solely to cover my prescriptions. I like my HSA -- it's nice to be able to just swipe my debit card and pay for prescriptions without thinking about it much, I can use it for dental and vision care, and my company gives us 500-1100 bucks per year to go towards the deductible, which is only 1300 (lowest allowed for those kind of plans). But it's also not for everyone, and I'd be hit HARD if something major were to happen or suddenly my deductible or max out of pocket tripled or something. As for this whole bill...it's a mess that would eventually lead to a death spiral for most insurers. Most Americans spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point in their lives. That year of poverty is probably going to be marked by having no insurance -- especially in a state that hates Medicaid. When they get back on their feet enough to have insurance, they find that they are going to get charged a 30% penalty. Which demotivates them to bother going to the doctor or getting insurance until that minor issue becomes a huge deal. Does that 30% penalty even cover the most negligible bit of the cost of treating the cancer? Or is everyone else saddled with the cost, causing their premiums to skyrocket, causing them to say "gently caress it, I'll risk being uninsured," until they suddenly need it? What an awful bill.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Sigh. A smartphone costs, at max, $700. Which makes no real sent in a major medical procedure, especially without insurance. Also, there's a reason smartphones have 90+% market penetration in 10 years. They give you a nearly free source of entertainment and news, allow you to call your friends/family/job/emergency services, and let you apply for jobs online. Fun fact: a cheap pre-paid smartphone that looks a lot like an iPhone costs $20. A Samsung prepaid costs $50. And my first smartphone -- a 1 generation old iPhone -- was given to me for free by a friend who had it sitting in a drawer and gave it to me when I mentioned in passing that I was interested in a deal I saw for them through AT&T. It's one of the best investments a poor person can make. Unless you're being ironic...in which case I apologize for the tangent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
RE: ColoradoCare I was at the county level caucus for Jefferson County. A person suggested adding support for Amendment 69 (ColoradoCare) to the Democratic Party platform. Sen. Bennet and Congressman Perlmutter got up on stage and told us they weren't for it due to the 3 person panel in each Congressional district being able to determine coverages possibly screwing us later on by not covering stuff. Or something. Democratic Governor Hickenlooper was against it. In the end, the "NAYS" way out screamed the "YEAS" at the caucus...an event filled with Democrats and probably 2/3 Bernie supporters. I voted yes on it. But I sort of get why people didn't. For one, while Colorado looks very liberal on the outside, it's actually more libertarian. We voted yes for marijuana because toking it doesn't harm anyone else, and people shouldn't be stuck in jail for it. That, and it was a way to get tax money without raising income or property taxes on a lot of the population. Which brings us to TABOR. Basically, the government can't raise any taxes without going to the people, and can't increase the amount they collect over a small percentage each year. IF the taxes collected for ColoradoCare turned out not to be adequate, they'd have to go back to the voters to ask for more money. Getting a statewide tax increase passed here requires an act of God, so there's a drat good chance coverage would get cut instead. On top of that, over the past 5-6 years or so, housing prices have increased like crazy in the Denver/Boulder/Fort Collins area, where most of the people are. The $524 a month glorified ashtray tissue box apartment I had in 2007 now costs $1000 a month. The average 1 bedroom is $1300 a month. A 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1000 square foot meth house in a nothing-special neighborhood costs 250K. Wages are not growing fast enough to keep up with the cost of living rise. Colorado is an insular, somewhat anti-growth state anyway, and we're already overwhelmed by the deluge of Millenials coming here from elsewhere looking for Tech Jobs, High Times, and endless snowboarding. Adding a bunch of sick, low-earning power people who are screwed out of health care in Texas and Kansas isn't exactly in our best interests. But I still felt that ethically it was the right thing to do, so I voted yes. I support universal, nationwide health care. I'm open to discussion about different ways of doing it, as long as it gets done.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I appreciate your post and your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious why you believe there is an ethical imperative to provide universal, nationwide health care if you also believe that the sick or low-earning power poor are a net drain on our social institutions. Also is stricter border control and security a necessary precondition to universal, nationwide health care? It's a heck of a lot harder to jump from another country to Colorado than it is to move from Amarillo to Pueblo. I'm not really thinking about undocumented immigrants. My bigger concern would getting hit with tons of people that have expensive health care needs coming from states that didn't take the Medicaid expansion or families bringing their severely disabled members to Colorado to get them on Colorado Care, having paid nothing in. If that happened, I would fear the taxes to pay for the program wouldn't be enough to cover the program. We have no rainy day fund (hell, we have to cut hundreds of millions a year despite the marijuana taxes), our system makes it nearly impossible to raise taxes (especially now that we need a 55% majority to pass anything), and, frankly, most of the state is not a cheap place to live (and the cheap places have no jobs). I don't think being host to a bunch of healthcare refugees from other states would be good for Colorado or the people coming here...especially once they figure out that staying housed is going to eat up a lot more of their income than it did in Oklahoma. If they fell through the cracks (and many would, because people with money and good healthcare would not be the ones uprooting to come here), then their housing and food becomes our responsibility as well. In a state where the government can't borrow or raise money without voters approval and voters rarely approve. I'd rather UHC be handled at the federal level, where they can set a proper tax rate, borrow if needed, and keep the program running during lean times. Colorado would have a very hard time doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Even if the US government negotiating much better drug prices causes drug prices to increase in other countries, my basic response is a shrug. Not to sound Trumpian, but if the prices for drug X increases by 10% in the UK, Australia, and Japan in exchange for the US not being gouged...well, that's their problem, not mine. They need to negotiate and sort that out for themselves. It's the same way I feel when people start talking about rich people coming down from Canada to get healthcare in the US. As an American, why should I care about the welfare and wait times rich Canadians over that of poor Americans? If it's that loving bad for rich Canadians, they need to work that out with the Canadian government. It's not an US issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If the choice is between a plan costing me hundreds per month + a large deductible or uninsured, I'll take uninsured. Well, maybe you need to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get a better job. Or skip buying the newest iPhone and vidya game system and put that money towards insurance. For 99% of people, that's insulting. For you, it's true.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Nah it's usually a pretty complex choice environment and employees tend to choose the plan that offers the best value for their health. In 3 plan environments you'll often only get 10% enrollment in the cheapest plan Depends on the industry and what employees are being paid. I worked for a company that had something like 27 different options for insurance in 2007. 9 choices for deductible, 9 for prescription coverage, 9 for something else I can't remember. These plans ranged in cost from $0 for something about the equivalent of a bronze exchange plan, to $60 a paycheck for platinum level coverage. It was about half of people paying for the best, 20% of people on the free plan, and the rest somewhere in between. I think I did something with low deductibles, moderate co-pays, and basic prescription coverage, paid about $25 per paycheck. But we were paid decently, and, as auto insurance company workers, had to hear a lot of sob stories about accidents that make you want to take care of yourself. Contrast that with my retail jobs before that, where everyone below management was either uninsured or on the most bare bones plan offered. When you make $9.00 an hour, you REALLY don't want to spend more than $9.00 a week on insurance -- so cheapest plan it is, if any at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I recall around the time of the ACA debate hearing stories about insurance companies intentionally sitting on on-time premium payments to trigger punitive coverage drops. When I worked for an insurance company (auto and home, granted), we went by postmark date. Mind you, if the person called in on the last postmark date and HAD to pay by mail (unbanked and money order people, usually), we did tell them to GO TO THE POST OFFICE AND WATCH THEM STAMP IT. I'm not sure why this was our rule, but it wasn't a bad one. My employer provided insurance has the strangest formulary for prescriptions. It's either next to nothing (generic Zoloft is 77 cents for a months supply), or just not covered (Genvoya for my partner under my plan would be 3K a month, which is why our health insurance is kept separate). One woman I work with gets her blood pressure meds for $1.22 a month. Asthma meds for her son? $250. I can understand some price difference between an old generic and a new name brand drug...but the swings are just insane.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
We did an excellent job of out the tax increase and cost savings in Colorado, and still only got 21% of the vote. There are some unique problems in Co that may have artificially lowered the Yes vote compared to other places. TABOR, which doesn't allow us to have any rainy day fund, is one...people are skeptical that they won't be asked to raise taxes again or lose coverage. The housing market is expensive and overheated due to a lot of newcomers and a rapid growth rate, while wages aren't keeping pace. This would bring even more growth, and even more expensive housing. We only semi-tolerate the potheads, ski-bros, and young professionals who come here in droves...but are really skittish about adding "everyone from Texas who's kid has a rare, expensive disease" to that mix. Toss out those two things and support goes to...maybe 30%? Our poor are still temporarily embarrassed millionaires just like everywhere else in America, and say things like "10% capital gains tax to pay for this! My word! How is that fair to the rich!" I don't think any individual state wants to be the guinea pig for UHC. It will need to be nationwide.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
On the one hand, I have a co-worker who found out she was a Type 2 diabetic through my company plans yearly weigh in and blood draw (optional, of course...unless you don't want the $300 HSA reward for scoring a 71 or above or increasing your health score by 5 points). They found her blood sugar level to be at 800...literally telling her to "go to the ER, NOW!" She thought her weight loss, tiredness, and thirst were due to her recently quitting smoking and going to the gym a lot. And I got help on my cholesterol from my doc after going to one. But at the same time: it's invasive as hell, totally random (I somehow gained 8 points one year based on my waist to hip ratio despite weighing the same, then lost them the next year), and their "reasonable exception" to get the extra $300 if you don't score above a 71 or gain 5 points in their stupid scale is a colossal waste of time. So people are getting to the point where they skip it if they don't think they'll get the money. Which, unless they have some other plan in place or a decent PCP, just means worse outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This sounds almost like they do the weigh-ins and blood test results publicly for everyone to see and hear. That can't possibly be true, right? Or did your co-worker tell you about this after the fact? She told us about it in our training class, just as kind of a PSA to our new hires. It is kind of a cattle call, though. You pick your time that's convenient for a fasting blood draw (since I like breakfast and get into work at 7AM, I schedule for before 8AM), show up, get your blood prick, pressure checked, weigh in, measurements, etc. The nurses try not to say anything about it out loud, but the privacy isn't great either, especially since they do it in a former training lab meant to hold 25 people. Why it's there and not, say, the 400+ person person capacity cafeteria seating area that gets shut down all the time for other events, I don't know. A few days later, you get an email telling you to log on to a website where you get your results. If it's good, $300 dumped into HSA. If not, you can either do the "reasonable exception" (HAHAHA), or forfeit. Everyone gets $500 minimum in the HSA no matter what, and then you can get up to $250 reimbursement for healthy activities (gym membership, weight watchers, marathon entry fees), and most years they just drop $300 in there in January as a "thanks for the profitable year, guys" reward to everyone. I'm sure that nets them a tax break somewhere, but it's still ok. The deductible is $1350 for a single person, so someone who games it right and only has themselves to worry about can get enough dumped on their card to have a zero deductible. But the games are kind of irritating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:hello i am leaving the socialist worker's paradise of the NHS to the hellscape that is employer provided health insurance Not a Dr, lawyer, HR pro, or insurance agent! Better PPO all the way on this one. If we were talking about your contributions being higher, then it'd be a really convoluted question involving tons of follow up questions about your salary, general health, additional people you're covering, and on and on and on. But, since we're talking about $60 a month difference between an mediocre plan, an annoying high deductible plan, and a fairly nice plan, just opt for the best one. Those prices and coverages are better than most people get, even with employer provided coverage. Count yourself lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:yeah my issue with the better ppo is that I lose access to a HSA, which can work as a tax efficient savings vehicle. Aside from the prescriptions (for perennial allergies lol) I'm in pretty good health and I'm young. Well...If you contribute the $50 a month difference into your HSA + the 500 the employer gives you, it effectively lowers your deductible to $400 your first year, which isn't bad. Plus, HSA funds can used for dental and vision. Dental, even with insurance, can be the most expensive part of health care for otherwise young and healthy people. My mouth has cost me a couple grand over the past couple years. Most company plans have decent prescription coverage, especially if you can get generics. My 3 prescriptions for mental health and cholesterol cost $6 a month. I doubt you'll need to resort to bringing in drugs from India. So, yeah, the HSA is probably fine in your case. Just avoid the cheap one
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
CPAP chat: My doctors and insurance were at least honest that, "yes, we will be monitoring usage to determine if we will cover this" upfront. It works well, and I'm such a heavy sleeper that I don't notice it when I'm knocked out anyway. I get charged $45 a month for 5 years the machine and whatever weird random amount they come up with for supplies. The machine is able to be bought outright for $450 online. So, I make 60 PAYMENTS of $45 a month for something that should be 10 payments of $45, or a one time sunk cost of $450. The rental and supplies were supposed to auto charge to my HSA card. They didn't. And I wasn't notified until I was $900 in arrears and my supplies were cut off. I made a $500 payment (enough to keep it turned on), turned off the auto pay, and now I basically pay what I feel like I can afford each month towards the remainder. The supplies also seem random and never quite what I need. I have 50 little fabric filters. But I order hoses and masks from Amazon sometimes... especially masks, since the lifespan of the silicone in the mask before it won't make a proper seal is about 3 weeks to 1 month, but I get a new one every two months or so. Oh, and I got a call from the urgent care that I went to 9 months ago for an ankle sprain but paid off asking for more money. No notice in the mail, just a message on my phone. Need to call them back still and see how much THAT is going to cost me. Ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 17:45
|
|