Affordable medical insurance

I am looking for affordable medical Insurance, anyone have any suggestion? Originally Posted by tige1979

Found myself in that position recently, ended up with a policy via HumanaOne... costs me about $105 a month, less than what I was playing thru my previous employer.

I would try requesting a quote on ehealthinsurance.com Originally Posted by Natalie Reign

Yep, that's where I found mine....

I do think the Health care reform is needed. I also like the idea of helping those with pre existing conditions. That being said I am not in agreement with forcing us to carry Health care insurance and fining those that do not get it. I also have a problem with IRS handling the collection of those fines and getting a percentage of what they collect as their pay.

What you haven't mentioned, mm, is that virtually all large employers -- even mid-sized ones now -- are SELF INSURED. The insurance companies charge a hefty fee to administer their clients' health plans but are NOT in charge of them. What they will and won't cover/pay/charge is by and large determined by the employer. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It's true that some are self-insured. I don't know where you can get reliable statistics on how many or what percentage are self-insured, but I don't think it's a majority. My company tried going self-insured several years ago. That experiment lasted about 2 years until our HR dept decided it was worth it to have an insurance company handle it. We actually have insurance companies bid on our plan every year, so every year there's a chance we will switch insurance companies.

Everything else you said is true - can be true - in some - but not all - circumstances. Some coverage is dictated by the employer, and will be included in the policy, but nothing is free. And the reality is that employers also have to deal with government mandates.

But I still dispute that the solution to our problem in this country is a single-payer system. When you were touting the advantages of the Canadian system I was reminded of the countless Canadian citizens I saw paraded around during the Obamacare debate, saying they were so pleased with their system because "healthcare doesn't cost me anything." EXCUSE ME?? WTF?? It only SEEMS not to cost anything because the single-payer system hides the real cost of goods and services from the consumer. Talk about an invitation to distort a market!!

Sorry, but those ignoramuses in Canada are free to believe that their healthcare is "free," but you and I know it isn't. They're paying through the nose in excess taxes for an inefficient government-run system that leaves many Canadian citizens no choice but to flee to the USA for life-saving procedures their government has deemed not cost-effective.

This is much too complicated a subject to take on here. I just hope the OP gets some coverage, somewhere, someway. You and others have offered useful advice.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, here's what I found for you, mm.

According to the 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey, 57 percent of all U.S. companies partially or completely self–fund their health care plans.

Eighty-eight percent of employers with 5,000 or more workers self-fund or partially self-fund their health benefits plan. Self-insurance for employers with under 200 employees is also prevalent (15 percent according to the Kaiser survey), but these employers usually require greater stop-loss insurance protection than the larger employers.

I don't care much for Kaiser, but they do know a bit about health insurance.

The National Business Council on Health represents more than 7,000 employers -- mostly large and mid-sized. (http://ncbh.org) If you're interested, use that link to direct yourself to a lot more information than this.

Yssup,

I think maybe the point isn't as fine as you think it is. I've read this Kaiser report front-to-back, top-to-bottom and inside out, and NOWHERE can I find the numbers you cite. Are you, perhaps, relying on someone else's summary of this report? But maybe I'm just temporarily learning-disabled, so could you perhaps open it up and tell me on which page and in which paragraph the 57% figure is located?

Before you do, perhaps you should know that after reading the report and failing to find the statistic you cite, I did a keyword search and found the number "57" in only one context: 97% of unionized firms offer employee-sponsored healthcare vs 57% of non-unionized firms (pg 4, middle column, under heading "Availability of Employer-Sponsored Coverage"). Other than this one instance, the number 57 doesn't appear in this document.

There are 9 "exhibits" or charts, labeled A thru I, in which data are presented graphically. Not one of these exhibits deals with the subject you mention. In fact, the study consistently defined "large" companies as those with > 200 employees. I can find only one area in which the study bothers itself with further refining the "over 200 employees" category. It finds that 20% of companies with > 1,000 employees have on-site health facilities (pg 7, under "Other Topics"). Other than that, I can find no reference in this study to companies of 5,000 employees - or ANY size over 200 employees. Again, I did a keyword search and did not find "5,000" in the document.

Now there IS one statistic in this document that speaks to a point I made earlier (responding to Natalie Reign) - that being the myth that large groups lead to lower premiums. I'll cut and paste from the document so there can be no chance of error:


(200 or more workers).

This is from pg 1, bottom of column 1, continuing to top of column 2. And the context here is total premium, not the subsidized premium paid by the employee.

So let's have the debate. But let's quote accurately.

Why would I fabricate stuff on a dry subject like this and back it up with links that would prove me wrong? Maybe you're working too hard on this and maybe I've erroneously linked to the wrong report. But maybe NOT!

This, from the KFF report in question.

SECTION 10: Plan Funding, Page 156, section summary:

The employee retirement income security act (erisa) of 1974 exempts self-funded plans from state insurance laws, including reserve requirements, mandated benefits, premium taxes, and consumer protection regulations. Over one half (57%) of covered workers are in a self-funded health plan. Because larger firms have more employees over whom to spread the risk of costly claims, selffunding is more common and less risky for larger firms than for smaller ones.

Slightly more than half (57%) of covered workers are in a self-funded plan (Exhibit 10.1). The percentage of covered workers who are in a plan that
is completely or partially self-funded has remained stable over the last few years, but has increase from 44% in 1999.

As expected, covered workers in large firms (200 or more workers) are more likely to be in a selffunded plan than workers in small firms (3–199
workers) (77% vs. 15%) (Exhibit 10.3). The percentage of covered workers in self-funded plans increases as the number of employees
increases. Forty-eight percent of workers in firms with 200 to 999 workers are in self-funded plans, compared to 80% of workers in firms with 1,000
to 4,999 workers, and 88% of workers in firms with 5,000 or more workers (Exhibit 10.3).

As previously mentioned, these percentages have changed little over the past several years
(Exhibit 10.1).

A higher percentage of workers in PPOs are in a self-funded plan (67%), compared to 48% in conventional health plans, 48% in HDHP/SOs,
40% in HMOs, and 25% in POS plans (Exhibit 10.2)


Read it front to back, top to bottom and inside out, did you? That makes ONE of us!

Dude, I can't fucking believe you made me reread that shit ... I knew I wasn't crazy but now I'm not so sure!

I'll accept a cold beer for sweat and research time spent defending my integrity! I'll buy you one for holding my feet to the fire ... tastes better than crow after all,

Read it front to back, top to bottom and inside out, did you? That makes ONE of us!
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah, at close to midnight I thought it was sufficient to read the 8 page "Summary of Findings" instead of the 212 page full report. My mistake. I see, though, that my greatest error was in assuming that statistics to which you attach such importance would be mentioned in the summary.

The relevance of this little tidbit, I take it, is to dispute my previous statement about the purchasing power insurance companies have with pharma companies and physician groups. But that was relevant only to the point that a self-employed person purchasing a private plan is not necessarily at a disadvantage with respect to a person covered under a group plan with an employer, large or small. An insured person, whether under a company's group plan or under a private plan with a major carrier, will pay significantly less for a prescription at Walgreens than will an uninsured person paying full retail out of pocket.

And beer rots your liver. Make it a single-malt Scotch. Yes, Scotch will rot your liver too. If you're gonna make me pay for a liver transplant, let's get there in style.

The relevance of this "little tidbit," was to substantiate my research and debunk your erroneous assault on my accuracy and, by the way, my integrity.

You called bullshit on my research. I knew it wasn't and wouldn't have spent the time to find it and quote it otherwise. Further, it was solid research from a highly respected foundation in the health care arena, not some blather from a left or right wing blogger.

Took me a "couple" of minutes to re-find the numbers you claimed didn't exist but I was determined to prove to myself that I hadn't lost what was left of my tiny mind!

The statistics to which I attached such great importance stood only as proof that your original dispute of my claim "I don't know where you can get reliable statistics on how many or what percentage are self-insured, but I don't think it's a majority" was indeed well-founded. At least for the purposes of debate.

My point was simply defending my thesis. You called bullshit on me twice. Twice, I proved you were mistaken.

No harm no foul.

Party on, Garth!

The relevance of this "little tidbit," was to substantiate my research and debunk your erroneous assault on my accuracy and, by the way, my integrity.

You called bullshit on my research. I knew it wasn't and wouldn't have spent the time to find it and quote it otherwise. Further, it was solid research from a highly respected foundation in the health care arena, not some blather from a left or right wing blogger.

Took me a "couple" of minutes to re-find the numbers you claimed didn't exist but I was determined to prove to myself that I hadn't lost what was left of my tiny mind!

The statistics to which I attached such great importance stood only as proof that your original dispute of my claim "I don't know where you can get reliable statistics on how many or what percentage are self-insured, but I don't think it's a majority" was indeed well-founded. At least for the purposes of debate.

My point was simply defending my thesis. You called bullshit on me twice. Twice, I proved you were mistaken.

No harm no foul.

Party on, Garth! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah, so thanks for finding the statistic I said would be hard to find. Good work. Like I said, I should have read the 212 page report instead of the 8 page summary. But it's still a meaningless statistic with respect to my original point about purchasing power of large insurers, and which you THOUGHT you adequately rebutted. Even though the percentage of employers who self-fund really has no bearing on my original point, I said I didn't think it was a majority, AND I WAS CLEARLY WRONG AND YOU PROVED I WAS WRONG. IT IS A MAJORITY. IT'S 57%, WHICH IS GREATER THAN 50%, AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES A MAJORITY. It's still irrelevant to my original point.

But if you need me to say it again, I will. Good work. You found a statistic, one that I said would be hard to find, buried in a 212 page report. Good work.

Like I said, bro, no harm no foul.

Like I said, bro, no harm no foul. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

OK. But you still never said whether you'll take payment in beer or Scotch. For making you re-read that 212 page report, I think I owe you beer AND Scotch.

Single malt boilermakers!

Now that's the way adults debate. No name calling and no threats of squashing anyone. The kids here should take note.

double post, sorry!

Now that's the way adults debate. No name calling and no threats of squashing anyone. The kids here should take note. Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

Hey, you worm-riddled, toffy-nosed heap of parrot droppings, what the fook are you talkin' about? (Just kidding, asshole!)

Seriously, though: Thanks for pointing it out Smokin Joe. It's a lot easier to hurl insults at each other, but when you debate like this, everybody in the room gets to learn something. That's a good thing!