Aetna does that too. They assigned a nurse to me each pregnancy to make sure I got what I needed. Just because other's health care may suck doesn't mean I should have to join them. Asshats.

Exactly. I sense that you are like me (in some ways!...we do disagree on a few things!) in that you prepare for life like an adult.

I had health insurance when I could barely afford a dented can of beans. My parents raised me, clothed me, fed me and sent me to college. As an adult, it's my job to cover my costs, not to hope I don't get catastrophically ill and then hope they'll pony up, mortgage their house, etc.

So, let's summarize: They add taxes and fees to make your policy more expensive. Then, because you may have trouble paying the increased costs, they may offer you a government subsidy.

The reasoning here is, unfortunately, absolutely clear...

Well here's something to let percolate in your brain for a while.

I notice people's health insurance premiums go up as they get older. Presumably some of this is because people get things like bunions in their feet, or hernias, or whatnot - but those are not terribly expensive problems.

Think of a big, expensive problem, though - like cancer. If I got cancer at the age of 24, I'd be willing to go through every type of treatment I could get my hands on. If I got it at the age of 75, not so much. As a consumer, I would like the option of keeping my premiums level during my lifetime, even if that means I was covered less for something like that as I got older.

Typically, older people have more money, so when it comes to the smaller things, which usually fall within the deductible anyway, they can afford to pay for those things out of pocket. When it comes to the larger things, and you start getting really old, you accept that if you don't die of something, you're still going to die of nothing. No one makes it out alive. If I got cancer at an old age, I'd freaking DIE, already. I don't understand 80-year-olds getting heart transplants, either. I don't want a million-dollar death. (Rather have a million-dollar life.) If only we had a free market.

Oh yeah, and I could opt out of the pregnancy-related stuff, too. And why not? Other than complications, I don't know why pregnancy and childbirth is covered by health insurance anyway, since they are planned events.

Goverment insurance agent to consumer

" . . and yes I know your plan cost an extra $150 a month, but the $50 dollars we gave you as a government subsidy should cover it."

This is because the entire thing is not insurance at all. It's a massive subsidy system by which those of us who have no children are forced to pay for those who do.

After all, it's for the children, right?

Society should subsidize children, expecially health care. Absolutely. That is why it is called society, from the word "socialis" meaning companionship.
Actually, we should just whack rich people with a consumption taxes, fix health care at 12 percent of GDP, and be done with this constant sniveling from right-wingers.
The Kaiser model cited by Amy is not bad, and should be nationalized.
Although Alkon may change her tune about Kaiser about when she turns age 55. The rates may not seem so reasonable then.
The 55-65 age group is in tough--can't get Medicare, but private coverage can be out of this world.

Actually, we should just . . . fix health care at 12 percent of GDP

Good luck with that.

Ah, another drive-by commie. If we would only subject the wealthy to confiscatory taxation, we could have nirvana.

Which we would - right up to the point when the "wealthy" weren't wealthy any more and stopped pulling the wagon and hopped on.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Parents should subsidize their own children.

There, fixed that for you.

These people are insane. Why should I have to pay for Amy's maternity costs (should she change her mind), and why should Amy have to pay for the problems associated with my being overweight (such as high cholesterol)?

Gee, Amy, you say your health care doesn't need reform and then show how it's not quite right.

You shouldn't pay for services you don't get, and you should be part of an investment program that pays you for being medically responsible.

The only reason you have "insurance" is to make sure the doctor gets paid. No other insurance policy works like this.

>>If I got cancer at an old age, I'd freaking DIE, already.

Seriously, Pirate Jo, I wish that were the case - that we will all greet serious old age illness with a certain mature equanimity.

But I know too many spitfire old farts to believe it!

I suppose anyone who relies upon content from the NY Post for information about health care statistics and realities would be EXACTLY the sort delighted with Kaiser services.

I'd personally be more than happy to let you live (or not) with the results of your... er... choice. Alas, in opposing the preference of most Americans, you advocate a system that dramatically narrows or eliminates the choices of so many millions of others.

How RUDE!

Sincerely,
WI

P.S.: Allow real choice, and literally every analysis conducted thus far - those not directly tied to insurers or their registered lobbyists - shows that you can stick to what YOU prefer, and do so WITHOUT paying more, and likely paying less. But I concede, you won't find that information in the NY Post.

"Seriously, Pirate Jo, I wish that were the case - that we will all greet serious old age illness with a certain mature equanimity."

Serious old age illness is going to happen to me someday, whether I greet it with mature equanimity or not. There is nothing I can do about it, which is one good reason not to spend too much of my healthy, youthful years worrying about it.

But if I'm 80 years old and a) don't have millions of dollars saved up, or b) have not been paying thousands per month insurance premiums so that I have millions of dollars of insurance coverage, why in holy fuck should I expect some 25-year-old to cough up half of his earnings to provide chemotherapy to my wrinkled ass? You want a multi-million dollar death, be my guest, but pay for your OWN ventilator fund.

This world has a lot more people in it than it used to. It has a lot more really, really old people in it than it used to. I draw the line short of saying that young, hardworking people who are trying to support themselves and raise their own families, while simultaneously developing new technology and making progress, should have vast amounts of their resources sucked dry just so a bunch of old heads can spend their last six months to a year in a hospital, hooked up to a machine. That's just a stupid waste of resources on medical care that DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

"Rad, Kaiser isn't perfect (what is?) but it's mostly really good...pricewise and otherwise."

I know. I've seen you praise them before.

But it remains that the idea of "insurance", when the cost is guaranteed to occur, just at different times to different people, encourages all sorts of BS thinking, such as that ridiculous concept that health-care can be "free" - or, available to everyone on demand.

If you want a say, you have to pay. That's the ugly, incontrovertible truth.

Even as I am pleased to see you've carried your own water, lo these many years.

"If we would only subject the wealthy to confiscatory taxation, we could have nirvana.
Which we would - right up to the point when the "wealthy" weren't wealthy any more and stopped pulling the wagon and hopped on."

The wagon is evil. Those of us pulling it have a moral obligation to stop pulling it, hop onto it, and hasten its collapse.

At the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist...

I don't know if you heard, but they are now recommending that women not get mammograms until they are 50, and then every other year instead of every year.

Do you think it's legit, or do you think they are trying to cut back on costs now because of the health plan?

I think it's legit. Anyway, if I had a lump in one of my boobs, it would mean that I *had* a boob. I would notice right away. ;-D

"At the risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist..."

Yes, you're paranoid. Based on studies started well before the reform debate got going. If having a mammogram every year from age 50 to 59 doesn't significantly improve the chances of diagnosis or cure, why bother?

You want cheaper health care? Cutting back on unneeded tests is one way to do that.

As for "not wanting to pay for someone else's maternity coverage," the premise of insurance is to pool money paid in by those covered and spread risk over the covered group. If you set up enough opt-out choices then the cost of being covered for something will rise to the point where it makes more sense to be self-insured.

176
Afghanistan
1,5
4
1.1 - 1.6

177
Haiti
1,4
4
1.1 - 1.7

178
Iraq
1,3
4
1.1 - 1.6

178
Myanmar
1,3
4
1.0 - 1.5

180
Somalia
1,0
4
0.5 - 1.4
So what are these strange numbers?

The most corrupt governments on Earth, according to a global ranking by Transparency International.
Iraqistan. $1 trillion down, and $1 trillion to go.

But we can't afford national health insurance. Like Italy, France, Great Britain, Canada, etc.

You right-wingers have lost your marbles.

i-hole, you idiot. You're using last year's results.

In the 2009 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Iraq has climbed two spaces to 176 and Afghanistan has dropped three spots to 179 (ahead of only Somalia).

And no, we can't afford nationalized health insurance. And Italy, France, Great Britain, Canada, etc. are slowly discovering they can't afford it either.

If you set up enough opt-out choices then the cost of being covered for something will rise to the point where it makes more sense to be self-insured.

You catch on quick. Not bad for a troll.

But we can't afford national health insurance. Like Italy, France, Great Britain, Canada, etc.

If we do the defense cuts you assholes want, then Italy, France, Great Britain, Canada and even etc. won't be able to afford it either.

I am really pissed off at these washington shlubs who are so arrogant that they think they know better than us "serfs" whats good for us. Is it time for the U.S. military to stage a coup and rip this administration and congress out of office just as Honduras did? Obama, pelosi and reid are no different than the Honduran president-they are all scumbags! I would advocate the military to take over for a short period of time to give this country back to the people of the United States, investigate and obtain Obama's Birth records, school records etc. and prosecute those commie congresscritters who are ruining this country and committing treason against the constitution and deliberately ruining our economy through this health care program, taxes and bailouts.

So, I've seen the "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage" bumper sticker. Is there a "Honk if I'm paying your healthcare" one yet? There should be. Or maybe "Honk if you like sucking off the government teat", perhaps?

I don't mind paying your kids' education, I see that more as a long-term loan, as educated people will eventually pay more in taxes, that go to pay for things like roads for me. That's society, that I am ok with. The rest? hell no.

On a completely unrelated note, I have been crowing like an unrepentant peacock all day, since finding out that out of 120 kindergardeners at our Exemplary school, only 5 were accepted into the TAG (talented and gifted program) this year. 2 of those were mine!!

Now that I got that out of my system, I can comment regarding healthcare. This mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. what everyone needs to do is this...if this thing does pass, take a page out of the liberal play book and overburden their system. in this bill, everyone has to prove they have health insurance by submitting it along with their taxes. if everyone didnt submit this info, that would do two things 1.it would overburden the IRS staff having to fine millions of people and 2 this would wind up in the courts where the constitutionality of the mandate could be challenged. This is a serious issue when the federal government can illegally and unconstitutionally force the free people of the united states to do things like purchase insurance and penalize them when they dont.

Something else that is rankling me about the health insurance debacle-the Stupak amendment (rhymes with stupid for a reason).

Setting aside the fact that it's about abortion for one second, this amendment basically says that the government can declare that you can't get a certain medical service, EVEN IF you want it and EVEN IF you have the money to pay for it and EVEN IF your insurance coverage wants to offer it and EVEN IF you want to accept it!

Does anyone else see the irony in the RNC clutching themselves and salivating over this amendment while it codifies the very thing they claimed they didn't want-government control over healthcare decisions even if the government isn't paying for it? They don't seem to get that this will set the precedent for the government to declare that you can't purchase coverage for other procedures even if you can afford it and the insurance want to offer it. Of course the RNC health insurance policy covers abortion, which they quickly declared they would remove, although I don't see why if their members wanted to keep it-they're the party of personal choice, right?

Shades of Great Britain-yes, we know you want the treatment, yes we know you can and will pay for it privately, but no, you can't have it, because not everyone can have it and that's not fair.

And yes, I know the argument that as soon as the fucking thing passes they'll remove the amendment. I hope they do. If insurance companies want to offer a certain service and I want to pay for it, then I don't see why I'm precluded from getting it.

And as to the maternity coverage-it's crap and I'd rather not have to pay for it but I don't have the option to decline, because federal mandates require it (which is why insurance has gotten so expensive-the government demanded that more and more services be covered, so you don't have the option of not choosing services you think you won't use). And it's crap that they're giving me the runaround on paying for permanent sterilization when it's epically less expensive than financing what would be an incredibly high risk pregnancy should one occur (which is not bloody likely unless the zygote has rock-climbing equipment handy).

And before anyone decides to declare that my objection is invalid because I must be a liberal, I'm not-I'm a conservative. I'm just tired of watching the Republican party pursue social engineering while at the same time trying to claim that they're about individual freedom.

So, I've seen the "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage" bumper sticker. Is there a "Honk if I'm paying your healthcare" one yet? There should be.

Momof4, it is not only that we will be paying for their healthcare, we will be (and are) paying for their cars, boats, cigarettes, cable tv and other stuff, that irresponsible people are buying instead of health insurance. out of the so called 45 million "uninsured" how many of these people could actually be insured right now, if they would take the responsibility and buy insurance instead of starbucks, and other non necessities?

This is why I respect Amy, because she paid for her health insurance and slept on a door for several years. this is what america needs to return to -personal responsibility.

The US is the only country I know of where a citizen can lose everything they have due to medical bills. That is wrong.

On the other hand, if we do get socialized medicine, can I knock the Big Mac out of that obese man/woman's hand? My tax dollars will be paying for their bypass surgeries.

> The US is the only country I know of
> where a citizen can lose everything
> they have due to medical bills.

1. How many countries do you know of?

2. Why don't you move to one of them?

3. How many medical treatments are competently provided in those nations, such that skilled professionals would expect to be paid for delivering them?

4. How many of the nations you're dreaming of have their defense provided by another nation, perhaps the United States of America or someone like that, such that they have room in their budgets to flirt with socialism?

> That is wrong.

Phooey.

I'm glad yuo think I'm paranoid.

I just worry that a lot of tests will suddenly start being labeled "not necessary" in order to cut costs... resulting in high rates of serious disease.

I'm so fucking tired of people who complain about things by saying The United States is the only country where a _______ (choose one: [A] Isn't free [B] Isn't regulated [C] is always at risk). In the final analysis of such childish screeching, the blessing in question is always something that doesn't exist in other countries, or certainly wouldn't exist if the United States weren't providing global stability and so much modernity and trade.

In Bujumbura, they don't have all these pesky regulations about where you can park your private aircraft! People there have the right to enjoy General Aviation!

Yeah, but nobody in Burundi can afford an airplane. So there's that....

> The US is the only country I know of
> where a citizen can lose everything
> they have due to medical bills.

Actually, count the blessing that you are still alive, if you were in one of these countries, you'd be dead. But at least you wouldn't lose everything due to medical bills....

The advanced medicine in this country costs more and keeps people alive who would die if they were a citizen of (you fill in the blank) who has socialized medicine.

hmmm...bancruptcy and alive or..."free" medical care and dead.

I will never have a baby, not unless somebody drops one off on my porch. I do have to pay for maternity coverage through Kaiser, which is utterly ridiculous.

With all due respect, Amy, you do not understand the concept of insurance, and what we consider health insurance doesn't fit the bill either.

Every person presents a unique life cycle cost to the health care system. Some cost a lot, others not so much. The sum of those life cycle costs, divided by the number of people, is the average financial risk each person represents to the health care system. The point of insurance is to pool risk; it is a series of bets. On one side, you are paying money, betting you will get sick; on the other, the company is charging you money, betting you won't.

Your saying you won't get pregnant, so you don't need maternity coverage misses the point. You won't get prostate cancer, either. Yet the cost of your insurance, even though it isn't broken out separately, pays in part for prostate cancer. Similarly, I won't ever get breast cancer, but my health insurance cost in some part covers screenings, and treatment.

You can't have it both ways. Getting pregnant is not a risk-related health event; neither is breast cancer screening. Why should insurance cover one, and not the other?

I don't think you should have to pay for purely elective either. But that assertion is much less simple than it sounds. The pill should -- in theory -- be a la carte, but would you rather pay for the alternative? (i.e., when pregnancy becomes a risk, rather than elective, particularly for less well situated women, what does a la carte pricing of the pill do to average life cycle cost? If we as a society aren't going to deny care, then that change in average life cycle cost will get priced in.)

Risk pricing also presents non-obvious problems. First, it presumes that the life cycle costs vary by lifestyle choice -- does the average smoker cost more than the average non-smoker, or about the same amount over a shorter life? -- then, following its logic, bankrupts the elderly.

I think Obamacare is a monstrosity that needs strangling, bludgeoning, shooting, then drowning in the crib before heading to the garage for gasoline with which to burn what's left.

That said, coming to terms with what insurance really means, and how to pay for health care that is part risk and part certainty is decidedly non-trivial, particularly when there is no possibility our society will actually deny care to individuals.