Disney and Universal score waivers to offer limited health plans for part-timers

I know. Silly me!

Jerry said:
I would be very in favor of paying 5-10% of my check for a program such as the UK's NHS. Call it evil socialist agenda, and I'll put my Blue Cross premium that continually increases year after year up your blessed bum. Oh wait, that's capitalism at work isn't it? Doesn't sound all that great to me...

I wish Jerry was my friend...even though he sounds kinda pink, politically-speaking...LOL! ;)

Jerry said:
I would be very in favor of paying 5-10% of my check for a program such as the UK's NHS. Call it evil socialist agenda, and I'll put my Blue Cross premium that continually increases year after year up your blessed bum. Oh wait, that's capitalism at work isn't it? Doesn't sound all that great to me...

I still believe the insurance industry isn't the problem, per se.

The problem is that somewhere along the way insurance became synonymous with health care.

Which is exactly why I'm against universal health care - it's just forcing us to all buy into the problem instead of fixing it.

---

And as a matter of belief, it sure sounds like you're saying "it costs too much for me, I wish someone else would help pay for my health care" and I disagree with that on principal.

---

And on the subject of capitalism, you have a choice. That's the beauty of the system. Don't like Blue Cross, find someone who fits your needs better.

Jerry is not my health care friend. :)

Aamilj said:
...and socialism is not the answer...

I'm glad the system we have now in no way resembles socialism. It's totally awesome that someone who has insurance (me) pays a lot more to cover the costs of people who don't have insurance but get treated anyway and can't afford to pay the bill. Holy crap, we're living under socialism right now! I better go reload and show the evil gubmint who's boss...

I'm sure there are loads of people who disagree, but I don't believe that in a country as wealthy as ours that anybody should die of a preventable cause just because they can't afford treatment. It seems that as a society we largely agree since anyone will be treated at the ER regardless of ability to pay.

If everyone who can afford to buy insurance but doesn't would be left to die if they can't pay up front for any procedure, then maybe our current insurance system would be viable. Since I don't imagine too many people would rush to sign up for that, a system that makes everyone put something into the pot (with assistance for the truly poor) is the only real solution.

As a personal aside, I think it's completely irresponsible for anyone to think they don't need insurance just because they're young or they think they can afford to pay out of pocket. A friend of mine at age 21 had what seemed like an ordinary cold that lead him to cardiac arrest. He'd contracted some unusual virus that attacked and destroyed his heart. After flat-lining several times over the course of a week or so, months later he's finally on the road to recovery. The total costs of all his procedures so far has been over $1 million, and he still might need a heart transplant if he ever wants to not be tethered to the $300,000 suitcase that's keeping him alive. If he didn't have insurance, he and his parents would be dealing with bankruptcy on top of all the medical headaches. I don't think that's a burden that should be placed on anybody.

LostKause said:
I don't get sick often. I've been hospitalized a total of two times in my almost 37 years here on this planet, not counting being born. I've seen my primary care physician about once every two or three years for any problems that I have, and I gladly pay my bill with my debt card at the time of my visit. I don't take any ongoing prescriptions.

It sure must be nice to know that you'll never acquire a serious illness, like cancer, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy or something similarly devastating. I've heard that even moderate treatment of such problems can completely bankrupt people without insurance.

What clinic do I go to for that surprisingly inexpensive Really Serious and Expensive to Treat Affliction Vaccine? :)

Lord Gonchar said:
And on the subject of capitalism, you have a choice. That's the beauty of the system. Don't like Blue Cross, find someone who fits your needs better.

I tried that when I became an independent contractor last year, but I literally could not get coverage from any health insurance company because I had only been in remission from cancer for 4 years. After 5 years United Healthcare was willing to cover me, but anything related to the cancer would be excluded -- such as the annual CAT scan I was still getting at the time, my single largest medical expense. At that point it would almost make more sense to play the "I never get sick" card, have no insurance, and use that savings to pay for the CAT scan out of pocket. Which would cover about half of it. And since my company was closing, we couldn't get COBRA or state continuation coverage, since our former policy ceased to exist along with the company.

None of that is to say universal healthcare or 2014Care is/was the solution to my situation; I'm just saying that it's not always an issue of shopping around. I was willing to pay the full premium, knowing that it would cost more with my cancer history, yet no one was willing to sell me coverage.

(Luckily, the company I'm working for was able to get me on their group health plan, so I was able to transition without any exclusions. I'm more or less an employee anyway, just not on paper.)

And Travis, I really never did get sick until I got Hodgkin's lymphoma, which has no known cause and isn't hereditary. I think I had strep throat twice when I was in elementary school but other than a few colds every year I was illness-free. I was 24 at the time I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's, and I had been on my company's health plan less than a year at that point -- but thank God I had it!

My thoughts on the whole health care debate have really changed once I saw more about what was going on. It's funny, it doesn't matter if one is a conservative or liberal, if you work in my field, you're not hearing anyone in favor of most of the changes to Medicaid/Medicare coming in 2014.

I definitely think healthcare reform is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I know it's been mentioned here before. I can remember when I was young, and my family didn't have any health insurance because my parents were self employed, and insurance was expensive. When we were sick, we went to the Dr. and my parents paid for it out of pocket. Same thing with the hospital. We were more proactive about living a more healthy because we didn't want anything major that was controlable to happen.

Insurance should be just that. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, tune ups, etc., you pay for those out of pocket to keep the car running. Insurance is there if/when something major happens to make sure that you're not totally screwed.

Having spent nearly a decade now working with programs like Medicaid and Medicare, I can honestly say that I don't have a problem with underpriveledged children, elderly, or people with serious illnesses such as cancer, receiving those programs. The way the programs work at this point is that children and elderly folks that make under a certain income are eligible, to keep those whose families can afford insurance and healtcare from benifitting from it, which I feel is only fair.

And, unless in cases where someone has mega assets and/or a high enough continued income source to support themselves thru a major illness, I don't mind people that have lymphoma, cancer, MS, etc. getting government funded programs. Those types of illnesses can bankrupt someone even if they're doing their best with the disease.

But come 2014, all someone has to do is meet the income (and possible asset, not sure on that yet as I haven't read all of the information) guidelines, and they're eligible. Under those guidelines, my family would have been eligible when I was growing up.

I think that is the wrong way to run these programs.

I think that doctor and hospital charges (what really should be referred to as healtcare) have become outrageous. I realize they're in it as a business, but I've seen both gouge patients and charge way more for patients on good insurances and governemnt assistance than they would with someone who doesn't have either (and I've worked on both sides, the billing and the programs paying). What happened to the days when you could afford to pay for a doctor's visit, or for labs? It's so outrageous now, and they charge so much for so little.

Plus, the way insurance companies have been allowed to reject insuring children for 'preexisting' conditions, like, you know, being born weighing 9lbs? That is what needs to be fixed. Requiring people to have insurance coverage is not the answer. Making sure people have adequate healthcare and can get the help they need is.

What other product/service is sold/delivered without either the person buying or selling knowing the cost? Ask your doctor how much a given procedure, test or drug will cost and my guess is he/she won't know.

At one point, folks had catostrophic coverage. Costs of routine procedures/tests/drugs were known and paid for out of pocket. Huge costs/illnesses were covered. Then folks started getting insurance for everything and costs skyrocketed. Thats just what economics says would happen. We need to get to a system that creates incentives to decrease costs (and really usage). We have a rapidly aging population and a younger generation that is facing significant obesity issues. Without significant changes, increased costs will bankrupt everyone.

And its my understanding that the UK system is facing cost issues as well.

Hey, Aamilj. What's your favorite Arrow steelie?

I thought I made it clear earlier that I like woodies...? I'd a rather you asked my favorite CCI or GCI. But since you asked, I think Arrows suck. Can't stand over the head bars. The transitions jerk the crap out of you. And simple loops and corkscrews scream 1970's to 1985. A little birdy told me Dollywood has a decent Arrow though...

P.S. This conversation was about health-care. I prefer to discuss these topics. By the look of the thread counts...so do a lot of people on this site. But rest assured that if you really want to test my coaster knowledge, I can hang with the conversation better than most. Want a throw me a question about "The Bat"? How about William's Grove? If you are going to test me, at least make it a bit more challenging! ;)

Gonch -

And on the subject of capitalism, you have a choice. That's the beauty of the system. Don't like Blue Cross, find someone who fits your needs better.

Jerry is not my health care friend. :)

I do respect your view point...

However when you have a pre existing condition, and reside in the state of michigan - Blue cross is your only choice. There is no other insurer who will take me on.

What other product/service is sold/delivered without either the person buying or selling knowing the cost? Ask your doctor how much a given procedure, test or drug will cost and my guess is he/she won't know.

That is the problem indeed. What is funny, the socialist aspects of the health-care system caused the problem of costs. Yet those who want change propose even more socialism. It really makes zero sense if you look at it logically.

But, even if we accept that a socialist medical system is the solution... Why not just pay to provide coverage for the 15-20 million (real number not the 46 used to pass the bill) rather than this 2 trillion boondoggle? We could have bought a Cadilac plan for all the real uninsured (those that can't get coverage) for less.

However when you have a pre existing condition, and reside in the state of michigan - Blue cross is your only choice. There is no other insurer who will take me on.

I sympathize with your situation. There is no doubt that pre-existing conditions had to be looked at. One of the first things that should have happened is health coverage should have been open across state borders. Every plan should have been nationalized to create competition. You should not have been limited to just what Michigan offers.

This is an example of how government interference causes the problem. Who in the hell is Big Brother to tell you that you are unable to shop and buy another plan whether in or out of Michigan? In a free country, you would have that choice. Competition could have brought affordability into the equation. What freedom do/did you really have?

And some, like the current administration argue that we need more government involvement???

I still don't think simply being able to shop around is a solution....

I do agree that the system is broken, and it almost needs an arbitrary socialist policy to fix it, but we do live in the USA and implementation of such a thing would be difficult...

I can say that I've considered emigration several times to a country with a better arrangement to suit my needs - but why should I have to leave my home in order to live better? I thought our country was the land of promise and opportunity...

I'm pretty much done with this rant... but hope for my new years wish that everyone gets a viable solution solving all problems and is fair, but certainly that is a pipe dream...

Aamilj said:
Competition could have brought affordability into the equation.

Which is exactly why true health care reform requires a public option (i.e. a completely socialized method of care) in addition to private insurers. Sadly, because we allow insurers to donate to our government representatives, it's not likely that we'll ever see true competition from the government.

And some, like the current administration argue that we need more government involvement???

It makes no logical sense that poor implementation of "something" is an indictment of that "something" altogether. I mean, the first automobile windshields used to shred passengers in a car accident... should we have abandoned windshields altogether (and yeah, that's a weak analogy, but still...)?

And I should point out that I find it amusing that with all of your anti-socialism rants, you never responded to this. It's not surprising, as I've found pointing out the various successful socialist programs we've been taking for granted for our entire lives aren't considered socialism by those most vehemently opposed to the so-called "Keynesian" administration. Ignorance at its finest.

Can't we all just get along?

This conversation was about health-care. I prefer to discuss these topics.

Sorry, but you're on a coaster forum. Not a healthcare forum.

Besides, its the off season, wait till the season is in full swing and see how much people care about health care.

djDaemon said:
And I should point out that I find it amusing that with all of your anti-socialism rants, you never responded to this.

Not directed at me, but I'd just like to point out that I believe the 'socialism' approach to those things are the reasons all of the examples given are less than perfect, broken or on the verge of failing in some way and that privatizing them would be a better solution in almost every case.

Lord Gonchar said:

And as a matter of belief, it sure sounds like you're saying "it costs too much for me, I wish someone else would help pay for my health care" and I disagree with that on principal.

I read something entirely different into the conversation - something more along the lines of "I'm tired of paying people like Gator up to 1/3 of our national health care budget just to shuffle billing paperwork from hither to thither to yon in an effort to get SOMEONE to pay for said service". Of course, as implied above, my current job means I'm a part of the problem. But maybe, just maybe, that gives me just a bit of insight as to o ne aspect of the solution....

rollergator said:
I read something entirely different into the conversation - something more along the lines of "I'm tired of paying people like Gator up to 1/3 of our national health care budget just to shuffle billing paperwork from hither to thither to yon in an effort to get SOMEONE to pay for said service".

So it goes back to insurance equating health care being the issue. The bureaucracy of needing coverage to get care is f'n things up.

I'm not sure I buy that forcing everyone into that broken system is going to reduce the silliness of your job in any way.

Lord Gonchar said:
...all of the examples given are less than perfect, broken or on the verge of failing in some way and that privatizing them would be a better solution in almost every case.

Do you really want your neighbor to have private fire control service, be behind on their bills (or simply elect not to have the service), and watch their house fire spread to your house? Then, because your private fire service now realizes you're a high risk (due to your neighbor's lack of sufficient coverage), you have to pay an enormous premium? Or, as we see in the health care industry, you can't even get fire protection because you're too high risk due to your neighbor not having coverage.

These services - fire, police, libraries, schools - are socialized because they increase the safety, viability and sustainability of society as a whole. Everyone benefits from them, even if everyone isn't using them all the time.

And do you realize how incredibly expensive pretty much everything would be without the highway system?