WebMD Community Talk Show

While I believe that we should help our fellow man and help for folks who can't afford health insurance is needed, I don't think the government should force us to buy insurance if our employers aren't providing it.

Isn't that just going at this with cross purposes? If you can't afford to buy the insurance, making you pay a fine for NOT buying it is just making things worse for you. Doesn't make good sense.

I'd like to think we elect smart people who go up to Washington with our best interests at heart, but I don't really believe that's the case.

Why can a manager in my company sit down and create a solid business plan that meets the needs of employees, and yet all of these supposedly "smart" people can't create a business plan for our government that does the same thing?

All these bills are full of pork belly projects that end up costing more money and not supporting the good of the country as a whole.

*Steps off soap box*

Next? LOL

Butterfly

No I don't think this sort of requirement is constitutional at all. I know that if I could afford health insurance I would already
have it by now especially at my age and all the health issues
that I have been having for the past few years. It's hard
enough to pay all my bills and buy food and gasoline every
month without adding anything else to my budget. These are
some very hard times for most Americans now and this type of requirement would only make it harder.

think that we are way too dependant on the government for every thing. when we start having to deal with negative consequences of our own behavior, then we can decide for ourselves what we need and what we don't need. The government needs to let us be independant and responsible.

Comrade I could not agree more. Plus there are two excellent working models that we can look to for our own United States model. Cuba and North Korea. They have free college and advanced degrees, healthcare and education,and housing is free and the upside there are no overweight cubans or North Korea. Its a working mans paradise. Who knew!!

You sir are either a genius, paid attention and retained your basic government course, or both. None the less my hats of to you because of all the other post I have read you, and you alone understand what is occuring with the government and it s programs.

No they should not make everyone have health insurance! If everyone needs to have it then they should make everyone eligiable for health care.

I'm in favor of "UNIVERSAL" health coverage for all Americans. Instead of making people pay for this coverage, uuse revenue from taxes we receive from the wealthy.

Isn't insurance wonderful?

The bills are inflated, insurance executives receive compensation of as much as $24,000,000 per year, even during the recession.
(That's about $46 per minute of every hour of every day.)

But, it doesn't matter so long as you have insurance.

Why?

Because people you don't know made their premium payments and companies chipped in - but did received tax deductions.

Recently I was directed to have extensive blood work performed.[br>[br>The bill breakdown follows:[br>$742.00 = Total Charge[br>- $199.90 = Amount the insurance paid[br>- $519.90 = Contractual Adjustment (no definition provided in the bill)[br>$ 22.20 = Patient responsibility[br>[br>Questions come to mind:[br>[br>1. If I did not have insurance, would I have been billed the Total Charge? (probably)[br>[br>2. Why did the insurance company receive a "contractual adjustment" of 70 percent OFF?[br>[br>3. Did the medical practitioner inflate the cost of the lab work because they knew in advance there would be a (huge) discount?[br>[br>4. Since it appears that inflating numbers bothers no one, what is the advantage? (Bigger billing may look good to stockholders, both for the practitioner and the insurance company.)[br>[br>5. If I had to pay the total charge out of pocket, would I have had the work performed?[br>Actually, I can answer that. HELL NO. I would have negotiated for a reasonable fee, but failing that I guess I'd just have hoped for the best without the tests.[br>

Did you notice?

I didn't crow over the fact that I only paid $22.20 out of my pocket.

So long as the majority who have the insurance advantage have no compassion for those without insurance, the exploitation will continue.

And forcing insurance for all will help insurance executives increase their pitiful salaries.

When I was young (1950's and 1960's), we paid our own bills. And if a family member or close friend was in a bind, we helped each other out. We KNEW who to thank for helping.

I hereby Thank those whose premium payments allowed me to pay $22.20 for supposedly $742.00 worth of service.

sorry about the formatting. It changed when posted from my copy.
To repeat:

$742.00 = Total cost on bill for blood tests
- 199.90 = Amount insurance paid
- 519.90 = Contractual adjustment (wording on the bill)
22.20 = Patient responsibility

The "government" needs to come live among the common folks for a while. Being required to have health insurance for many would mean a lot more nights of peanut butter and jelly, or even less, for dinner. Or a kid with his arms sticking out of his winter coat because you can't afford a new one for him this year. Let the idiots suggesting this come down from their well-paid (with TOTAL HEALTH BENEFITS) positions and live with the most of us for a while. I don't know the answer to the problem, but putting an impossible burden on the backs of Americans who are struggling every day to keep their heads above water is so stupid I can't believe someone even came up with the concept. I can only hope and pray that the judges on the Supreme Court are aware of how most of us already struggle and rule accordingly.

No

I have so much to say about this that I am speechless.

The crux of the matter is not being forced to buy health insurance, it is that the question even arises.

God (in whatever form we wish) gave us free will.

The government is determined to take it away from us.

Please, do NOT be speechless.

Unless we continue to explain the problem, those not understanding will never learn.

We must speak out -

BEFORE

the dictionary no longer includes

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

I say yes. I think everyone needs to have health insurnace. If you can't afford it, there are goverement programs that can help. I want to also note that not ALL insurance company's are for profit. I work for a not for profit insurance company, so any money we get in premiums are held onto to pay out claims for our members. We have to pay for our own health insurance and very rarely do we ever get a bonus, if we do it's like $200.
If everyone had insurance and took advantage of preventitive care services, then we would all benefit, as the cost of healthcare would decrease. Less people would wait until something is wrong before going to the doctors. It would help with reduce overcrowding in Emergency rooms, and allow for those critically ill to recieve care mush faster, thus saving lives. For those that said young people wait until they need insurance before obtaining...well their out of luck due to pre-existing condition laws. If you go without insurance for more than 63 days your clause (meaning we wont pay those claims) defeat the purpose of just now getting insurance. Then your stuck paying your premiums and your claims because you got sick without insurnace and insurnace companies are not going to pay for as long as you didnt have insurance.

742.00 IS THE COST FOR A SELF PAY PATIENT

519.90 - MEANING THE ISNURNACE COMPANY HAS A CONTRACT WITH THAT PROVIDER FOR THAT PARTICULAR SERVICE FOR (742.00-519.90 = 222.10) SO THEY CAN ONLY CHARGE 222.10 BY THEIR CONTRACT THEN INSURANCE PAID 199.90 LEAVING YOU WITH AMOUNT DUE OF 22.20 BASED ON COINSURANCE FOR THE PRODUCT YOU HAVE ( INSURANCE PLAN)

SEE HAVING HEALTH INSURNACE IS A GOOD THING BECUASE INSURANCE COMPANIES WORK HARD AT CONTRACTING PRICES. THATS WHY THEIR ARE CERTAIN PROVIDERS YOU CAN SEE, AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEE ONE THATS NOT IN-NETWORK (NON CONTRACTED) THEN THEY CAN CHARGE YOU THE DIFFERENCE OF THAT 519.90. HOPE THIS HELPS EXPLAIN A LITTLE BETTER.

Thanks for explaining.

(Don't think it was necessary to use all capital letters - guess you were/are upset.)

O.K., the insurance negotiated for a more reasonable price. I.E., volume discount. Then they make the provider wait at least 30 days for payment, sometimes much longer.

But without insurance, someone would probably be told the price is $742.00, even if they paid immediately with CASH.

Where is the discount for instant payment?

So long as the health system primarily uses for-profit insurance as the intermediary, uninsured people WILL suffer financially.

I still believe that a payroll deduction with funds only allowed to pay medical bills in a price competitive environment would be better than using anonymous premium payments would be more efficient. That would ELIMINATE insurance fraud.


And it sounds good to advertise a health insurance company is non-profit, BUT:

A citizen met with her Representative with a question:
She asked why BCBS was called non-profit when they are building huge office complexes, paying large salaries and generally spending huge amounts of money on non-insurance expenditures.[br>[br>The answer from the Rep?[br>[br>We are non-profit because we do not have shareholders. Of course we make a profit but the profit stays within the company. We pay large salaries because that is how we attract the talent needed to run the business.[br>[br>OK folks, the answer shocked her. Why are they given non-profit status when clearly they make a profit?[br>[br>Non-profit? Not at all. I think they need a new moniker. Many of us thought that non-profit means what it says. I thought the premium monies went out to pay claims. Not so, if she is correct.[br>[br>That is why we see huge new buildings, huge advertising campaigns, huge salaries. Got to use up those dollars. Deny claims? Maybe there is no money to pay them. Need to give the boss a raise.


We won't change each other's minds, but clear information is useful to anyone reading.