A little confused -- this flu thing???

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

Wow, I'm not generally thrilled with our health insurance, but ours
covers annual physicals for the kids and adults!

--Robyn

many people believe that insurance should be to protect against real
risk i.e. catastrophic events -- not the nickel dime costs of managing
life including check ups and treatment for colds and flu etc etc etc


Actually, I agree with this. I'd rather buy a major medical policy
than a full-service plan that covers routine issues, but I don't have
one available to me. So the choice is to pay $$$$$$ for a plan that
covers everything (with still additional $$$ we have to pay in
deductibles and co-pays when we actually use it), or take a chance and
go uninsured. The latter would be far cheaper, but that's a risky game
to play!

--Robyn

yes our system is rapidly reeling out of control and out of the reach of
many -- we have been looking for a cheaper very high deductibe plan for
a 25 year old uninsured daughter without good results. We just want to
make sure she is covered for the rare but catastrophic event.

When I was in my early 20's and no longer at home and not able to get
affordable health insurance, my approach was different. I figured if
anything catastrophic happened, I was screwed, anyway -- I would lose my
job, my apartment, everything, and end up with the state supporting me.
So I just went without insurance, figuring that if something truely
horrid happened, I'd end up on welfare, anyway. That's what the safety
net is supposed to be for.

I only lived that way for a few years; the biggest problem I had was
getting a doctor to take me on when I had no insurance when I moved.

meh

but if you ended up with say cancer you would not get the treatment you
needed -- people without insurance don't get treatment -- they get
emergency care when it is too late -- if they are in a terrible accident
and paralyzed, they don't get re-hab -- they get wearhoused.

That's not entirely true; people on medicare/medicade DO get treatment.

We don't force the poorest people to go without treatment, though it may
not be as timely or as aggressive.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

Wow, I'm not generally thrilled with our health insurance, but
ours
covers annual physicals for the kids and adults!

--Robyn

many people believe that insurance should be to protect against real
risk i.e. catastrophic events -- not the nickel dime costs of
managing
life including check ups and treatment for colds and flu etc etc etc


Actually, I agree with this. I'd rather buy a major medical policy
than a full-service plan that covers routine issues, but I don't have
one available to me. So the choice is to pay $$$$$$ for a plan that
covers everything (with still additional $$$ we have to pay in
deductibles and co-pays when we actually use it), or take a chance
and
go uninsured. The latter would be far cheaper, but that's a risky
game
to play!

--Robyn

yes our system is rapidly reeling out of control and out of the reach
of
many -- we have been looking for a cheaper very high deductibe plan for
a 25 year old uninsured daughter without good results. We just want to
make sure she is covered for the rare but catastrophic event.

When I was in my early 20's and no longer at home and not able to get
affordable health insurance, my approach was different. I figured if
anything catastrophic happened, I was screwed, anyway -- I would lose my
job, my apartment, everything, and end up with the state supporting me.
So I just went without insurance, figuring that if something truely
horrid happened, I'd end up on welfare, anyway. That's what the safety
net is supposed to be for.

I only lived that way for a few years; the biggest problem I had was
getting a doctor to take me on when I had no insurance when I moved.

meh

but if you ended up with say cancer you would not get the treatment you
needed -- people without insurance don't get treatment -- they get
emergency care when it is too late -- if they are in a terrible accident
and paralyzed, they don't get re-hab -- they get wearhoused.

That's not entirely true; people on medicare/medicade DO get treatment.

working people without insurance are not eligible for medicaid or
medicare -- and those are the uninsured when the topic of 'uninsured'
is being discussed IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
both of those programs provide insurance -- medicare to the elderly and
medicaid to some very poor people generally on welfare

the 45 million US citizens without insurance are either working sporadic
or low paid jobs or their dependents



We don't force the poorest people to go without treatment, though it may
not be as timely or as aggressive.

sure, they get a stroke and we treat them and then warehouse them -- but
they don't get medication or medical help when they have high blood
pressure that if controlled might prevent the stroke

sure they get emergency surgery and aggressive treatment when they enter
the ER with a cancer crisis -- but they don't get the early treatment
that might mean they would actually be cured and live




meh