Health benefits 4

[dextermech]

At my current job, I have to pay $185 per WEEK for health insurance. The employer pays 50%, we pay 50%. No dental, no vision. Have any of you ever HEARD if benefits this bad? It's really starting to tick me off...

 

[Beggar]

IRstuff: Yes, gouged. The rates that hospitals charge uninsured patients are their basic rates. From my personal experience they include things like $10 for one vitamin pill and $5,000 for a 24-hour period of oxygen therapy.

Of course, the insurance companies negotiate dramatic reductions in these rates for all of their customers. Therefore, even if you've got a very high-deductible plan (mine was 35%), you at least get the benefit of paying the insurance company's rates rather than the rates charged to the uninsured.

I recognize the issues that many hospitals face which include having their ERs effectively function in a primary care capacity to the indigent (whose chronic problems are typically ignored until they become acute). That's just another symptom of how broken is our health care system.

Regardless of those economics, though, charging the uninsured more than the customers of the insurance companies is, to me, gouging. I suppose they do that just on the off chance that one of their patients has some assets that they can take.

It's a lousy choice when you must choose between insolvency and health care.

I don't know what the answer is but the problems are pretty evident.


--------------------
How much do YOU owe?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

--------------------

 

[toiap]

The original post was in regards to employee contributions for health. However, this has turned into a political debate on the merits of various health care systems and I have to add my two cents.

True, our system has problems. But so do all the others.
Whether you, or your employer, pays high premiums or you pay for it through taxes, the bottom line is that those that work pay for those that do not. I personally do not want a system where care is rationed and I am willing to pay for it. Also, I do not remember reading about universal health care in the US constitution or bill of rights.

An article about six month ago in the Wall Street Journal pointed out the treatment and survival rates of several cancers in the US, Canada and England. The differences were astounding. It seems many people in Canada and England are not given treatment because the costs would be too high.

I also had a personal situation where my son needed an MRI to rule out a brain tumor. The doctor was originally from Canada and stated that we would have waited several months for the MRI (rather than the next morning). He said if our son did have the tumor the time saved would have been invaluable. He left there for these reasons.

Now, back to the original post. The amount you pay does seem high. Your employer will start to get the picture when people start leaving for jobs that provide better pay, benefits, etc. That is how competition works. If you are happy with everything elese at your current job, that has to be considered, as well. I have worked at places with great benefits, yet I was miserable. I have worked at places where I enjoyed going in everyday, but I payed several hundred dollars more per month for benefits.

 

[GregLocock]

Hmmm. And yet I remember reading that the life expectancy of a poor Briton was at least as long as that of a rich American, and that a rich Briton could drink gin and gamble on horses well into another century.

After all, do you actually look at the life expectancy charts for various countries, or do you just make this stuff up?

Here's a source that you may regard as reliable, probably some damn commie plot:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

I mean sweetie, Greece has a higher life expectancy than the most expensive health system in the world. Ever been to Greece?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[IRstuff]

Like having a fast car and being a crappy driver, just because you have the best medical system in the world doesn't mean that you'll eat and drink what you should.

TTFN

 

[toiap]

Life expectancy numbers are great until you are the 55 year old patient that is diagnosed with cancer too late or you do not get treatment at all. As far as the article in the WSJ, I do not recall where the numbers came from.

My point is that there is no perfect system. Sure we may pay several hundred dollars per month in premiums and our doctor visits may cost some, but how much are the people in countries with socialized medicine paying in taxes to support the medical system? Either way, as I said, those that work support those that do not.

 

[corus]

toiap is quite correct, the original post was about employee contributions to health, and as this site is open to everyone from around the world and not just the USA, then my answer is that in the UK I pay about 6% of my salary towards a national health insurance scheme (the figure is capped at some level). If I'm ever unemployed (which has happened), and not paying then I get the same coverage, thankfully.

corus

 

[HVACctrl]

6% isn't bad. For family coverage, my company is asking for about twice that. They say they would match it. Ridiculous!

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[GregLocock]

In socialist Australia we pay, one way or another, about 9.3% of GDP on healthcare (67 billion). My research assistant is trying to figure out what that means in terms of income tax, other taxes, and health insurance.

OK, this is an odd way to look at it. The total tax take is 166 billion, so roughly 40% of income and payroll tax is spent on health - my overall tax rate is roughly 35%, so that's 12%

Sounds about right.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[GregLocock]

Here's a note about the study I remembered before:

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/05/us_versus_uk.html

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[ajack1]

What a great link, a start for you Greg. Some really interesting comments from both sides of the debate.

One thing seems certain to me health care is hugely expensive however you go about it and no one system is perfect. I do wonder how much more people in the USA pay for the same thing?

In the USA everything seems to be driven by money where as much of Europe seems more “socially responsible” be that health care, public transport, recycling, global warming, unemployment benefits in fact just about everything.

From my experience most Americans earn more than their European counterparts, providing they are in a “reasonable” job, if they have a better quality of life is more debatable. What price do you put on holidays, shorter working weeks and the like?

Are what I see as the inflated prices some of you are talking about for health care just part of the American way, where money is king and little else seems to matter?

 

[toiap]

Ajack1 - Yes, we Americans are greedy, self absorbed, ignorant and obnoxious. Give me a break.

Back to the original issue. Based on numbers from my employer, between 9% and 10% of my salary is for health insurance. This includes prescriptions, dental and vision and is for a family of four. As I said earlier, one way or the other we all pay.

I personally prefer a system where the consumer has choices. Also, if employers do not offer competitive benefits they will have a difficult time attracting and/or retaining talented people. Competition does work.

 

[HVACctrl]

Ajack1,
What matters most is our families. If I could work 10 hours a week, be able to spend more time with my family and still make enough to provide a greta lifestyle for my family, I would.

If I could do so and be fortunate enough to allot 20 hours a week helping others less fortunate, I would. I hope to have that opportunity.

Like it or not, Americans don't love money in itself. We certainly revere the life it can provide for us and our children.

On topic, it makes no sense that insurance policies are all over the board. The $600 per month that my company's policy demands (and My company CLAIMS to macth) takes away from my children ini my opinion.

Whatever country you are in- do you work for the love of it or the money? If you stumbled across $2MM, would you continue to work? I wouldn't.

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[ajack1]

“Yes, we Americans are greedy, self absorbed, ignorant and obnoxious. Give me a break.”

I am sorry if my post came over as implying that, it was not my intention. What I meant by paying more for the same was, as an example in the UK if you take your car that has been involved in a collision to a garage you will pay a lower hourly rate if you pay for it rather than through an insurance claim. I wonder if health care is similar in the USA? Many of the replies on Gregs link seem to imply you pay more for the same thing. The same cannot be said for cars, electrical products, and clothes in fact anything else I can think of.

I do honestly believe that “the American way” is that if you can afford it you get the best if you cannot well that is your problem, where as in Europe the welfare of the masses is more important. This may well have come from the mess Europe was in after two world wars. I am not trying to say either way is right or wrong, just different.

I would guess most people would see health care, education, low crime rates, a good standard of living during retirement and such as important, but maybe not as important as tax cuts. As in both the USA and UK our governments are elected it is not until we see these things as more important than tax cuts anything will improve.

 

[KENAT]

Star for you ajack.

From what I've seen in my time here if you can afford good insurance/have a job with it or can just afford to pay out right and, as I said before, live in a location near to some of the better healthcare facilities then you do seem to get better & faster health care than in the UK with the NHS.

If you don't have the money/insurance/location then in many ways you are SOL. For the poor I think the NHS gives better coverage than no insurance in the US or maybe even some of the state healthcare, Medicare etc.

Of course in the UK if you have the money you can buy extra private health insurance on top of the NHS but should you fall on hard times you still have the NHS.

The UK system is certainly not perfect, the media used to give the impression that some of the other European systems were better although I'm not sure that's true, however the US system isn't perfect either.

Of course I suppose if you are too lazy/stupid.... to get a good job then I guess it's your own fault that you can't take advantage of the 'competition' and get one of the better jobs in the US with great benefits. Those minimum wage earners get what they deserve. ????

 

[HVACctrl]

I guess health care talks would eventually have to become political debates.

If we're going to talk about jobless and underemployed people then, yes, I know for a fact that there are many people who don't want jobs because its too easy to be taken care of by the government.

Maybe the government has to be a little more strict about what they hand out and to whom they hand it. Legitimately poor people who try to find jobs, etc... should be better taken care of than those who just don't give a crap. How to screen them and discern one from another is a different question.

A more free market on the insurance thing might help. Why am I being asked to pay twice what others pay? Why is the OP being asked to pay 30% more than that? Its not like we can just look in the phone book, grab a competitor and go from there. You pretty much take what your employer's policy states, use your spouse's employer's policy (which I do), pay enormous rates and extremely limited coverage for a personal policy (which we have done in the past) or you take your chances without it. Or you let the government take care of you. Some would rather lay around and let the gov do it. There are legitimately trying less fortunate people, but certainly there are lazy scam artists.

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[toiap]

It seems funny to me that people complain about paying several hundred dollars per month for insurance for themselves and their family, yet they do not think twice about paying for cell phones, cable/satellite TV, entertainment, eating out, IPODS, more expensive vehicles, etc. And don't forget about several dollars per pack for cigarettes. And yes, many of the uninsured have these items. Where are our priorities?

 

[HVACctrl]

Consistency and not having one's hands tied is my complaint. If everyone paiad about $600 per month on family coverage (which could vary some depending on age, health, etc...) or if that's what I always paid any any job (taking into account inflation, etc...) it would be OK. Also, if I had more options from which to choose, it would be OK. But I took a job, regretfully didn't probe them on their insurance prmium costs, regretfully didn't ask them to reimburse me for having to go elsewhere for insruance and now I'm stuck with a "take it or leave it", overly priced, I'd be stupid if I took it, unreasonable insurance premium.

What can be done other than to get all the facts straight upfront when negotiating a job offer? Its a shame that something that should be a commodity should actually affect someone's career path. I bet auto insurance is a lot momre flat across the board than medical. Companies don't say, "come work for us and we have a great auto insurance plan".

I'd like to health insurance opened up into the free market like auto insurance. Maybe that would bring about its own set of problems- I don't know.

Ed

http://www.engineerboards.com

 

[aardvarkdw]

...I just saved hundreds of dollars on my health insurance by switching to Geico!

 

[TDAA]

It seems funny to me that people complain about paying several hundred dollars per month for insurance for themselves and their family, yet they do not think twice about paying for cell phones, cable/satellite TV, entertainment, eating out, IPODS, more expensive vehicles, etc. And don't forget about several dollars per pack for cigarettes. And yes, many of the uninsured have these items. Where are our priorities?"

Those things are for living. Insurance is to keep you from dieing. Think Positive!

But, on topic: I currently pay about $110 every 2 weeks. This is for a high deductible plan that has a $5,000 family deductible. I pay 100% of the negotiated price for almost everything, until that point. My overall cost will be capped at about $7,800 for the year (provided it is in-network). No extra co pays, etc. Just for my generic cholesterol pill, I will total over $1,000 for the plan year ($91 per month). Add in a several doc visits for the kid, a new kid in the plans, and all the rest of what is likely to go wrong with my prematurely aging body, and this is a better deal than the other plans I had available. I am keeping a spreadsheet to compare the actual costs though. Also with the high deductible plan, I have a health savings account. I am funding this to the max this year, and there is no loss of funds at the end of the year (like FSA), so I will pay all tax free.

Talk with your company about what they can do to help. Often switching providers is needed to get some competition, or they may look into different plans.

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, one thing I forgot is that a large part of the Australian health budget is subsidised medicines. We pay between $4 and $28 (typically (that is means tested)) per prescription per month. They also print the real cost of the medicine on the label, ie what they pay. The US drug companies hate that. 600mg Gemfibrozil, 5mg amlodipine and 300 mg irbesartan are all around 35 to forty bucks a month in real costs.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.