Many Have Health Insurance But Are Still Driven Bankrupt By Medical Crises

New York Times:

Health insurance is supposed to offer protection both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[HenryClay]

A liberal Democrat is a conservative Republican who had to file for bankruptcy due to impossible medical bills.

[pfrogger]

well I'll give Obama some credit. his site where people tell their healthcare horror stories is a smart move.
and even with these horror stories, there is still debate and serious doubt if real healthcare reform will ever come.

the only true and effective healthcare reform would be single payer.
the public option MAY help. and that's a very big MAY!
they'll gut it and make it useless. they'll use triggers and other BS so that it will never get used. they'll try mandates and other gimmicks so we all forced to pay for the current useless insurance, where the private insurers still will deny coverage. I don't mind an increase in taxes if it's for single payer, which will ALWAYS be cheaper than a profit-driven, morally-bankrupt private insurance system.

read
Debunking Canadian health care myths - http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

[jmpurser]

Good post. That's the way I see it as well.

[pfrogger]

also read
How Much Do We Really Know About Canadian Healthcare? - http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/02/how-much-do-we.html

very informative.

[jmpurser]

I got to talking with the guy who installed our windows this weekend. Great guy. Quite a craftsman. Runs his own business.

He's going to be financially wiped out this coming Tuesday. His daughter was born with a hole in her heart. It was fixed at birth but the repair needs to be repaired and will have to be the rest of her life. The one operation will max out his health insurance policy for his whole family for the year and he'll spend the coming years trying to pay off the balance of the medical bills.

Like the article said, he's GOT insurance. The best he could buy. And ONE operation is going to wipe him out for YEARS.

We desperately need universal single payer health insurance run by the government.

[captaincrawley]

The only thing health "insurance" companies ensure is that they get your premium every month.

[FoonTheElder]

It appears that this couple had what is known as a "Mini-med" policy. These are relatively inexpensive policies where the coverages are backwards from most health insurance policies. They obviously didn't understand their medical plan.

Mini-med policies cover basic items like office calls, lab tests, etc., but have very little or no coverage for operations or hospitalizations. They are usually offered to low income employees in areas such as fast food restaurants. So, what happens is that the little health items are covered, but the big health items are not.

This is one of the reasons that for every two uninsured, there is one person who is underinsured.

[ThePeoplesKey]

“Conceptually insurance means normal people should not go bankrupt from serious medical conditions­.”

Exactly right.

The only solution to health care in the US is to adopt a single payer universal plan paid for by taxes.

One risk pool, everybody in, nobody out, everyone pays something (including seniors), pharmaceutical companies outlawed from charging US citizens more for medicine than they charge in other countries markets.

Simple. Problem solved. No negotiation with the health care industry required.

Private insurance companies will have to find another way to scam the general public if they want to maintain their CEO's and upper management's exorbitant salaries.

Perhaps they should get into the banking business . . .

[frappe]

Well said! My sentiments exactly.

[BethA]

Exactly!
We don't need INSURANCE we need health CARE.

Read my bio...this should not happen to another American who is sold the incredible lie of
"insurance".

[LeftCoastLarry]

The biggest obstacle to true health care reform is Senator Max Baucus.
I hope the good people of Montana have the incentive to defeat him and elect a real Democrat.
Max Baucus is not interested in health care reform. Follow the money. As a recipient of millions of dollars from the status quo, his responsibility is to his benefactors, not the people he is supposed to represent.
According to ifawebnews.com, the "The nation’s homepage for insurance industry news", Max is dedicated to bipartisan compromise.
Bipartisan compromise is code for protect the insurance company profits at all cost and stuff it down our throats.
Max Baucus has no business being in charge of the Senate Finance Committee.

[frappe]

Well, who put him in that leadership position? Does "seniority" dictate committee chairmansh­ips...or is there something more diabolical at work here...?

[LeftCoastLarry]

Seniority pretty much means everything - sad but true. But the real problem is that the Finance committee is made up of very conservative members. Even most of the Democrats on the committee have waffled in their commitment to comprehensive health care reform.

[wedgie]

My father simply refuses to pay anything not covered by medicare and their personal insurance. Anything past that he tells them "no".

It hasn't affected his credit rating one bit. And they continue to provide him health care.

[bthechangeyouseek]

He must be lucky. Most hospitals or providers put you in collections after 60 days.

[KSsoccermom]

My husband and I were forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills (after ins.) from four surgeries in the last two years and routine preventative procedures. We struggled to keep up with our regular monthly expenses and the mounting medical bills, but our middle-class income could not pull us out, so we filed bankruptcy just yesterday.

Compared to what we payed for family coverage in 2002, our yearly healthcare premiums have increased x12, the deductible x4, the co-insurance x6000 (which did not exist for us in 2002), and our out of pocket expenses for office visits, scripts, etc. x2. To put it mildly, these increases are OUTRAGEOUS!!!

I'm all for healthcare reform, but as the hype goes on, I am left wondering if people in my situation will even benefit. Will government insure the low-income population who already receive so many benefits and leave the middle-class and upper-class to tote the note? Or will Washington look at the people who really need a break and bring the working-class AFFORDABLE healthcare, so we don't have to decide between a doctor visit co-pay or school lunch money for our children..­.surgery or a roof over our heads?

[frappe]

A Single Payer system would solve all of your concerns. It would be fair and equitable insofar as we'd all pay a certain amount for it in our taxes, but it would be far, far, far, far less than anyone currently pays in premiums and copayments as it exists now. A Canadian who posted here the other day said that he pays about $50 per month in taxes for his single payer health plan and it covers Canadians from the cradle to the grave and there are no out-of-pocket expenses, either. Sounds good to me.

[bayside]

Next time you see a politican tell them we care about their families, why dont they care about ours..

[LeftCoastLarry]

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation

Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212

Source: healthreformwatch.com

[babyboomerorig]

Every time I see this list, I get more upset than the time before.

This is their salary...w­hat are the other perks?

Nobody deserves to make that much money.

[Graywolf48]

Why can Canada, The UK, Japan, France and almost all of Europe provide universal/­affordable health care for their citizens from cradle to grave and America the "richest" and "greatest" nation on the planet cannot or will not? Even Cuba, of all places, does better in this area. Quadruple by-pass surgery with "good" insurance coverage (no real disability coverage, though) bankrupted me about 8 years ago. During recovery (which I cut short against medical advice to go back to work) I had no income but the mortgage and bills still came due. I exhausted savings and ran up credit card bills to survive. A friend with a similar scenario in Canada paid no medical expenses and was given ample time to recover and still received a pay check. I now have Medicare. My last stress test cost me about $300 out of pocket with co-pays and co-insurance payments. And I have a "supplemental" policy with BCBS. I'm on a fixed income and medical care is a big expense. I often wish I had been born a Canadian, for more reasons than just health care. There, I said those "treasonous" words, so let the flaming begin.

[babyboomerorig]

Bottom line....th­ese countries know that a healthy population is productive, happy and secure.

The US Congress is more interested in filling the pockets of their CEO buddies and are more than happy to throw us under the bus than to tell the lobbyists to get out of their office because it's "time for a change".

How much would the average insurance policy go down if they stopped funding lobbyists to fight for their bottom line?

[babyboomerorig]

Another thought...­.this country is more interested in being a war machine than keeping it's population healthy.

[stateretiree]

Then you have supplemental insurance sold to senior citizens at outrageous cost. It may be helpful if you have health problems, but if you don't it is a waste of money and big profit for insurance companies.

[AKAM80THEWOLF]

I have health insurance through my employer but I still hold off on going to the doctor because it can still get very expensive. In one instance where I knew I needed to see a specialist, I still had to pay $75 for a referral to make an appointment with a specialist. Consultation with the specialist was $350 AFTER my insurance paid their part.

In another instance, I was doing some demolition work on my house and even though I had a mask, I had got plaster dust in my throat and it got infected. I went to the doctor (another $75) but they couldn't do anything. And later that night I had to go to the ER because I had trouble swallowing at all. I waited for 1 1/2 hours and was seen for 10 minutes and my bill after what insurance covered was $700.

I don't have a spouse or kids or a lot of bills, and it's difficult for me. I can't imagine how it must be for people with those things.

The costs by themselves are just too outrageous.

[frappe]

Many individuals and families can only afford those policies where there is an 80-20 split, where the insurance company will pay 80% of the covered medical expenses and the individual or family has the pay the remaining 20%. These plans often have dramatically lower deductibles than those plans that offer 100% coverage. In such a situation, the individual or family is betting that..or hoping that..he or she or a family member does not suffer a major medical emergency, because in this day and age, the tab can easily rise to the hundreds of thousands of dollars where even just 20% of the tab would bankrupt the individual or family.

Then, of course, there is the issue of "recission", a policy whereby insurance companies are able to cancel the policy after an individual exhibits some medical condition that would be prohibitively expensive to treat. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE and every state in the country should enact laws that prohibit such a policy on the part of the insurance company. What good is it to have an insurance policy if that insurance company is free to cancel the policy in the event of a major medical emergency of some kind? The answer: it isn't.

A Single Payer approach would remedy what ails our system of health care: conflicts of interest on the part of the insurance industry i.e. profits vs. people's health and, secondly, skyrocketing costs.

[bthechangeyouseek]

Good post. I believe the key word is "covered". Regardless of the 80/20 split, many insurances don't cover many procedures. Read your certificate of coverage from front to back. In addition, there are copays that do not apply to deductibles or out of pocket that must be met.

I have to agree with the article, a minimum standard must be implemented and a system enacted that is fair to all.

76% of Americans want a universal coverage. Senators and Congressman, say they will not vote for this type of plan. It's time to oust those who say they act on our behalves, but really are in it for themselves.

[frappe]

Yes, and it is clear that perhaps what we should have first tackled on the legislative agenda was campaign finance reform, for it is clear who runs this country right now and it is the special interests who essentially buy the votes of our congressional representatives. Such a system will wreak havoc as agents for the "status quo" hold all of the power. How can we possibly legislate constructive change to meet the new challenges as they arise when we are burdened with a system that bows to the status quo. It is a prescription for failure. No wonder our country is in decline.