What are the pros and cons for transforming into a single payer system?
I currently have (modest) healthcare through my employer. I would prefer to consume significantly less healthcare, but I don't really have that option -- my employer pays about 90% of the cost, so if I discontinue my income would only be increased by (10% of the value - tax on the 10%).
Universal healthcare would further rob me of my choice. Hard as it is to believe, it would be even worse than our current system (which is terrible).
There's definitely significant differences in state-to-state, even when it's ostensibly the same company like BCBS. In my previous company, we had BCBS, and that was a high deductible 80/20 (the insurance paid 80% of the usual and customary, and the U&C varied according to where one lived in the state). We had a lot of out of pocket expenses. The company eventually dropped BCBS when the premium increased to something like $1000/mo for family coverage.Depending upon your state, (keep what you have) consider adding to your coverage privately. A good place to start is with your current plan, see if there are any riders you could add (low cost)- like term life, accident or vision. Another good rider is the maximum lifetime limit increase (usually varies anywhere from $1 to $7 million). If there isn't any flexibility, talk to your personal life, home, or car agent to see if they sell health. Ask them take a look at your existing coverage/limits and make recommendations. You can't duplicate coverage, but you can supplement.
My colleagues daughter broke her arm last winter. The ER cost was about $2500.A typical ER visit for a broken bone (for example) may cost between $500 and $1,500. If your plan has a network - your insurer should have a negotiated (lower) rate - up to 50%. Normally $1,000 coverage (per event) will suffice. A network discount may also apply to doctor visits and prescriptions. Again, ask your local agent to analyze local costs.
One should also consider - what if one becomes unemployed - and has a catastrophic illness, which will likely prevent one from obtaining further employment. This is relevant and just happened to a family acquaintance.On the other end, you need to consider the effect of a catastrophic event. If you own a home (for example), you need to protect your assets. Make sure you have adequate coverage for a large event $50,000 to $100,000. This should cover most surgeries and short term conditions. Again, your local agent should have some local stats.
One should also consider - what if one becomes unemployed - and has a catastrophic illness, which will likely prevent one from obtaining further employment. This is relevant and just happened to a family acquaintance.
The husband recently lost his job with a large corporation (one of top of Fortune 100). I'm not sure what benefits he has or if he was able to go under the wife's benefits. He has been looking for a job and had some potential opportunities. He's not even 60.
However, this weekend he suffered a stroke in his brain stem and became paralyzed on one side with difficulty breathing. AFAIK, he's in intensive care and is slowly being weened from the respirator. His prognosis is uncertain - but with partial paralysis, he won't be able to find employment anytime soon - if ever. The wife may have to take time-off, and her job doesn't pay so great to begin with. If he survives, she may have to sell the house to provide some income and cover his expenses. Presumably he could go on disability (SSI?). And she could lose her job and whatever insurance she has.
So think about your situation and whether or not a stroke or other severely disabling illness could wipe you out.
I don't believe that such a condition should be imposed on 'talking about social reform'.Pattonias said:Then start talking about social reform when we have a balanced budget.
I don't believe that such a condition should be imposed on 'talking about social reform'.
Perhaps some reform is what is needed to create a balanced budget.