An assassin, with a dirt bike and large firearm collection. I love to swim nude in shark infested waters, partake in risky behaviors such as smoked bacon.
Non-smoker. Works nights.
Non-smoker. Works nights.
Intrusive healthcare ins. questionares
- Thread starter JetStar
- Start date
- Status
LOL...here's another risk...and a "why on earth would they even think of studying that ?" from the BMJ no less.
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7582/1285.full
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7582/1285.full
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them? Also, even now, what percentage of the US population has better health care than the average country with a public system?
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Its a slippery slope my friends, there are lots of studies that say people who work in offices and commute in a car for more than a 1/2 hour are at higher risk for heart conditions and diabetes. And the majority of you are in a minority of some sort that the insurance companies can say has increased health risks...
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Its a slippery slope my friends, there are lots of studies that say people who work in offices and commute in a car for more than a 1/2 hour are at higher risk for heart conditions and diabetes. And the majority of you are in a minority of some sort that the insurance companies can say has increased health risks...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them? Also, even now, what percentage of the US population has better health care than the average country with a public system?
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Private coverage works fine. Probably about 75-80%
I think there is an example of Aus above that is much more invasive. Gov. asking the questions is way worse. There is nothing requiring anyone to report "you want to try mountain biking"
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them? Also, even now, what percentage of the US population has better health care than the average country with a public system?
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Private coverage works fine. Probably about 75-80%
I think there is an example of Aus above that is much more invasive. Gov. asking the questions is way worse. There is nothing requiring anyone to report "you want to try mountain biking"
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them? Also, even now, what percentage of the US population has better health care than the average country with a public system?
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Private coverage works fine. Probably about 75-80%
I think there is an example of Aus above that is much more invasive. Gov. asking the questions is way worse. There is nothing requiring anyone to report "you want to try mountain biking"
Well, if you said on your insurance you don't mountain bike, and then you break your neck on a trail going for a ride with your kid, what's going to happen?
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them? Also, even now, what percentage of the US population has better health care than the average country with a public system?
It seems a bit crazy that you would have to inform your health insurance company that you want to try mountain biking next weekend in a free country...
Private coverage works fine. Probably about 75-80%
I think there is an example of Aus above that is much more invasive. Gov. asking the questions is way worse. There is nothing requiring anyone to report "you want to try mountain biking"
Well, if you said on your insurance you don't mountain bike, and then you break your neck on a trail going for a ride with your kid, what's going to happen?
If you lied, you may not be covered.
I never been asked any of these questions, btw.
I never been asked any of these questions, btw.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them?
Where did you get that idea?
Funny when Canadians (who can afford it) need life saving techniques that they can't get or can't get timely..USA is the country of choice.
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them?
Where did you get that idea?
Funny when Canadians (who can afford it) need life saving techniques that they can't get or can't get timely..USA is the country of choice.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them?
Where did you get that idea?
Funny when Canadians (who can afford it) need life saving techniques that they can't get or can't get timely..USA is the country of choice.
Well, that's what it looks like from here. I won't argue that your system can't help the rich stay healthy, but it seems everyone else pays through the nose for it, in terms of money and freedom to do certain activities, or even career choices. I bet for alot of U.S. bitog members its working OK, but I'd assume the average income on bitog is a higher than the national average too.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I do wonder, at what point will the majority of Americans find that private health insurance isn't really working for them?
Where did you get that idea?
Funny when Canadians (who can afford it) need life saving techniques that they can't get or can't get timely..USA is the country of choice.
Well, that's what it looks like from here. I won't argue that your system can't help the rich stay healthy, but it seems everyone else pays through the nose for it, in terms of money and freedom to do certain activities, or even career choices. I bet for alot of U.S. bitog members its working OK, but I'd assume the average income on bitog is a higher than the national average too.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
If you lied, you may not be covered.
I never been asked any of these questions, btw.
You were never asked those questions when applying for non-group insurance? Which insurance companies did you fill out applications for?
Every insurer I applied for a few months ago asked variations of those kinds of questions. If they didn't do it on the initial application, it was part of the followup packet.
If you lied, you may not be covered.
I never been asked any of these questions, btw.
You were never asked those questions when applying for non-group insurance? Which insurance companies did you fill out applications for?
Every insurer I applied for a few months ago asked variations of those kinds of questions. If they didn't do it on the initial application, it was part of the followup packet.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Well, if you said on your insurance you don't mountain bike, and then you break your neck on a trail going for a ride with your kid, what's going to happen?
They wouldn't pay for any treatment related to it.
Or you could have a large claim for something entirely different and they could rescind your policy. Insurance rescission is very common for someone with a large claim (like breast cancer). The insurer will scour your original application for any ambiguous errors and revoke your coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/23/us-wellpoint-breastcancer-idUSTRE63M5D420100423
If you mountain bike and your insurer asks you, you need to answer truthfully or bad things may happen.
Well, if you said on your insurance you don't mountain bike, and then you break your neck on a trail going for a ride with your kid, what's going to happen?
They wouldn't pay for any treatment related to it.
Or you could have a large claim for something entirely different and they could rescind your policy. Insurance rescission is very common for someone with a large claim (like breast cancer). The insurer will scour your original application for any ambiguous errors and revoke your coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/23/us-wellpoint-breastcancer-idUSTRE63M5D420100423
If you mountain bike and your insurer asks you, you need to answer truthfully or bad things may happen.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Well, that's what it looks like from here. I won't argue that your system can't help the rich stay healthy, but it seems everyone else pays through the nose for it, in terms of money and freedom to do certain activities, or even career choices. I bet for alot of U.S. bitog members its working OK, but I'd assume the average income on bitog is a higher than the national average too.
That's pretty much how it is for me. We were paying about $12,000 a year for insurance last year, which was bumped up to about $15,000 a year for 2012. That's in addition to a $5,000 deductible. All in all, we've had close to $30,000 in medical bills and premiums for the past two years.
We couldn't afford it, so we got new insurance. We're now paying around $5,000/year but the downside is that the new insurance has a $10,000 deductible and it wont cover things like maternity, rock climbing, or rafting.
If you work for the government or large employer, or just have a generous employer, the system works pretty well. If you're self employed or work for a small business, it ranges from between awful to pretty good.
Well, that's what it looks like from here. I won't argue that your system can't help the rich stay healthy, but it seems everyone else pays through the nose for it, in terms of money and freedom to do certain activities, or even career choices. I bet for alot of U.S. bitog members its working OK, but I'd assume the average income on bitog is a higher than the national average too.
That's pretty much how it is for me. We were paying about $12,000 a year for insurance last year, which was bumped up to about $15,000 a year for 2012. That's in addition to a $5,000 deductible. All in all, we've had close to $30,000 in medical bills and premiums for the past two years.
We couldn't afford it, so we got new insurance. We're now paying around $5,000/year but the downside is that the new insurance has a $10,000 deductible and it wont cover things like maternity, rock climbing, or rafting.
If you work for the government or large employer, or just have a generous employer, the system works pretty well. If you're self employed or work for a small business, it ranges from between awful to pretty good.
Last I had non-group insurance was 2005. They ask some health related questions, but no activity questions. The co. insurance I had before that did have stuff about motorcycle and car racing.
I have switched insurance co's three times this past decade. Each time getting less coverage for the dollar but more affordabilty. This leads some people dropping insurance altogether making more it expensive for me. Now its a vicious circle with options running out but I would like to explore options across state lines and see whats out there... nope.
Originally Posted By: Blaze
I have switched insurance co's three times this past decade. Each time getting less coverage for the dollar but more affordabilty. This leads some people dropping insurance altogether making more it expensive for me. Now its a vicious circle with options running out but I would like to explore options across state lines and see whats out there... nope.
I know the feeling. It's truly terrifying how quickly prices have gone up. I imagine it wont be long until it costs $30,000 or $40,000/year to insure a family.
I'm starting to get worried about what will happen when the comprehensive insurance requirement kicks in for 2014 and the high deductible policies will be done away with. A $10,000/year deductible isn't great but it will (hopefully) stave off bankruptcy and let us keep our house if a family member is hospitalized. I'd prefer to have a good PPO but we can't afford those kind of premiums.
I have switched insurance co's three times this past decade. Each time getting less coverage for the dollar but more affordabilty. This leads some people dropping insurance altogether making more it expensive for me. Now its a vicious circle with options running out but I would like to explore options across state lines and see whats out there... nope.
I know the feeling. It's truly terrifying how quickly prices have gone up. I imagine it wont be long until it costs $30,000 or $40,000/year to insure a family.
I'm starting to get worried about what will happen when the comprehensive insurance requirement kicks in for 2014 and the high deductible policies will be done away with. A $10,000/year deductible isn't great but it will (hopefully) stave off bankruptcy and let us keep our house if a family member is hospitalized. I'd prefer to have a good PPO but we can't afford those kind of premiums.
Originally Posted By: Al
IndyIan said:
From an Oz perspective, there's a handful of people/cases that head to the states for treatment for some usually incredibly rare condition or procedure.
It's not because the US system is inherently better, but with 12 times the population, the U.S. is an order of magnitude more likely to have a clinic or treatment for it.
It's not because the US system is inherently better, but with 12 times the population, the U.S. is an order of magnitude more likely to have a clinic or treatment for it.
JHZR2
Staff member
I just dont get it.
If you go here:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp
You can see what the federal government gets as a "deal" on insurance.
Though there is a misconception that every fed gets a "cadillac" plan, it is a choice. And some of the plans are VERY expensive to the employee, and the gov't does NOT pay the majority of the cost.
But this isnt a government benefits discussion. Where Im going with this is that you can see the actual, full monthly payment on these sheets. The total amount that the govt plus the employee pays to pay the premium in full. It appears VERY regionally dependent.
Im looking at the non-postal HMO plan, full monthly costs. There are a TON that are FAR less than $10k/yr for premiums.
And if the companies were loosing money on these, they wouldnt be in the business.
So I fail to see how so many get such poor rates. And I also fail to see how if the rates provided under a deal like this were extended to a greater amount of the population, how they would be much worse.
Just because I show govt data doesnt make my comments here political, but I think this is a good nationwide evaluation of costs of healthcare when a sizeable population is included.
If only non-feds could "qualify" for these rates...
If you go here:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp
You can see what the federal government gets as a "deal" on insurance.
Though there is a misconception that every fed gets a "cadillac" plan, it is a choice. And some of the plans are VERY expensive to the employee, and the gov't does NOT pay the majority of the cost.
But this isnt a government benefits discussion. Where Im going with this is that you can see the actual, full monthly payment on these sheets. The total amount that the govt plus the employee pays to pay the premium in full. It appears VERY regionally dependent.
Im looking at the non-postal HMO plan, full monthly costs. There are a TON that are FAR less than $10k/yr for premiums.
And if the companies were loosing money on these, they wouldnt be in the business.
So I fail to see how so many get such poor rates. And I also fail to see how if the rates provided under a deal like this were extended to a greater amount of the population, how they would be much worse.
Just because I show govt data doesnt make my comments here political, but I think this is a good nationwide evaluation of costs of healthcare when a sizeable population is included.
If only non-feds could "qualify" for these rates...
Well since I am Canadian I don't have this particular issue however I am going to assume that since these insurers are prepared to pay your bills if you in fact need any healthcare they want to know what category to class you in as this will determine your premium.
Questions pertaining to eating habits and how you live are directly relevant to where statistically they should put you. I would guess they would even ask about your driving habits and how much sleep you get at night.
Questions pertaining to eating habits and how you live are directly relevant to where statistically they should put you. I would guess they would even ask about your driving habits and how much sleep you get at night.
Oz' private system is community ranked...i.e. if you are a person, your premium stays the same as every other (except for 2% increase in premiums for life for every year that you haven't held private Health Insurance).
Usually a 12-24 month waiting for pre-existing conditions/pregnancy etc.
Reason for community ranking was that modelling showed that if the market was left to pick and choose, retirees would never be able to afford insurance, despite having paid through their healthy years.
Usually a 12-24 month waiting for pre-existing conditions/pregnancy etc.
Reason for community ranking was that modelling showed that if the market was left to pick and choose, retirees would never be able to afford insurance, despite having paid through their healthy years.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I just dont get it.
If you go here:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp
You can see what the federal government gets as a "deal" on insurance.
Though there is a misconception that every fed gets a "cadillac" plan, it is a choice. And some of the plans are VERY expensive to the employee, and the gov't does NOT pay the majority of the cost.
I'm looking at the non-postal rates and it appears that the federal government subsidizes 75% of premiums.
For the first plan listed "Alabama Aetna HealthFund". The total monthly cost (family) is $824.53, with the government paying $618.40 and the employee chipping in $206.13. I think a 75% subsidy is fairly normal for individual policies but few, if any, private companies in my state subsidize family plans at that rate. I'd kill for access to a family plan for $206/month. Even a family plan for $824.00/month that came with maternity, prescriptions, and a $5,000 deductible would be absolutely amazing.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Im looking at the non-postal HMO plan, full monthly costs. There are a TON that are FAR less than $10k/yr for premiums.
And if the companies were loosing money on these, they wouldnt be in the business.
So I fail to see how so many get such poor rates. And I also fail to see how if the rates provided under a deal like this were extended to a greater amount of the population, how they would be much worse.
Just because I show govt data doesnt make my comments here political, but I think this is a good nationwide evaluation of costs of healthcare when a sizeable population is included.
If only non-feds could "qualify" for these rates...
The federal rates are so good because the federal government is the largest purchaser of insurance in the world. The bigger and more diverse the group, the lower the risk for the insurer because high claim recipients are balanced out by the healthy and the young.
For a small business buying insurance for 20 people, the insurer needs to jack up premiums to deal with expensive members of the group. If the average premium is $7,000/year per employee, that only brings in $140,000/year, 20% of which goes to insurance overhead, leaving $112,000 for paying claims. If one coworker is diagnosed with cancer or has a high risk pregnancy, that's enough to make the group unprofitable and possibly uninsurable.
Those in small groups, especially with a disproportionate number of women, or coworkers over 40, are completely reamed when it comes to buying insurance.
I just dont get it.
If you go here:
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp
You can see what the federal government gets as a "deal" on insurance.
Though there is a misconception that every fed gets a "cadillac" plan, it is a choice. And some of the plans are VERY expensive to the employee, and the gov't does NOT pay the majority of the cost.
I'm looking at the non-postal rates and it appears that the federal government subsidizes 75% of premiums.
For the first plan listed "Alabama Aetna HealthFund". The total monthly cost (family) is $824.53, with the government paying $618.40 and the employee chipping in $206.13. I think a 75% subsidy is fairly normal for individual policies but few, if any, private companies in my state subsidize family plans at that rate. I'd kill for access to a family plan for $206/month. Even a family plan for $824.00/month that came with maternity, prescriptions, and a $5,000 deductible would be absolutely amazing.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Im looking at the non-postal HMO plan, full monthly costs. There are a TON that are FAR less than $10k/yr for premiums.
And if the companies were loosing money on these, they wouldnt be in the business.
So I fail to see how so many get such poor rates. And I also fail to see how if the rates provided under a deal like this were extended to a greater amount of the population, how they would be much worse.
Just because I show govt data doesnt make my comments here political, but I think this is a good nationwide evaluation of costs of healthcare when a sizeable population is included.
If only non-feds could "qualify" for these rates...
The federal rates are so good because the federal government is the largest purchaser of insurance in the world. The bigger and more diverse the group, the lower the risk for the insurer because high claim recipients are balanced out by the healthy and the young.
For a small business buying insurance for 20 people, the insurer needs to jack up premiums to deal with expensive members of the group. If the average premium is $7,000/year per employee, that only brings in $140,000/year, 20% of which goes to insurance overhead, leaving $112,000 for paying claims. If one coworker is diagnosed with cancer or has a high risk pregnancy, that's enough to make the group unprofitable and possibly uninsurable.
Those in small groups, especially with a disproportionate number of women, or coworkers over 40, are completely reamed when it comes to buying insurance.
- Status
