Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:13:04 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
 <1992Aug10.153043.29526@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com>
 <1992Aug15.223532.19090@oakhill.sps.mot.com> <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp>

In article <1992Aug26.033838.5246@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
says:
>
>I fail to understand why anyone would allow something as important
>as medical insurance to be subject to the whims of others. I take
>care of my own auto insurance and homeowner's insurance as I suspect
>you do. I also take care of my own medical insurance. Thus I am not
>subject to whims of employers changing coverage or "employee contribution"
>or losing coverage completely for a time if I choose to work elsewhere.
>Nor am I subject to the whims of some government agency changing elegibility
>requirements and payment schedules. It only seems common sense.
>
>My current employer "allows" me to waive coverage under his group
>plan, big whoop. For that favor I get a lump sum of $330 each year.

Most insurers require that at least 70% of employees be covered under
a group plan, otherwise they fear too much adverse selection will occur.
For any given coverage, group coverage will always be cheaper.  As a
healthy, presumably fairly well-off, though certainly not rich, person
you can afford to opt out of the group coverage and get ind. coverage.
The vast majority of people would not be able to do that.


>With a $2500 deductable, that buys me a million dollars worth of
>major medical coverage, no copayments required. Thus I'm insured
>for any *unexpected* medical emergency, and I prudently budget
>for routine care out of my pocket. If I had gone under my employer's
>group plan, I would have had a $250 deductable, a 50% copayment up
>to $2000, and a 20% copayment for everything beyond that up to
>$250,000. In addition, I would be making an employee "contribution"
>of $17 a month out of my paycheck. If I have a major medical emergency,
>I'm ahead of the game. If I don't have a major emergency, and my annual
>medical expense is no more than it has been for the last 20 years, only
>once over $200, then I'm even further ahead of the game. Only in the
>case of a medical expense between $250 and $2500 can I be out more
>money under my personal coverage. And then it's only $1246 more worst
>case. Plus I get to write 50% of that $330 off against my taxes each
>year and I save $17 a month of after tax money. You can't insure a
>Camaro for that. Surely my health is worth more than a car.

Since the majority of the uninsured are working men and women and their
dependents with too little income to buy any insurance, of what relevance
is this to the debate over national health care?  Yes, if you have sufficient
income the US system givens you greater freedom to choose over your insurance
plan.  I don't consider that to be substantially more important than trying
to give everyone at least some basic level of health care.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women