This will be brief. Promise.
This year will mark the first year we've had to face "modern day" insurance (much has changes over the last 13+ years).
And this is the first year since the ACA that we have moved from the Marketplace (Affordable Health Care system) to employer-based insurance. And just in time. Or so it seemed?
For those who are unfamiliar with having to use insurance for something other than a yearly physical (generally covered at no cost, in the case of many insurance plans), a deductible is a none-issue...until you have to get blood tests following that exam (to the tune of $500+, not covered by insurance unless you have already reached your deductible).
$500+. "No big deal".
But then, because you had some symptoms - in this case unexplainable abdominal pain, a sudden unexplainable weight gain of 15 pounds in a matter of a couple of weeks that persists for several months, even though you have changed nothing about your diet and exercise regimen, excessive unusual fatigue and dizziness...
Welcome to an ultra$ound. $$
And then the ultrasound results lead to a CAT $can. $$$
(still holding out on that it's nothing - this isn't about our health issues, today)
And then those three components lead to meeting your deductible.
The deductible is more than 10% of the net (post-tax, or take hoe pay) income of the employee who carries the plan (in this case, The Husband). It may even be more than 10% of the total household income.
[NEWSFLASH: not all households are two-income, and not all two-income households make a decent living wage despite the two income <- but this should not be shocking too you].
In this particular case it's the BEST plan the employer has to offer (and the employer is a multi-national company), and it still costs the household $480 a month just for the privilege of meeting the deductible.
It's likely that this is a standard situation. (Though, admittedly, there has been no personal research on the matter outside of discussions with friends and acquaintances, because this isn't a research piece as some of the posts and research papers on this blog are).
This household is fortunate in its financial position thanks to various situations, so while it may be an inconvenience at this point, it is in no way a disaster. No pity needed. Promise. 100%
However. Not being the types to be so narcissistic as to only think about personal plights...we can't help but be concerned....dumbfounded...astonished...that even in the case of a top plan, that any middle/middle-low/low class American can even manage sparing 10% of their income that is already stretched thin by all measures of modern life: people who have car loans, house payments, student debt, children. How the actual fuck are they managing any of it.
Yes. Once the deductible is met then the costs decrease...until the deductible resets. And then you're dropping that 10+% all over again. And endless pit.
The healthcare system in this country is ridiculous. Criminal. It is not a pro-life system, it is a pro-profit system. It is greedy and it is disgusting. And it makes us yearn for the years under the Canadian Healthcare system, as it does make The Husband yearn for his entire life under the NHS of the UK.
Profits before people.
Whatever happens with the Affordable Healthcare Act under the current administration is NOT going to alleviate the problem. By all honest reviews, both from accountable and responsible and trustworthy people on the left and right, it will exacerbate the problems that already exist, both within and outside of the marketplace. It will be worse than it was leading up to the ACA. It will be a disaster.
Not looking forward to that. And neither should be any reasonable and intelligent person.
</rant>
Psst...
We were actually brief!
Nailed it. 👊🏻
Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include [3]: * Health care is a basic human right or entitlement. * Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically. * About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers. * A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending. * Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system. * Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions. * Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced. * America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund. * A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions. * Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.) * A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of paediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care. * According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care. * In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care. * Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients. * Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee. * Conservatives can favour universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.