[geeks] Discuss this quote...

[Hicheal Morton]

I want to call it "catastrophic health insurance", but I'm not sure...

Your "catastrophic health insurance" was called major-medical coverage in
saner days.  (1979 and before).  IIRC, our $400 per year major medical had a
$1000 deductible, 20% deductible from $1001 to $5000, and 0% deductible
after $5000.

Out of pocket expenses for a family with the premium was a maximum of
$2200.  This could be a big chunk in the 70's but it cheaper than what they
charge at week=over $400 per month for a couple; at least $100 more for
kids.

One of the keys in the 70s was, as you have mentioned, nobody went to the
doctor unless it was needed.  Doctors were not threatened by lawsuits and
could patients as people and friends.  Hospitals were not-for-profit.  Less
technology but more human care and concern.


On 8/28/07, Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >From: "Jonathan C. Patschke" <jp at celestrion.net>
> >Date: 2007/08/28 Tue PM 03:29:31 CDT
> >To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
> >Subject: Re: [geeks] Discuss this quote...
>
> >On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> >
> >>> Is medical insurance that big of a deal?  Outside of my brief stint
> >>> at state employment, I've never had my employer provide it.  In fact,
> >>> I haven't even had insurance for the last two years or so.  I just
> >>> eat well[0] and take care of myself.  I only get sick enough to miss
> >>> work every four years or so.
> >>
> >> Sure, one day you will need it. Then it will be imposible to buy it
> >> and you will be faced with a choice of selling EVERYTHING you own to
> >> pay your medical bills or living (as long as you can) with whatever
> >> condition you have.
> >
> >Insurance isn't what's needed then.  Affordable healthcare is, and
> >insurance providers survive by inhibiting that (many of the largest
> >regional hospital chains also happen to be owned[0 by HMOs).  My point is
> >that the insurance companies and healthcare providers are playing a
> >dirty shell game, and if I can sidestep most of that by providing my own
> >insurance (in the form of a savings plan and trying to do the right
> >thing), I feel a degree of moral obligation to do that.
> >
> >I submit that a person of average health (and luck) and above-average
> >financial responsibility has no need for health insurance.  They exist
> >to prop up the health insurance system.  Sticking that $200 - $300 a
> >month into moderate yield/risk savings will outweigh healthcare costs in
> >all but some unfortunate folks.
>
> My brother (not I) has a very interesting self-insurance option - he has a
> personal insurance plan that has a *huge* deductable (several thousand
> dollars), but he is covered for nearly 100% of expenses beyond that
> deductable. The upside is that his doctors like to see him (he pays upon
> delivery of service, not 2-4 months later, HMO-willing), and he gets lowered
> rates (not much, but it helps), and usually a handfull of samples if he
> walks out with a prescription.
>
> I can't cite his cost, but I think it works out to just a couple thousand
> a year, plus his deductable, which would make his annual out of pocket
> expenses just a few hundred dollars a month. I think his worst case outlay
> would be about $4-5K/year (insurance plus deductable), with 100% coverage
> from $2500 deductable to $1,000,000 of expenses.
>
> I want to call it "catastrophic health insurance", but I'm not sure...
>
> I also worked for an employer that was 100% self-insured - you submitted
> your bills to the company, and the company paid you pack from their own pile
> of money. It was nice (pick the doctor, pick the specialist, etc.) - almost
> made me wish I had greater health problems - almost.
>
> Lionel
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks