Do any of you go WITHOUT health insurance? By choice?

[me&thegals]

I've been to the doctor three times in the last ten years. I paid about $100 cash each time. Why would a healthy person spend thousands per year on insurance? I choose not to waste my money. My health plan includes eating a diet high in antioxidants, and avoiding hospitals like the plague.

Because sometimes traumatic accidents happen, and even healthy people get cancer or suffer heart attacks.

We live a very healthy lifestyle, too, but it's those possible injuries or unseen illnesses that keep me on the insurance plan. We just had a very healthy 44-yo farmer friend die of cancer. He was healthy right up until he got cancer.

One of my mom's very naturally, organic-minded friends died of cancer in her 40s, and a friend of my dad's also--both very nutritionally minded, chemical avoidant, active, young people.

And, my little niece just fell and broke her arm. My sister was in between insurance as her husband transitioned jobs. They had to get her splinted and slinged for 4 days, trying to keep a very active 5-yo quiet and still, until they could get a cast on once insurance started up again.

 

[raro]

I grew up in a very healthy family, and as an adult was maybe sick once or twice in 10 years. After working for a few years with one company, they decided the insurance was too expensive and dropped it. I thought, "oh, well, who cares? It's not like I was using it, right? I'm 39 years old, exercise regularly, eat more healthily than anyone I know, have no history of illness in the family, ANDit will only be for a few months."

In those few months, I found a lump. Stage 3 breast cancer. I have NO family history.

In Virginia, they have a "catastrophic illness fund" that I applied for. You have to have a dr. note that says you'd be dead in a year without treatment before they will pay for anything. Just one teeny-tiny problem...there's a year's waiting list to get into the program. Um, isn't that a PROBLEM?!?

They also have a special Medicaid for breast/cervical cancer patients. But you have to have been diagnosed after 40. I was 39.

Chemotherapy: $25,000 per infusion. Six infusions = $150,000. Radiation: $28,000. A single shot that you have to get after each chemo: $3,000. Not to mention doctor bills up the wazoo. (I spent an hour on the phone telling the hospital that if they were going to charge me over $700 for a dang pair of scissors used in an operation, I dang well better be allowed to keep the scissors!!!)

The thing is, if you go without insurance and something like this happens, people say, oh, well, I'll just be in debt forever. But it is the rest of society that has to pay for your choice, because NOBODY has that kind of money.

I will always be grateful that the American people helped to pay my medical bills because I couldn't. Sure, I paid as much as I could. I finally qualified for a very obscure Medicaid that lasted 6 months and only covered hospital procedures. But it's our society that paid for that Medicaid, through taxes. And I am grateful.

Now I have health insurance. But issues come up with insurance, too. My insurance company made me wait 6 months doing useless physical therapy for my "sciatica" which was actually a tumor wrapped around my lower spine. So now I'm stage four, which is incurable. I'm sure my insurance company is gritting its teeth with all the money I'm costing them. Oh, well. They took my (huge) premiums for four years with no complaint (except to raise the cost of the premiums), so I have no regrets about using them liberally.

In short, I would think long and hard about going without insurance. You can cut your risk...but my risk for getting cancer was almost nil. And here I am.

 

[beerman]

I think what destroys the system is people know they have to help them if they can pay or not. I think there should be some government hospitals that have to help people but I don't think a private business should give you their service if you have no intention of ever paying them back. It may sound mean but way to many people abuse the system.

 

[Leta]

I did my undergrad thesis on the U.S. healthcare system/crisis. (Yes, I really needed a thesis to graduate with a Bachelor's.)

This was in 2007, but much of that info still applies.

Here's the thing about the rising cost of healthcare: it's a worldwide phenomenon. There is no country with a modern healthcare system that has not experienced a galloping increase in the cost of healthcare. Bottom line is that healthcare was cheaper when people died easier. If we want chemotherapy, wonder drugs, transplants, then we- which is to say, ALL of us, whether we do/will use those things or not- have to pay for the research and development, education and training, and experiments and trials to make this stuff possible. There is NO WAY this level of science can be undertaken and applied via private means. To begin with, no industry is that big or widespread, no one corporation or even an entire industry could cobble together the amazing array of labs and sciences that it takes to make a single, small breakthrough.

And, yes, the big pharma companies get BILLIONS from Uncle Sam directly, and even more by piggybacking off the work of the NIH and universities.

One of the few ways to slow down the cost of healthcare as it eats up an ever greater portion of our GDP is to exploit the economics of monopsony. (Wikipedia has a good entry on this.) Monopsony is like monopoly turned inside out. When a company has a monopoly on something, you have to pay what they charge or go without. Monopsony is when there is a single buyer rather than a single seller. So if you make railroad ties, and there is only one railroad (thus, only one purchaser of railroad ties) in your state, you can only sell them for what they will pay you. If they say, "We'll pay $5 per tie," you have to figure out how to make a profit at that price or get out of the railroad tie game.

This is the principle behind, for example, Canadian style single payer. It isn't socialized health care, like the NHS in the UK, where doctors are educated and employed by the government. Single payer just turns Canada's federal government into the only buyer of healthcare in the country, and as a monoposonistic buyer, allows the Canadian government to set prices.

What people are afraid of in the US is that, if we go to single payer, quality of care will suffer. (Also that they will have to wait longer, but that is something of red herring issue, because waits are going to increase no matter what, just like costs are going to rise.) I doubt that quality of care will decrease, because doctors might make somewhat less, but they will still have very handsome salaries, because virtually everyone who works 100 hours per week and has had 25 years of school makes a handsome salary, and because their expertise is valuable, even to a monopsonistic buyer. Also, virtually all people who get into medicine are deeply intrinsically motivated, more so than almost any other profession. The people who get into medicine to make tons of money end up becoming cosmetic surgeons.

Going to single payer would slow the rate of cost increase in two other ways, as well.

Right now, Medicare has a 3% rate of overhead. Non-profit private insurance has a rate of about 10%. For profit insurance has a rate of 25%. They spend that much more to shuffle paper around because they are denying people's claims. It's called post-claim underwriting, and it takes a lot of manpower. Just by going to single payer, we'd reduce costs by 7%-22% out of the gate.

The other way is just embracing the concept of insurance. Part of the reason that some states have made it mandatory to have car insurance is partially because, the greater the burden is shared, the less it costs for everyone. That is the concept of insurance. Not everyone drives, but virtually everyone will get or will need healthcare at some point in their lives. So it makes sense that everyone should share the burden. That, more or less, is how Social Security works- it's a social insurance policy against poverty in old age. (Yes, I think Social Security needs reform, but its looming fiscal problem has a lot to do with folks living longer and therefore drawing more in lifetime benefits.)

I am not trying to force the idea of single payer down everyone's throats, though in my examination of various healthcare systems I came to realize that it is the best one. I just think that a lot of folks are confused about what single payer and socialized medicine actually are, and confused about whether they are the same thing (they aren't). I hope I helped to promote some understanding.

 

[ORChick]

Thank you Leta. That made things a lot clearer to me

 

[me&thegals]

I just found out I will not be eligible for health insurance through my employer as of Feb 1, 2012. So, decisions to be made...

 

[2BFree]

I am single and unemployed and now my income is zero. I am paying 210.00/mo. on a 5000.00 deductible. So I pay 100% . Lucky for me I have been fairly healthy. I did this just for big money protection until I find a better plan. The $210 is a lot to pay but its better than losing everything on a gamble.

 

[Marianne]

I see this is your first post 2BFree, so welcome to the forum. Take a minute and introduce yourself over at the 'where are you, where am I' thread, k?

This insurance thing is weighing heavy on my mind lately. I was without insurance for 10 years or more, luckily nothing happened. I finally got to the point where I felt like I had to get something, even if it was just major medical. So now I'm paying $300+ a month for insurance that won't pay for emergency room, won't pay for lab work, won't pay for anything unless I'm admitted to the hospital, and then they'll pay for 'some', but still nothing for lab, x-rays, on and on.

Things aren't like they used to be where as long as you sent some money every month, you didn't get hassled. It's risky business, but right now, I'd almost rather be able to afford to go to the doc when I need to, be able to afford my prescriptions, afford to have some tests run (bone density, mammogram) instead of paying this insurance premium.

It's a dilemma....I'm starting the search for another insurance company, too.

 

[Living the Simple Life]

We just had a scare with my son - suspected appendicitis (thank goodness it wasn't). Got the explanation of benefits from the insurance company, over $4300 just for the CAT scan. I am blessed to have very good insurance with a small monthly contribution.

I am concerned however because at this point we will not have healthcare in retirement until we are eligible for medicare. I am really hoping to retire at 59-1/2..but this is a concern. We are planning to use the Joel Salatin model of a plan with a HUGE deductible (like $10K) that would only be for major health issues. Everything else would be paid out of pocket. I would like to be able to continue making monthly contribution (just like while employed) but put it into a health emergency fund that can be accessed if needed.

 

[Marianne]

Right, I brought that idea up to my husband some time ago. At the time, he was more 'we have to do what everyone else does'. Now he might have a different opinion...doubtful. :/ Even so, we couldn't get enough saved to make much of a dent in a big medical bill. I don't think they'd throw me in jail as long as I made an effort to pay, you know?

I checked into HSA's, don't remember now why we didn't go with one. Years ago, we joined NASE to have their group insurance rates.