4 ms·

The same way tying work visas to employers limits employee mobility and increases the "slave labour" effect. People end up stuck in jobs they hate just because

The same way tying work visas to employers limits employee mobility and increases the "slave labour" effect. People end up stuck in jobs they hate just because they have health insurance and will have to go without it for a period if they change jobs. That's utter bullshit.

blackflame7000 7y ago
Well, that's what COBRA coverage is for to bridge the gap between jobs. Also if you lose your job you can usually get insurance from the state at little or no cost while on unemployment.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Ahh COBRA. "You've just left your job and have all the regular expenses still, but you won't mind an extra $1500 a month for health insurance, right?"
  - SlavikCA 7y ago
    Well, without COBRA you'll have to pay $2500 for the same coverage.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    It's definitely a terrible system, but if you have a pre-existing condition how fair is it to the next insurance company to take you. That's like taking your crashed car to Geico and saying fix it. There has to be some way that the insurance company can make money on the odds.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      If you have insurance and a pre-existing condition, it's probably going to be a net-neutral to the insurer (for every one coming on to their system, there's one leaving to another). The preponderance of a given condition is not a function of having insurance (though complications thereof can certainly be increased by NOT having insurance). And has already been factored in by actuaries into policy pricing. The biggest issue is that we see health insurance AS insurance, not amortized healthcare costing. > There has to be some way that the insurance company can make money on the odds. That's the thing, they see an opportunity to increase profit. A few comments on that, as someone who has worked in the industry of developing software for health insurance claims management and benefit processing: 1) insurers are incentivized to deny claims, often talking about how "unfair" it might be for "them" to have to pay for a treatment. The irony is that "they" are not paying for anything - the risk pool is. Those premiums were calculated based on actuarial assessment, plus insurer overhead calculated in. What they mean by "them" having to pay out is that we cut into their profits, as they don't refund money to risk pools if the entirety of the pool is not used - they keep it, in addition to the admin overhead. 2) insurers have been known to be outright unethical, if not illegal in denying claims. Some prurient examples: denying Heli EMS for car accident victims from the scene to a trauma center because of "lack of pre-approval" (sorry, as a paramedic I am not "hold[ing] for a nurse consult" as I call an insurer to decide whether they are going to deign to pay for this patient's transport, and retroactively canceling coverage for "failure to disclose a pre-existing condition" that was actually unknown at the time of disclosure, i.e. "You were seeing a physician for maladies X, Y and Z. You had not been diagnosed with anything at that point, but later were, and maladies X, Y and Z were symptomatic of that. Ergo, you had that condition at that time, though you did not have a formal diagnosis, and failed to disclose that you had it. Accordingly we are voiding your coverage for breach of contract".
      - sizzle 7y ago
        This is despicable behavior on insurers part to kick people down when they are in need. It should be illegal to drop a person's coverage if a clear diagnosis was not made prior to an incident that required medical intervention and cemented a diagnosis on paper.
      - traek 7y ago
        > Some prurient examples Not sure these are "prurient". You may mean salient.
- axaxs 7y ago
  I don't know all the details, but COBRA prices have always seemed exorbitant, likely to discourage people from doing this. In my early 20's, when I had about the worst health plan ever, COBRA was still hundreds of dollars a month. Out of pocket, I bought a plan for something like $45 a month instead. I have trouble believing what COBRA offers is the same price as what a company pays - and if it is, they are getting hosed big time.
  - secabeen 7y ago
    COBRA prices are exactly what the company + the employee pay, plus 3% for administrative overhead. What it illuminates is just exactly how much health care costs combined, even when the number the employee is paying is large, but manageable. Employers now document their insurance costs for each employee on their W-2 forms, in case you want to see how much yours is paying for you.
    - axaxs 7y ago
      Thanks for the insight, I'd always wondered. Now I find it even slightly more depressing.

blackflame7000 7y ago

Well, that's what COBRA coverage is for to bridge the gap between jobs. Also if you lose your job you can usually get insurance from the state at little or no cost while on unemployment.

FireBeyond 7y ago
Ahh COBRA. "You've just left your job and have all the regular expenses still, but you won't mind an extra $1500 a month for health insurance, right?"
- SlavikCA 7y ago
  Well, without COBRA you'll have to pay $2500 for the same coverage.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  It's definitely a terrible system, but if you have a pre-existing condition how fair is it to the next insurance company to take you. That's like taking your crashed car to Geico and saying fix it. There has to be some way that the insurance company can make money on the odds.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    If you have insurance and a pre-existing condition, it's probably going to be a net-neutral to the insurer (for every one coming on to their system, there's one leaving to another). The preponderance of a given condition is not a function of having insurance (though complications thereof can certainly be increased by NOT having insurance). And has already been factored in by actuaries into policy pricing. The biggest issue is that we see health insurance AS insurance, not amortized healthcare costing. > There has to be some way that the insurance company can make money on the odds. That's the thing, they see an opportunity to increase profit. A few comments on that, as someone who has worked in the industry of developing software for health insurance claims management and benefit processing: 1) insurers are incentivized to deny claims, often talking about how "unfair" it might be for "them" to have to pay for a treatment. The irony is that "they" are not paying for anything - the risk pool is. Those premiums were calculated based on actuarial assessment, plus insurer overhead calculated in. What they mean by "them" having to pay out is that we cut into their profits, as they don't refund money to risk pools if the entirety of the pool is not used - they keep it, in addition to the admin overhead. 2) insurers have been known to be outright unethical, if not illegal in denying claims. Some prurient examples: denying Heli EMS for car accident victims from the scene to a trauma center because of "lack of pre-approval" (sorry, as a paramedic I am not "hold[ing] for a nurse consult" as I call an insurer to decide whether they are going to deign to pay for this patient's transport, and retroactively canceling coverage for "failure to disclose a pre-existing condition" that was actually unknown at the time of disclosure, i.e. "You were seeing a physician for maladies X, Y and Z. You had not been diagnosed with anything at that point, but later were, and maladies X, Y and Z were symptomatic of that. Ergo, you had that condition at that time, though you did not have a formal diagnosis, and failed to disclose that you had it. Accordingly we are voiding your coverage for breach of contract".
    - sizzle 7y ago
      This is despicable behavior on insurers part to kick people down when they are in need. It should be illegal to drop a person's coverage if a clear diagnosis was not made prior to an incident that required medical intervention and cemented a diagnosis on paper.
    - traek 7y ago
      > Some prurient examples Not sure these are "prurient". You may mean salient.
axaxs 7y ago
I don't know all the details, but COBRA prices have always seemed exorbitant, likely to discourage people from doing this. In my early 20's, when I had about the worst health plan ever, COBRA was still hundreds of dollars a month. Out of pocket, I bought a plan for something like $45 a month instead. I have trouble believing what COBRA offers is the same price as what a company pays - and if it is, they are getting hosed big time.
- secabeen 7y ago
  COBRA prices are exactly what the company + the employee pay, plus 3% for administrative overhead. What it illuminates is just exactly how much health care costs combined, even when the number the employee is paying is large, but manageable. Employers now document their insurance costs for each employee on their W-2 forms, in case you want to see how much yours is paying for you.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    Thanks for the insight, I'd always wondered. Now I find it even slightly more depressing.