5 ms·

What's the point of catastrophic insurance if they can drop you when you need it? It seems like you're paying for nothing.

georgieporgie 16y ago
It's a gamble. I imagine that the risk of being dropped is directly proportional to the amount of attention I garner. Break a leg? Probably not a big deal. Get cancer? Better look out.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "Break a leg? Probably not a big deal. Get cancer? Better look out." This is a horrifying, inhumane, uncivilized concept. Why the American public simply accepts this is mind-boggling.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    I don't accept it. But choosing no insurance leaves me in a worse situation. And to be fair, as another pointed out, they can't really boot me anymore for not listing every single bit of medical care I've ever gotten, which is the best single thing to happen in Obama's presidency, IMO.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    We obviously don't accept it, people have been trying to change it and it's been a major election issue for several years now. There's just a lot wrong about health care, so there are lots of facets for people to latch onto and say, "We have to fix this part!", and then the people who want to fix another part spend a few years bickering about which part is the key to fixing the whole thing (no part individually, but don't tell people that). Also, people do not evaluate things independently and rely on pundits like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow to evaluate the situation and give them an opinion. Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News/right-side cadre tell everyone that health care reform is socialism, our system is the greatest in the world already, the government can't do anything right, and we'll all be turned into savages because socialism will steal our morals and make our children sniveling, awful thieves and layabouts. This is Glenn Beck's position mainly because the President is currently a Democrat. Maddow says the opposite of course. Media in the US works by validating the opinion of your target audience, and doing this in an emotionally gratifying way that sounds like you are being logical and reasonable, and gives people little soundbites they can use to justify their position. People listen to Beck, Hannity, et al because they enjoy the emotional experience that it induces -- they like the righteous anger and validation of their beliefs, they are gratified by blaming all of the problems on the people that have an opposing viewpoint. They enjoy hearing little snippets that can be used to justify their (adopted) political positions in a sentence to a friend or colleague. It's just easier this way, and doesn't require any intellectual effort. In short, it's all about flattery. People give you money, influence, and power when you spend all day flattering them, irrespective of its basis in reality. There's a lot of misinformation out there. The majority of Americans also have passable health coverage, so since it doesn't affect them, the people that are not politically inclined are not particularly interested in the debate and they don't understand the difficulty for people that aren't happy to be bound to BigCo forever.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      Also, people do not evaluate things independently and rely on pundits like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow to evaluate the situation and give them an opinion. This applies as well to pundits on other regions of the political spectrum. Are so many of us really so hollow now? (Unfortunately, the market says: yes.)
- giardini 16y ago
  "Get cancer? Better look out." Of course! There is no real cure for cancer: look at the 5-year survival statistics. But there _are_ innumerable agencies and non-profits that will take your last dollar and promise you "hope". They will do this for you or for your child who has cancer. Their purpose is to make money. Amazingly, people will spend their last dollar to "cure" their own cancer. To "save" their children they will borrow money against their future or that of their relatives and friends. We spend most of our medical dollars trying to put off the inevitable (death from old age and cancer). Instead we should learn, as a nation, that it is OK to die, hopefully gracefully, if a bit sooner.
klenwell 16y ago
Been in this situation. Asked myself this question. You're basically paying for the privilege, in the event of a large medical expense, to say, "Don't blame me, I paid for the insurance." It will make no practical difference, as some of the follow-up comments have already suggested. You're just spared the indignity of those ignorant of the realities of the American health care market (or, worse, fully conscious of them), asking: "Why didn't you buy insurance? There's this website/company I see advertised on cable news all the time where you could have gotten a really reasonable deal. So you've got no one to blame but yourself."
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Also, ostensible insurance coverage gets you through the door and the treatment needed without taking all of your money. Cash patients often have to pay large chunks up-front. As a person in a fluctuating employment situation with a pregnant wife, I know that cash OB/GYN pregnancy treatment programs cost $400-$500/mo, because they want you to prepay on the baby's delivery, as they don't trust cash patients to pay a $12,000 bill after the baby is born. If you have insurance, at the two ob/gyns we've been to, you don't even have to pay office copays and they bill it all after the delivery. The individual is usually billed $2000-$4000 after deductible and after the insurance pays its portion (generally 80%). So, even if your insurer denies your claim, for some people the only practical way to get access to medicine is to have an insurer. Certain doctors (namely doctors with whom you will have a short-term ongoing relationship, like your infant's pediatrician or your OB/GYN) will totally shun you if you don't have insurance. I guess this is because most cash patients determine they've paid enough after they pay a pediatrician or gynecologist several thousand dollars.

georgieporgie 16y ago

It's a gamble. I imagine that the risk of being dropped is directly proportional to the amount of attention I garner. Break a leg? Probably not a big deal. Get cancer? Better look out.

potatolicious 16y ago
> "Break a leg? Probably not a big deal. Get cancer? Better look out." This is a horrifying, inhumane, uncivilized concept. Why the American public simply accepts this is mind-boggling.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  I don't accept it. But choosing no insurance leaves me in a worse situation. And to be fair, as another pointed out, they can't really boot me anymore for not listing every single bit of medical care I've ever gotten, which is the best single thing to happen in Obama's presidency, IMO.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  We obviously don't accept it, people have been trying to change it and it's been a major election issue for several years now. There's just a lot wrong about health care, so there are lots of facets for people to latch onto and say, "We have to fix this part!", and then the people who want to fix another part spend a few years bickering about which part is the key to fixing the whole thing (no part individually, but don't tell people that). Also, people do not evaluate things independently and rely on pundits like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow to evaluate the situation and give them an opinion. Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News/right-side cadre tell everyone that health care reform is socialism, our system is the greatest in the world already, the government can't do anything right, and we'll all be turned into savages because socialism will steal our morals and make our children sniveling, awful thieves and layabouts. This is Glenn Beck's position mainly because the President is currently a Democrat. Maddow says the opposite of course. Media in the US works by validating the opinion of your target audience, and doing this in an emotionally gratifying way that sounds like you are being logical and reasonable, and gives people little soundbites they can use to justify their position. People listen to Beck, Hannity, et al because they enjoy the emotional experience that it induces -- they like the righteous anger and validation of their beliefs, they are gratified by blaming all of the problems on the people that have an opposing viewpoint. They enjoy hearing little snippets that can be used to justify their (adopted) political positions in a sentence to a friend or colleague. It's just easier this way, and doesn't require any intellectual effort. In short, it's all about flattery. People give you money, influence, and power when you spend all day flattering them, irrespective of its basis in reality. There's a lot of misinformation out there. The majority of Americans also have passable health coverage, so since it doesn't affect them, the people that are not politically inclined are not particularly interested in the debate and they don't understand the difficulty for people that aren't happy to be bound to BigCo forever.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Also, people do not evaluate things independently and rely on pundits like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow to evaluate the situation and give them an opinion. This applies as well to pundits on other regions of the political spectrum. Are so many of us really so hollow now? (Unfortunately, the market says: yes.)
giardini 16y ago
"Get cancer? Better look out." Of course! There is no real cure for cancer: look at the 5-year survival statistics. But there _are_ innumerable agencies and non-profits that will take your last dollar and promise you "hope". They will do this for you or for your child who has cancer. Their purpose is to make money. Amazingly, people will spend their last dollar to "cure" their own cancer. To "save" their children they will borrow money against their future or that of their relatives and friends. We spend most of our medical dollars trying to put off the inevitable (death from old age and cancer). Instead we should learn, as a nation, that it is OK to die, hopefully gracefully, if a bit sooner.

klenwell 16y ago

Been in this situation. Asked myself this question. You're basically paying for the privilege, in the event of a large medical expense, to say, "Don't blame me, I paid for the insurance." It will make no practical difference, as some of the follow-up comments have already suggested. You're just spared the indignity of those ignorant of the realities of the American health care market (or, worse, fully conscious of them), asking: "Why didn't you buy insurance? There's this website/company I see advertised on cable news all the time where you could have gotten a really reasonable deal. So you've got no one to blame but yourself."

cookiecaper 16y ago
Also, ostensible insurance coverage gets you through the door and the treatment needed without taking all of your money. Cash patients often have to pay large chunks up-front. As a person in a fluctuating employment situation with a pregnant wife, I know that cash OB/GYN pregnancy treatment programs cost $400-$500/mo, because they want you to prepay on the baby's delivery, as they don't trust cash patients to pay a $12,000 bill after the baby is born. If you have insurance, at the two ob/gyns we've been to, you don't even have to pay office copays and they bill it all after the delivery. The individual is usually billed $2000-$4000 after deductible and after the insurance pays its portion (generally 80%). So, even if your insurer denies your claim, for some people the only practical way to get access to medicine is to have an insurer. Certain doctors (namely doctors with whom you will have a short-term ongoing relationship, like your infant's pediatrician or your OB/GYN) will totally shun you if you don't have insurance. I guess this is because most cash patients determine they've paid enough after they pay a pediatrician or gynecologist several thousand dollars.