You do not have health insurance.
August 7, 2009 5:53 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: lack of health insurance is bad, having health insurance isn't a panacea, single link blog posts to health insurance topics are sort of fail-y for MetaFilter -- jessamyn
Our native ice-cream may not be great, but we have pills and potions to cure all your ailments (NB may not include Herceptin, regional conditions may apply)
posted by mippy at 6:01 AM on August 7, 2009
posted by mippy at 6:01 AM on August 7, 2009
No - you do not have health assurance.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:06 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by MuffinMan at 6:06 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
No - you do not have health assurance.
You don't have either. RTFA.
posted by DU at 6:12 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
You don't have either. RTFA.
posted by DU at 6:12 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
If I'm no longer employed, I lose my employer-based coverage? My God! What a truly revolutionary concept.
posted by codswallop at 6:16 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
If I'm no longer employed, I lose my employer-based coverage? My God! What a truly revolutionary concept.
posted by codswallop at 6:16 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
How many people in the USA work for the government because it offers reliable health insurance? Do people choose to work in the public sector because their loved ones have chronic illnesses?
posted by bystander at 6:20 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by bystander at 6:20 AM on August 7, 2009 [2 favorites]
I did RTFA, thanks. RTFPP.
His point is not groundbreaking - that your health insurance is at risk, or dependent on things that may be at risk.
IMHO, at an even more basic level, you want a proper healthcare system because your health isn't assured.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:20 AM on August 7, 2009
His point is not groundbreaking - that your health insurance is at risk, or dependent on things that may be at risk.
IMHO, at an even more basic level, you want a proper healthcare system because your health isn't assured.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:20 AM on August 7, 2009
If you aren't part of the consumer machine, toiling away for hours so you can buy things to keep the businesses making money so they can continue to employ you, well, you don't deserve your life.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:22 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:22 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
The author is quite correct. Almost no one in the US carries traditional indemnity insurance. Many of us are on health plans, which is a much different thing–it's more like a buying club for healthcare, but with a complete lack of transparency and a bunch of arcane rules designed to screw you out of coverage.
posted by Mister_A at 6:27 AM on August 7, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by Mister_A at 6:27 AM on August 7, 2009 [6 favorites]
Here's what gets me. My father's job is basically paying nothing (he's on commission in one of the worst commercial real estate markets in the nation) and my mother hates her job. They can't afford to completely quit, but it's hard for them to find other jobs (especially at their ages) in the midwestern city where they live. If they just quit, they would have no health insurance, and even if they tried to buy it, my mother has a number of preexisting conditions that they'd either refuse to cover or would charge them absurd premiums for. They're both just desperately waiting for another few years until my mother, a retired military officer, is eligible for the military's retiree government-provided healthcare program, which will then cover both my parents.
But if you ask them if they support the Obama healthcare plan, hell no; the government shouldn't be running that sort of thing and if you can't afford your own healthcare, you're just not working hard enough.
posted by olinerd at 6:50 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
But if you ask them if they support the Obama healthcare plan, hell no; the government shouldn't be running that sort of thing and if you can't afford your own healthcare, you're just not working hard enough.
posted by olinerd at 6:50 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
Single link to light-duty redefinition and reiteration of stuff we've all read before.
posted by luckypozzo at 6:50 AM on August 7, 2009
posted by luckypozzo at 6:50 AM on August 7, 2009
Superficial characterization of linked article adding zero to discussion.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:53 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:53 AM on August 7, 2009 [4 favorites]
Nevertheless, Civil_Disobedient nailed it.
posted by sneebler at 6:54 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by sneebler at 6:54 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
Have to agree that this article would have been a stellar link in the existing health care FPP, but is slim on its own.
posted by pineapple at 6:57 AM on August 7, 2009
posted by pineapple at 6:57 AM on August 7, 2009
Mippy: I don't have health insurance. But I DO have the NHS. Hooray for the mother country!
I have both. After my health insurance screwed me round completely (and still can't spell my (incredibly common) first name), I am inordinately grateful for the NHS. (Doctor saw me on time, was empathic and knowledgeable, and I walked out of there 20 odd minutes later without paying a thing).
posted by Infinite Jest at 6:58 AM on August 7, 2009
I have both. After my health insurance screwed me round completely (and still can't spell my (incredibly common) first name), I am inordinately grateful for the NHS. (Doctor saw me on time, was empathic and knowledgeable, and I walked out of there 20 odd minutes later without paying a thing).
posted by Infinite Jest at 6:58 AM on August 7, 2009
olinerd: But if you ask them if they support the Obama healthcare plan, hell no; the government shouldn't be running that sort of thing and if you can't afford your own healthcare, you're just not working hard enough.
If you saw Bill Kristol on The Daily Show, you heard the same argument. Kristol out-and-out said that the government-run military care system is among the best the country offers, but that only those who risk their lives fighting wars deserve it. The untold story of this debate is the unspoken argument about terms: for the most part, liberals believe a healthcare system is "good" when it covers as many people as possible and provides the highest standard of care that group can receive; conservatives believe a healthcare system is "good" when it gives people a level of care proportionate to what they can pay for.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:13 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you saw Bill Kristol on The Daily Show, you heard the same argument. Kristol out-and-out said that the government-run military care system is among the best the country offers, but that only those who risk their lives fighting wars deserve it. The untold story of this debate is the unspoken argument about terms: for the most part, liberals believe a healthcare system is "good" when it covers as many people as possible and provides the highest standard of care that group can receive; conservatives believe a healthcare system is "good" when it gives people a level of care proportionate to what they can pay for.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:13 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
Not really all that interesting. The point the author is making are really nothing new, and boil down to:
1. Most health insurance is crappy when viewed as an "insurance" product.
2. Most people's health insurance is obtained through their employer, meaning they lose it if they lose their job or quit.
You'd have to really be living in a cave to not understand that; even people who are opposed to Obamacare at least understand those parts. Where the disagreement starts is on what they think the government program is going to do for them, who's going to pay for it, etc.
Personally I think #1 is at least to some extent the choice of people who decided they wanted "healthcare" rather than "health insurance." High-deductible insurance+HSA programs were supposed to be a return back to the original 'insurance' model, rather than a 'healthcare' or 'health maintenance' model, but it hasn't been very popular (except perhaps with young people, who get it on the assumption they'll be able to get a different type of plan later on in life).
I'm not sure there's really even agreement as to whether the goal is, or ought to be, "healthcare" or "health insurance." The companies or organizations running such a program would look very different depending on whether what they're offering is fundamentally an insurance product, or a healthcare one — what we have now is a horrible bastardization that represents both the worst of insurance and the worst of healthcare. A system that went purely one way or the other (NHS-style "healthcare" or an insurance company that didn't involve itself in medical decisions and stuck to purely actuarial / financial stuff in order to come up with premiums) could work better either way than the current system.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:14 AM on August 7, 2009
1. Most health insurance is crappy when viewed as an "insurance" product.
2. Most people's health insurance is obtained through their employer, meaning they lose it if they lose their job or quit.
You'd have to really be living in a cave to not understand that; even people who are opposed to Obamacare at least understand those parts. Where the disagreement starts is on what they think the government program is going to do for them, who's going to pay for it, etc.
Personally I think #1 is at least to some extent the choice of people who decided they wanted "healthcare" rather than "health insurance." High-deductible insurance+HSA programs were supposed to be a return back to the original 'insurance' model, rather than a 'healthcare' or 'health maintenance' model, but it hasn't been very popular (except perhaps with young people, who get it on the assumption they'll be able to get a different type of plan later on in life).
I'm not sure there's really even agreement as to whether the goal is, or ought to be, "healthcare" or "health insurance." The companies or organizations running such a program would look very different depending on whether what they're offering is fundamentally an insurance product, or a healthcare one — what we have now is a horrible bastardization that represents both the worst of insurance and the worst of healthcare. A system that went purely one way or the other (NHS-style "healthcare" or an insurance company that didn't involve itself in medical decisions and stuck to purely actuarial / financial stuff in order to come up with premiums) could work better either way than the current system.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:14 AM on August 7, 2009
luckypozzo: Single link to light-duty redefinition and reiteration of stuff we've all read before.
That we've all read about it before isn't necessarily the point here: clearly hundreds of millions of people in the US haven't heard this argument before, and they're yelling down every town hall they can find because of it. A lot of us around here know one of those people, and desperately wish we could change their minds. It's nice to have a one page blog post we can print out where all this stuff is put well.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:16 AM on August 7, 2009
That we've all read about it before isn't necessarily the point here: clearly hundreds of millions of people in the US haven't heard this argument before, and they're yelling down every town hall they can find because of it. A lot of us around here know one of those people, and desperately wish we could change their minds. It's nice to have a one page blog post we can print out where all this stuff is put well.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:16 AM on August 7, 2009
How many people in the USA work for the government because it offers reliable health insurance?
Government benefits aren't actually all that great compared to (some parts of) the private sector. If anyone says they are taking a government job simply because of the benefits, they are either a moron or lying. In fact, I'm back on the same plan I had and hated from a prior private sector job.
Do people choose to work in the public sector because their loved ones have chronic illnesses?
Perhaps, I know some people that work in the private sector because of loved one's chronic illnesses so why not?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:18 AM on August 7, 2009
Government benefits aren't actually all that great compared to (some parts of) the private sector. If anyone says they are taking a government job simply because of the benefits, they are either a moron or lying. In fact, I'm back on the same plan I had and hated from a prior private sector job.
Do people choose to work in the public sector because their loved ones have chronic illnesses?
Perhaps, I know some people that work in the private sector because of loved one's chronic illnesses so why not?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:18 AM on August 7, 2009
If you saw Bill Kristol on The Daily Show, you heard the same argument. Kristol out-and-out said that the government-run military care system is among the best the country offers, but that only those who risk their lives fighting wars deserve it.
That was simply astounding. Kristol excels in exhibiting his jackholery. I wish he'd even be more obvious and say the 200000 to 300000 homeless ex-soldiers deserve the best health care plan they can get!
posted by juiceCake at 7:21 AM on August 7, 2009
That was simply astounding. Kristol excels in exhibiting his jackholery. I wish he'd even be more obvious and say the 200000 to 300000 homeless ex-soldiers deserve the best health care plan they can get!
posted by juiceCake at 7:21 AM on August 7, 2009
How many people in the USA work for the government because it offers reliable health insurance?
Do people choose to work in the public sector because their loved ones have chronic illnesses?
People do it in the private sector, so why wouldn't it happen in the public sector? You take the best deal you can get, public or private sector.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:36 AM on August 7, 2009
Do people choose to work in the public sector because their loved ones have chronic illnesses?
People do it in the private sector, so why wouldn't it happen in the public sector? You take the best deal you can get, public or private sector.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:36 AM on August 7, 2009
How many people in the USA work for the government because it offers reliable health insurance?
I was diagnosed with a chronic illness a few years back. I had a job (with insurance) at a small company, but my doctor advised my wife to get a government job as soon as possible. She didn't, but sometimes since then we wish she had.
posted by gamera at 7:41 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
I was diagnosed with a chronic illness a few years back. I had a job (with insurance) at a small company, but my doctor advised my wife to get a government job as soon as possible. She didn't, but sometimes since then we wish she had.
posted by gamera at 7:41 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thanks, garlic, for pointing me to The Baseline Scenario. I can't believe I hadn't seen it before -- their Financial Crisis for Beginners page is really helpful.
posted by ourobouros at 7:47 AM on August 7, 2009
posted by ourobouros at 7:47 AM on August 7, 2009
Bill Kristol's bassackwardness never fails to sink to new lows.
Also, people who have problems with socialized medicine better give up their Medicare.
Also, I'm lucky that my parents have government jobs so I've got really fucking good health insurance.
posted by kldickson at 7:54 AM on August 7, 2009
Also, people who have problems with socialized medicine better give up their Medicare.
Also, I'm lucky that my parents have government jobs so I've got really fucking good health insurance.
posted by kldickson at 7:54 AM on August 7, 2009
Kristol out-and-out said that the government-run military care system is among the best the country offers, but that only those who risk their lives fighting wars deserve it.
I wonder what proportion of people in the military would ever actually be in harm's way. There are an awful lot of non-combat MOS...es.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:56 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
I wonder what proportion of people in the military would ever actually be in harm's way. There are an awful lot of non-combat MOS...es.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:56 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older Flying to the Edge of Space | A Robespierre of the internet Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mippy at 6:00 AM on August 7, 2009 [1 favorite]