Cancer victim penny wise, pound foolish
While it is certainly tragic and frightening to have a disease like cancer at a young age, I strongly disagree with Rocky Mountain News columnist Bill Johnson’s assertion that it is somehow the fault of others that Kama Winter does not have the health insurance needed to help with the cost of her treatment (“Personal finance decision now haunts cancer victim,” Aug. 22). “We can and should do way better than this,” he writes.
I’m sorry — did I miss something here? Did Johnson not tell us in the beginning of this sob story that Winter made a conscious decision not to pony up for her employer’s health insurance plan?
I remember being fresh out of college, barely making ends meet with my first not-too-well-paying job, but even then I would have been hard pressed to find a reason to opt out of buying health insurance, which my employer did offer. Even at my young age, younger than Winter is now I might add, I never even considered not paying for the insurance, knowing that youth is no guarantee for perfect health.
I cannot think of a worse example of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Winter rolled the dice all right. And lost mightily.
Theresa Lane, Denver
Apparently you missed the memo where everyone is supposed to have everything for free, and if they don't it's somehow everyone elses fault
Posted by Brian on August 30, 2007 05:11 AMshe is just one of the young kids who choose not to have insurance so people like johnson can say there are too many uninsured because of what ever.
I am sorry she has cancer and will have to find a way to deal with it on her own and with the help of her family.
What has happened to all the extra tax money and settlement money from the sales of cigarettes. Was not this money to be used for people who developed cancer along with other illnesses. More money to fund the health care costs of those who didnt want to or could not afford their own insurance.
Posted by on August 30, 2007 06:19 AMWhat about if your job doesn't offer health insurance, or the premiums are to high to afford on a $8.00 an hour job? Then what? I suppose thats my fault also.
The medical fees are horribly high, Hospitals, Doctors, Pharmacutical Co. Insurance Co., and their stock holders, are all getting RICH off of peoples illness' and misfortune.
$10,000.00 for one IV med, for fighting the effects of cancer, now really! And have you seen the charge for 2 Tylenol tablets from a Hospital bill? I can't believe there are people out there that would defend this type of RAPE. Bankruptcy should not be the end result of a major Accident or Illness.
Some of you are missing a very important fact - it is the fact that we will all end up paying the medical bill for those who don't anyway....we already do! When someone does not pay their bill, businesses raise their prices to cover the loss. It is the same with medical treatment. The other option is to say, "no medical treatment if you cannot pay". I don't think anyone is going to say that, are they? So, even today, taxpayers and purchasers of medical treatment (or any other product) are paying an amount in the purchase price that reflects a business's loss in theft and non-payment of others. If we are doing this already, isn't there a solution that incorporates this premise as a fact in health care distributions?
Posted by cheryl on August 30, 2007 07:15 AMAh, yes, the "tough shot" crowd. It would not surprise me if some of them were Christians, rather I should say "Christians".
06:16 AM, Theresa, and Brian offer no hope for Kama. It's as though she should be left on the roadside to die. While people like them populate forums like this, in fact the good news is that they are a fringe minority. But it was so nice of Theresa to point out what a good girl she is. I really get sick of the "if I did it" crowd, as though we are all clones of each other. People who have no idea of what other people's lives are about arrogantly judging such lives. There is much wisdom in the saying about walking a mile in the other person's mocassins.
Perhaps if we did not provide free health care and language services for every illegal alien who walks into the ER, the depth of this crisis would change. There are many things that could be done to alieviate the problem outside of socialized medicine.
Back up the words and send a check to Ms. Winter. I have enough problems making ends meet without paying for others poor choices.
Posted by Breeze on August 30, 2007 08:19 AMSome of you did not read or understand cheryl's posting. You'll never get it because you've been brainwashed by the profiteers in the insurance industry. You sound so smug but you're getting screwed and don't realize it. You deserve to pay double what you should for the honor of being 37th on the list of healthcare nations. Breeze states, "I have enough problems making ends meet without paying for others poor choices". Breaking news Breeze: You ARE paying for others poor choices. You just don't or won't believe it. That, however, doesn't change reality. The winners are the insurance companies and you keep feeding the lion that's eating you.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 30, 2007 08:38 AMTruth. Break out your wallet and help the girl out. And while you're at it, slip into her moccasins, walk that mile to your ATM, and withdraw a little extra for her while you are at it. By the way, look in the mirror to get a good look at the fringe minority.
Stan. Read the report about the list of health care nations. You'll find that the US earns the ranking of 37th because we do not offer socialized medicine to all of the uninsured. It has very little to do with the quality of the care delivered.
Health insurance companies will continue to make billions in spite of any "fixes" we might come up with. Ask yourself this question; Why don't insurance companies spend the same percentage rate of profits on preventing fraud as financial companies do? That may be a rhetorical question. Anyway, the reason is simple, financial companies cannot charge their customers for the errors they make in loaning money to those unable to pay. Their customers would never put up with it. Health insurance companies have no problem with that. They simply raise the premiums on all their customers, groups or private, because they know the majority of people want health care benefits and will stay with the devil they know rather than taking chances with the devil they don't know.
But, even with the sleezy way health insurance companies do business, which can be fixed by various means including congressional investigation, government management of health care is the worst of all possible solutions because, once entrenched in bureaucractic incompetence it is forever unfixable.
What health care in this country needs is law suits against health insurers ,not doctors and care facilities, just winning one suit and making the insurer pay would send a message to all health care companies and hospitals and doctors as well, that a wholesale cleaning up of the wide spread fraud and corrution that is the real problem within the health care business in this country is the new priority of the public.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 30, 2007 09:45 AMI used to be critical of people without health insurance who said they "couldn't afford it", thinking they couldn't afford NOT to, but no longer. Health insurance needs to be radically revamped in this country. My mother, who is disabled and bi-polar, came to live with us four months ago. Both my husband's and mine health insurance specifically state that parents are non-eligible for coverage (though they will cover same-sex partners!) in our group policy. When I tried for individual insurance, 14 of the 15 companies here in CO won't insure her because bi-polar is an automatic decliner. (Huh? I can understand stuff like luekemia but her meds cost about $10 a month, and she's fine when on them.) The only other company that will ensure her costs over $600 a month! This is insane. So she has to go without insurance, while we file her for SSA disability, which (if approved) means at least 2 years before she could get medicare.
Posted by fiesty on August 30, 2007 10:13 AMGood point by Guess who on why the US is ranked 37th in health care. The question is: Why don't we offer health care to the uninsured? That should raise our ranking significantly. And that IS what this discussion is about. I don't have a simple solution but there has to be a better way.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 30, 2007 10:16 AMPeople in this country have to make tough choices all the time. Our old some of them have to choose between heating their homes, buying their meds, or buying food. How do you know what Kama's problems where. See that is what the problem with these clowns that are the lucky ones to have the things they need. They think as long as they have good jobs and have it everyone should and if they don't thats tough.
Posted by larrymc on August 30, 2007 10:56 AMfiesty - The plight of your mother, Kama Winter, and the other people who find themselves in such a positon needs attention.
State programs are already in place to help those who in such a position as well as other charitable orgs.
We could even benefit as a society by increasing the level of assistence for those unable to get insurance.
But there is a huge difference between assistance for someone in need and overhauling the entire healthcare industry and mandating participation thru increased tax dollars.
And I'd wager the quality of care your mother receives thru assistance would be far greater than anything derived from the bureaucratic nightmare lurking under the guise of "universal healthcare."
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 11:00 AMKW- I don't know what the solution is. I just find it's a no-win situation right now. I do believe we need some sort of legislation to ride herd on the insurance companies though; there are so many areas they are screwing up- questioning doctor's decisions, limiting hospital stays, etc.
Posted by fiesty on August 30, 2007 11:23 AMit is so nice to see the morons of pure socialism are out today defending a persons choice to not do something.
here is mine, I choose not to pay for your life style because it doesnt fit the one I think you should have. now change and be happy.
11:51,
Did you mean to say, "now change and make me happy"?
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 30, 2007 12:26 PMJust the thing I expect from and idiot 11:51. So you are the judge of what lifestyle people should choose, and it better be mine or else I'll take my ball home from the school yard and then you'll see.
You are an example of the selfishness that is fast becoming an endemic problem worse than drug addiction. At least that is treatable, while your tyrannical view of yourself is a fast spreading cancer that can only result in the demise of individual freedom.
That is, if we let wingnuts like you have your way. Thankfully most people see you for what you are, insanely involved with your self egoistic image you think is a gift from God and, that gives you the right to tell everyone else how they should live. Is Hitler your hero too.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 30, 2007 12:49 PMIt's definitely apparent that our health care system needs radical change. About a week ago, CNN had an article from a med student. It was shocking. She stated they were learning less about how to treat patients, but rather how to treat patients without getting sued for malpractice and justifying to insurance companies...
Posted by fiesty on August 30, 2007 12:52 PMHas anyonr noticed how quiet these blogs get during the Rush Limbaugh show?
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 30, 2007 01:44 PMStan - I know this comes as a surprise to many liberals, but conservative ideology has been around long before the radio was ever invented.
Do you really believe Rush is the only reason that people having opinions contrary to yours?
Posted by KW on August 30, 2007 02:02 PMway to go allen you really showed your compassion for humans. so why should I follow your way of life if you think mine is all about ego? if you make a choice that is your right to do so. dont tell me I have to pay for your choice as you dont pay for my choices.
no hitler is not my hero but can understand why he would be yours.
Posted by on August 30, 2007 02:05 PMThe letter writer tells us: "I remember being fresh out of college, barely making ends meet with my first not-too-well-paying job, but even then I would have been hard pressed to find a reason to opt out of buying health insurance, which my employer did offer. Even at my young age, younger than Winter is now I might add, I never even considered not paying for the insurance, knowing that youth is no guarantee for perfect health."
As far as I can tell, her situation isn't comparable. Despite her paltry salary, it came with health insurance. Companies don't typically give you the difference back if you decide to opt out of their insurance plans, either.
So I fail to see any sacrifice this letter writer as a single, fully employed young woman made in order to have health insurance - and certainly no comparison with a mother who might have had to choose between rent and food or healthcare insurance.
Anyway, even if she had opted for healthcare insurance, that's still no guarantee she could have afforded cancer treatment for her daughter. A lot of people who file for bankruptcy because of medical costs actually do have healthcare insurance. The exorbitant premiums, co-pays, and denials still sock it to them.
Posted by mytwosense on August 30, 2007 02:38 PMI don't understand where people keep writing and talking about crazy high insurance premiums, high co-pays, and so forth. I understand denials, and I think we should do something about that, as everyone should have the "ability" to have health insurance.
But I am a small business owner. I pay my own health insurance. It is $150/ mo with a $15 co-pay (including medication), and a max annual out of pocket of $3000. I don't think that is too expensive, especially considering the last time I "needed" a Dr. I had knee surgery, and my insurance saved me $18,000. I shoulder the burden of my health 100%.
If anyone could provide me an example of health insurance being "unbearably" expensive, I would appreciate it.
According to The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2006 Annual Survey. 26 September 2006, FAMILIES paid $3000 in annual health benefits. With a median 2006 family income of $42,160, that is 7% of income. I would not think that would be an "exorbitant" amount, by any stretch of the imagination. Especially considering that a "free" single payer system, according to the Governors Blue Ribbon Committee, will cost us all, just in Colorado 10.6% in income taxes.
HOW IS THIS BETTER!?!?!?!
Posted by Dan2 on August 30, 2007 03:11 PMmts:
"and certainly no comparison with a mother who might have had to choose between rent and food or healthcare insurance."
Since this has been a hot topic of late, I've seen this sort of hypothetical reasoning several times. But if someone is in that dire of a situation, there already is assistance available at the state level.
I'm not familiar with all the criteria to qualify but I have a bit of second hand knowledge from knowing people who have used it.
My point being that holding this example up as why we need a universal system doesn't paint a true picture.
We already have programs available for lower income people and you don't have to be in poverty to qualify.
Dan the last company my husband worked for only paid for the employees insurance, we could add our entire family through the employer for $700 a month out of our pocket, I consider that expensive.
Posted by Heather on August 30, 2007 05:13 PMDan - my CIGNA insurance is $500 per month for myself and three children - one who has Type 1 Juvenile diabetes (never to be confused with Type 2). My monthly copays are about 250-300 per month! And you should see the time I spend working to appeal claim denials...I have a 500 out of pocket to pay first on some of my daughter's diabetes care and a 1000 out of pocket to be reached on other medical supplies...At the end of the year, I average about 9K in medical deductions on a GROSS income of 42K per year. This is a very high percentage of my gross income!
Posted by cheryl on August 30, 2007 05:58 PMDan 2: "According to The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2006 Annual Survey. 26 September 2006, FAMILIES paid $3000 in annual health benefits."
The above statement is untrue and Dan 2 surely knew this when he posted it.
Here is what the Kaiser Survey in fact stated:
"Monthly Premium Costs for Single and Family Coverage
* The average cost of premiums for single coverage in 2006 is $354 per month or $4,242 per year. This figure includes both the worker and employer contribution. The average cost of premiums for family coverage is $957 per month or $11,480 per year (Exhibit 1.10).
* Covered workers in PPO plans, the plan type with the highest enrollment, have higher average premiums for both single and family coverage than covered workers in HMOs, POS plans, and HDHP/SOs. Covered workers in HDHP/SOs have lower average premiums for both single and family coverage than workers in each of the other plan types (Exhibit 1.9).
* As with premium increases, there is also a great deal of variation in premiums across workers and firms: 10% of covered workers work in firms that have single premiums of $250 or less per month, while 22% have single premiums greater than $400 per month (Exhibit 1.13)."
It is this kind of blatant deception and gross lack of integrity that renders an intelligent discussion impossible.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/7527/sections/ehbs06-sec1-1.cfm
Posted by Truth on August 30, 2007 09:06 PMDan2 is completely off base. For my family's premium (after my employer pays), I pay over $300 every two weeks. Yet I still pay over $100 a month in medication co-pays etc. Dido for my husband's insurance; we need the secondary due to my disabilities (already had three surgical procedures this year). So, we pay over $1200 in premiums each month IN ADDITION to co-pays- THAT'S EQUIVALENT TO A MORTGAGE!
As mentioned earlier, the quote I got for my mother was $586 a month, despite the fact that the only medical needs she has is for a monthly medication that costs about $10.
Dan, how is any of this "affordable"?
Posted by fiesty on August 31, 2007 07:14 AMKW said: "We already have programs available for lower income people and you don't have to be in poverty to qualify."
You're right, and it's one of the things I hold in high respect about this country. Despite differences in opinion on a single payer system, I really don't see too many people clamoring that we cut off government healthcare programs for the poor. I think this shows that, at heart, we are a nation of compassionate people (although I feel we're losing our way in a few areas, but I won't go there on this thread).
But, you might notice that a lot of my arguments for a single payer system are centered on how I feel it would benefit the middle class - people who may already be insured. I don't think "universal" insurance is the solution, not when our current system is so expensive and inefficient, from an administrative standpoint.
I truly believe a single payer system would be the most effective to significantly drive down healthcare costs. However, I am open to seeing other ideas put into play first, particularly more regulation of the insurance industry. But, it seems the privateers are almost as vehemently against that as they are single payer healthcare.
Posted by mytwosense on August 31, 2007 09:26 AMI agree mts. I'd love for us to be able to build a program that would provide top medical care at minimal cost thru taxes. But we must remain extremely cautious before even laying that first brick. With the track record for bureaucracy bungling as it is, we would be foolish to believe a new, larger than ever been attempted before medical program would be run successfully by our government.
I'm more in favor of a program to help curb the costs associated with private insurance and medical care expenses. Finding a way to accomplish this without forcing a mandated boondoggle upon us could be much more beneficial in the long run.
Perhaps working towards this goal, while simultaniously increasing the availibilty of the state programs for the poorer among us, could be an answer the majority could agree upon.
Posted by KW on August 31, 2007 10:03 AMKW: "With the track record for bureaucracy bungling as it is,"
Often that "bungling" consists of turning activities over to private companies without close regulation, as is the case with private contractors in Iraq, and as in the case of the Katrina relief funds. There will be frauds and thieves in whoever you turn to, but they can't hide quite as easily if there is proper government oversight. Universal health care does not per se mean government ownership; it means government oversight, which can be through either through ownership or regulation. But those opposed to universal health care don't have the courage to acknowledge that distinction.
If there is anything we have learned in our history, it is the need for government oversight of private enterprise in those instances in which individual action is ineffective and in which the public is vitally affected.
Heather, Cheryl, and Feisty thanks for your answers. I would agree, that is expensive.
I have a follow up questions:
Heather, do you work (not being judgmental, trying to understand your situation to compare the costs)? And, what percentage of your monthly income is $700/mo?
Feisty, you are a bit of an example as the "exception of the rule" don't you think? Since you do have considerable health ailments, don't you think you should maybe pay more than someone that doesn't? Honest question.
Cheryl, that is tough. Thanks for the response. I think your example is one in which we need to assist with insurance. That is what I was looking for.
Truth,
I used this source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Which stated exactly: "The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $11,500 in 2006. Workers contributed nearly $3,000, or 10 percent more than they did in 2005 (3).The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712). "
Unlike you, I make no attempt to use skewed data, or leave out words to formulate a totally different meaning. According to that data, the average family contribution was $3000 in 2006. That is what the information provided (and it actually said NEARLY, so I rounded up).
Posted by Dan2 on August 31, 2007 12:50 PMTruth uses Katrina as an example of the Government bungling the effort because of private contractors. Nice.
In the REAL WORLD, the bungling has been documented specifically in the inability and log jam of state government getting money to local government (I believe there was an article in either the Wall Street Journal, or our very own RMN yesterday or the day before).
Examples of government programs with no enterprise systems:
Public schools
DOT/DMV
BLM
IRS (imagine the code system that lawyers could draw up for health care, if THIS is an example)
We can, and should fix our health care system. We can and MUST figure out a way to allow those that want and can afford private insurance to have private insurance. We should and will figure out a way to either expand our already in place federal single payer system to help those that either can't get private insurance (do to denials), or are between jobs.
What we should not do, in my opinion, is create a new form of social welfare, where we reward those that are not able to care for children, that continue to have children and now are on the Government dole because of their lack of personal responsibility. We should help those that need the help, not create a new indentured servant society, by socially rewarding irresponsible behavior.
Dan2- my health issues don't affect our premiums at all since it's a group policy through the employer. In other words, we pay the same as any other employee who is married with children with the same plan. Granted, we kept coverage through both of our employers due to my disability; however, even if we only kept one, we're still looking at $600 a month. That's far higher than the $3000 annual for a family of four that you quoted.
Also, before I found out that bi-polar was a disqualifier, I checked out individual insurance premiums for my mother online. The cheapest I found was $115 a month (did not include office visits, dental, vision); just for one person, that's almost half of what you quoted for a family of four. Something does not compute here.
Posted by fiesty on August 31, 2007 01:17 PMDan 2 reports that employers are willing to keep employees by paying them whatever salary they pay them, plus pay around $8,000 for their health insurance,with the employee paying something over $3,000 for the insurance.
So Dan 2 ignores the benefit the employee gets from having the employer pay the $8,000 for his benefit and Dan 2 tries to claim that the employee pays only $3,000 for his health coverage.
Dan doesn't seem to realize that the employer considers that both the salary payment and the health insurance premiums are part of the cost of keeping the employee. He doesn't seem to realize that the employee counts both his salary and the employer-paid premiums as part of what he gets for working there.
He doesn't seem to realize that if the situation were to change, with the employee paying all of his health insurance premium and the employer none, the employer would have to increase the employee's salary by $8,000 to maintain the status quo.
I really shouldn't say that Dan 2 doesn't realize these things because I expect he does. But he wants to deceive people by ignoring those facts.
Clearly, the employee is out the full $11,000 or so for his health coverage. Perhaps Dan 2 has gotten the employer mixed up with Santa Claus.
Posted by Truth on September 1, 2007 05:28 PM