|
|
 |
|
5:50 pm PST, Feb 7,
Tara Johnson, Texas
I can't afford $660 a month health insurance for my three children. So we have no insurance. I just pray all the time that nothing serious happens because it would bankrupt me. But $8000 a year for three healthy teenagers that never even need to see a doctor is just crazy. |
|
9:25 am PST, Jan 26,
Name not displayed, Canada
|
|
11:29 am PST, Nov 13,
Angela Murph, South Carolina
Insurance does not understand the need for medical equipment and medication. The cost for both of them is way too high. I have to fight the insurance company to accept my need for equipment for my son who has SMA type one. I guess people don't understand how health conditions like SMA works, so the children suffer and it makes their lives so much harder. |
|
7:21 am PST, Nov 10,
Kimberly Fox, California
My daughter is 8 years old and was diagnosed with a muscle disease at the age of two. I have been blessed to work for an employer who was able to provide us with health insurance until January of this year when they could no longer afford to offer it. We put my daughter on my husband's plan but he lost his job due to the economy twice this year. I found a program my daughter qualified for several years ago which provided us with MediCal as our secondary insurance. One of the criteria to receive it you must have home nursing to qualify for MediCal. Most nursing agencies are no longer accepting MediCal as they don't make enough to cover the cost of the nurses they hire. My agency just laid off 43 nurses including ours (who was working with us full time). If we can't find an agency to pick us up, or a job that provides insurance benefits Ashley will not have any coverage. My husband and I have worked hard and I have never collected unemployment. This system where people who have pre-existing conditions are uninsured is unbelievable. These are the people who need the insurance. What really kills me is people like one family member of mine who believes that there is no need for generalized health care and that it is an entitlement. Guess what! She is on disability and because of that, qualifies for a special program that only costs her 160 a month for medical and dental! Where does any of this make sense!!! Hey politicians! Fix this!!!!!! |
|
6:27 am PST, Nov 10,
Steven Kirn, Illinois
Today's news reports a new study that shows regular administration of a statin lowers the incidence of heart attack by up to 50%. This is ironic, given the way that insurance companies rate applicants for health insurance. Like many others, my job was eliminated by a large employer several years ago. Since then (following COBRA expiration), we have been on the "individual purchaser" market for health insurance. This is an unmitigated mess, and the United States should be embarrassed. Shopping for insurance as an individual is complex, difficult, exhausting, and, at times, embarrassing. The application forms require detailed information about every health care provider or service used and condition treated for, essentially, your entire prior life. (I'm 61). In all honesty, very few people have maintained such detailed records, yet even an inadvertent omission, of even a simple procedure (e.g., common wart removal) is treated as a conscious attempt to distort one's medical history. (One question: if the companies' own ability to track such history can provide such detail, why do they need the applicant to do so? Or at least, let them start with what they already "know" and let the applicant supply missing information.) My wife and I were rejected by a number of companies, even though neither of us has had any major health problems (I did have my gall bladder removed.). Both of us have had borderline elevated blood pressure, yet it has been controlled for years with diet, exercise and minimal medication. And, back to the irony, my cholesterol was slightly elevated, and my physician recommended a statin -- which has worked extremely well, along with, again, diet and exercise -- and as reported today, these meds can prevent major coronary problems for very low cost. Yet these conditions, though successfully managed, served as the basis for rejection of a number of applications, and "rating" of others, including the Blue Cross plan we finally purchased. It costs $6000/year, has a $5200 deductible, and provides no prescription coverage. In essence, it covers only catastrophic events. We also have a 27-year-old daughter with rheumatoid arthritis who can only purchase insurance through a state coverage pool that is constantly under threat of financial collapse. There are no alternatives for her if that happens. I travel internationally and have seen systems such as that in France, which is often recognized as having one of the best health care delivery systems in the world. The Armageddon of which we are regularly warned if the "government" provided insurance is simply a myth. I am an avowed capitalist (albeit with a social conscience) who believes that capitalism is the wrong model when it comes to health insurance and health care. As I said earlier, the U.S. system is a mess, despite the delusion that it is "the best in the world". It simply is not. We have found ways to pay the nearly $25,000/year required for insurance, routine care, and treatment for my daughter. But in the current economy, we are seriously near the edge of being able to sustain coverage, and even the minimal-cost meds that prevent much bigger problems later. Is this truly the "best and highest use" of our capital, personally and societally? If our system is so great, why do we spend twice as much per capita on health care compared to virtually all other developed countries, yet rank near the bottom on most measures of "health"? We desperately need to get real about the health care crisis, and abandon the tired bromides about "government-run programs". (Anyone care to give up Medicare?) I'm all for "profit", but this is crazy -- and immoral. |
