Hello All,
My wife is currently working as an RN but may soon be switching jobs. The good news is that new job looks like better a better opportunity and a lot less stress – she is an oncology nurse at the local hospital. The bad news is that the new employer does not provide medical coverage for the first 3 months of her employment. I guess that is standard practice in the medical field. Happened when she started at the hospital too. Go figure.
Anyways, she did ask to get coverage from day one but they refused. So….how are all of you paying for medical coverage? At the very least I would need to pay for coverage for at least 3 mos. She looked at the COBRA plan and it is close to $1500 per month for a family of 5, which is us. Are there decent companies out there to look into? I was also thinking of a policy which would only cover catastrophic illness to maybe keep our payments lower since we would only need it for 3 months. Any comments on what everyone else is using for medical coverage would be greatly appreciated.
I really hope someday this could all be affordable. Maybe I’m dreaming.
Thanks,
Frank
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Check to see if the existing company will cover for the three months you need, might be do able.
My knowledge of this is limited to local, state and federal programs. What state do you live in?
Have you looked into the Healthy NY program? Here's the link http://www.ins.state.ny.us/website2/hny/english/hny.htm. Sorry, I'm very familiar with Michigan and Arizona programs, but not New York. But this might be worth a look and a phone call.
Every job I have ever had , had a 90 day requirement such as you have described.
------------------------------------
It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump. ~David Ormsby Gore
Frankv,
The short answer is take the CORBA coverage for the family for the three months and smile. The ninety days is to protect the insurance/employer from pre-existing conditions.
It is possible to reduce your 3 month cost if your kids are in collage and you can put them on a collage plan. However, doing that may cause problems with the new employer if you switch them back. Under CORBA, your wifes' current employer is required to offer her what everyone else is offered. She can reduce that coverage(eliminate dental, #of dependents, etc)but not invent a new plan.
It's COBRA for benefits extension. CORBA is common object request broker architecture, something software programmers deal with. I've done both (at the same time, too!).Recommending the use of "Hide Signatures" option under "My Preferences" since 2005
I believe COBRA stands for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act(of 1985)" which is the legislation that mandated the coverage. It was passed during the administration of that well known liberal, Ronald Reagan.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Franky, one thing you need to provide is your state of residence, as these things can vary drastically from state to state. For example, my husband retired from the State of Oregon in 2006. Had we been residents of Oregon, Blue Shield would have been required to continue my coverage under an individual policy, as we had had group coverage for several years. But because we are residents of Washington State, they are under no such obligation. My pre-existing back condition(s) gave me enough "points" that no insurance company was required to provide me with individual coverage, so COBRA was my only option. Over $700/mo just for me.
If you do not use COBRA, you may be subject to pre-existing conditions exclusions by whatever company you go with, so think that through carefully. A major medical or catastrophic policy could be a good choice for you if you have savings that would cover the basics.
If you do not use COBRA, you may be subject to pre-existing conditions exclusions by whatever company you go with, so think that through carefully. A major medical or catastrophic policy could be a good choice for you if you have savings that would cover the basics.
Good points. In addition, an individual policy will either cost more for the same coverage or cost a little less for much less coverage. The OP might as well bite the bullet and pay the $1500 per month.
If everyone with private medical coverage had to pay for his/her own insurance, as opposed to getting it from an employer, we'd have socialized medicine by the end of the week.
"If everyone with private medical coverage had to pay for his/her own insurance, as opposed to getting it from an employer, we'd have socialized medicine by the end of the week." We'd no doubt have universal insurance within that time, LOL, but keep in mind not all universal coverage is socialized medicine. That term is pulled out of the hat and thrown in the American public's face by those who want to keep the status quo, a scare tactic like many others that have become all too common.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Socialized medicine is, of course, a pejorative term, like liberal. I use it because it is accurate and because sooner or later, we'll have it, like everyone else.
" I use it [the term socialized medicine] because it is accurate...." If you please, define the term for us.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I'm reaching into my memory bank several decades, but I recall that the American Medical Association used the term "Socialized Medicine" to refer to any program that might result in any government involvment in medical care, like Medicare, for example.
It is now commonly used to refer to a system like the UK's, where the government provides health care, owns the hospitals, employs doctors, etc.
Some people may also apply the term to a so-called single payor system, where the government pays the costs, but the hospitals and doctors are not owned or employed by the government. Present day medicare is an example.
My own bias is in favor of the British system, but any system that gets the insurance industry out of it is a step in the right direction.
To elaborate on my original point, most people who are content with their coverage don't write a big check every month to an insurance company. If they did, they'd demand the government do something. We spend about 50% more of our GDP on health care than most other countries do and we are no healthier. I spend about 10K per year for insurance for me and my wife, with each of us having a $5K deductable. I recently calculated that my premiums have almost tripled in 7 years.
useful source is national coalition on health care: http://www.nchc.org
End of rant.
Edited 1/29/2008 4:37 pm ET by smslaw
We are seeing, in the OPs situation, one not much mentioned reason for opposition to universal health insurance from certain quarters. It does tend to tie workers to their employer. The OP may have to pay as much as $4,500 to change jobs.
On the other hand, employers who must compete with overseas producers might favor putting health care costs on someone else's budget.
We are seeing, in the OPs situation, one not much mentioned reason for opposition to universal health insurance from certain quarters. It does tend to tie workers to their employer. The OP may have to pay as much as $4,500 to change jobs.
Good point. When you consider that there is no reason, other than a historical anomaly, for health insurance to be connected to employment, maybe it's time to disconnect the two.
Wow...you guys really don't work in corporate America do you? People are being dropped like flies once they turn 55 because of their health care insurance costs...that is why universal or a look-a-like is needed.
Friends:
The healthcare system in the IS is genuinely screwed up and vastly too expensive. However, the fix need not be government controlled medicine. In fact, there are many reasons to think that a bureaucratically controlled system would be sub-optimal at best. Part of the problem with the system today -- a BIG part -- is that is it crushingly bureaucratic. The fact that many, perhaps most, of the bureaucrats are corporate and not government employed is irrelevant.
In the past, I have extensively researched State health systems. What I learned is disquieting. However, there are other alternatives.
Have a look at the Goodman plan at this URL:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/pdf/health_plan112007.pdf
Cheers!
Joe
Steve:
On one hand, you are right that the present system can make it hard for employees to change jobs, and employee turnover does have a cost. On the other hand, few employers would think this savings would balance at all well with the ever-increasing costs of insurance. Insurance costs have pushed even large companies to the edge of bankruptcy (especfially when retiree medical care is considered).
Remember that the roots of the present system go back to days of American economic primacy and a tight labor market. Insurance was offered as a benefit to attract employees, plain and simple. Then, as the demend for health services and the cost thereof exploded, insurance became a necessity. Now an employer without good insurance can't hold good people at all. However, economic primacy is gone. Profitability is thin, even in good times. Of course, everyone saw the high tech profits in the 90s and the oil profits now, but those are anomolies. Most companies have bottom line profits of only a few percent. Those who can earn 10% pre-tax re at the head of the class. Most +- half of that or less.
Cheers!
J
You are right, but I do think there is a big dicotomy between the large manufacturers such as the auto industry and basic materials, such as steel, where there have become world markets for the commodities. There, the cost disadvantages compared to overseas competition have made for losses and significant difficulties at producing competive products at comparable products.
Mid to small size companies in markets without so much import competition particularly services such as the OP hospital employer, use heath benefits to attract and retain employees. I suspect these employer's are among the most vocal opponents to universal health care. This is likely to be especially true for an entrepreneural class who believe they have "got theirs" by their singular own efforts.
You are right in the first part, not in the second.
Actually, Steve, middle market companies consider health benefits to be a MAJOR issue and a MAJOR financial burden. I can speak with some authority on this as I have run good sized small businesses with several hunderd employees, and have advised dozens of them. These days, health care plans do not attract and retain. Rather, they are a requirement, the absence of which will prevent you from attractig and retaining. It may seem as though I am playing with words here, but the critical difference is that between a positive incentive, and something that is merely expected. It is now a check box item that has to be on the list if you are to be considered, but having it does not make you more attractive, unless you as the employer pay a bigger share that do your competitors.
That said, many middle market managers oppose universal health care for good reasons unrelated to their own cost of services. Nobody I know thinks the present system is any good, however.
Cheers!
Joe
I see what you are trying to say, but the logic escapes. What you are actually saying that it is so important that a employees won't even consider that firm without health care, making offering insurance a very big positive inducement and the lack there of, being a very big negative. The fact that it is "expected" just means it is very important, not just mildly so. And, if it is so important then that all of these firms must have it, it isn't a competitive issue, and the financial burden is easily shared with the customers.
But when competitors don't have to bear these same costs, as with firms large or small that have to compete with imported goods, then it is a serious issue because that competition prevents increasing prices to share with the customers.
Steve:
I'm not sure I follow your point, and I hope you understand that myy point is a purely practical point, not a political one.
Once upon a time, health insurance was offered as a big positive inducement. However, today people pretty much have to have health insurance, and pretty much all employers offer it. Therefore, it isn't a positive inducement anymore. You don't stand out frm the crowd by offering health insurance. However, if you don't offer it, you do stand out, but in a negative way.
In real estate terms, if all the houses on in your neighborbood have swimng pools, and yours does, too, so what? When you go to sell, your pool is not a selling point vis a vis other houses in your neighborhood. However, if you don't have a pool, you might be at a disadvantage.
Back to health insurance, just because pretty much all employers offer health insurance, there is no necessary connection that the cost is easily passed on to customers. There are lots of competitive factors. It could just be that an entire industry is less profitable. To add to the problem, insurance costs escalate facter than inflation,and faster that you can put through price increases, so you are always a bit behind. And, they do NOT go down in a recession, when you might not have any profit at all. One way or another, it is a major and ever increasing cost of business.
Your final point -- about what happens when competitors don't have to bear these costs, is absolutely right. That is part of the reason why we lose jobs to China and India. They have very low wages, no benefits, no environmental controls, etc. It really isn't a contest -- until the buyers in the US need quality control and high levels of service -- but that is another discussion.
Please understand, I am not arguing or advocating policy here and I am not going to do so. I am just relating what I personally and my many clients face out there.
Cheers!
J
I still don't follow the logic. If it becomes an item that stands out and makes a difference then it is an important positive incentive, so important that it has become virtually mandatory.
I think you are missing the point about the competitive effects of the medical costs. If all similar firms must pay a particular cost, regardless of it is cyclical, or whether firms are so short sighted that they "are always behind" (Does anyone not know that health insurance costs have gone up faster than inflation?) it will be born by the customers of that product, in a proportion that depends significantly on the price elasticity of that good for the industry as a whole which is much lower than the price elasticity of a particular firms good similar, if not identical, to others in the industry. Pretty much economics 101.
Steve,
As I'm sure you're aware, anything you learned in Econ 101 got pretty well refuted in 201, 301 or 401. "On the other hand" is a pretty constant refrain in economics.
Health care insurance costs are high and there are a lot of reasons for that including everyone wanting the very best when they are sick. Foreign companies pay their healthcare cost through increased taxes, we do a combination of taxes and direct cost, so healthcare costs are included in their product cost. What gets very murky is the benefit of all these healthcare costs. We have the most productive workforce of any industrialized nation...maybe healthcare contributes to that?This country has built a very elaborate healthcare system with facilities, equipment and expertise on the ready 7/24 regardless of weather or not the recipient of that care has insurance or not. I think its becoming recognized that this infrastructure is very expensive and needs to be borne by all not just those that choose to buy insurance products for their employees.
I've had enough economics courses, right up to and including 999, the dissertation, to understand a fair bit about the "other hands", though seldom do they really refute econ 101, most just refine, extend, or limit.
Yes, there is substantial evidence that over the long term improvements in provision of health care (and education) have contributed greatly to the growth of the American economy. As I recall that literature, those contributions exceeded that of capital increase in growing the economy.
I will say that I certainly agree with your conclusion that I think its becoming recognized that this infrastructure is very expensive and needs to be borne by all not just those that choose to buy insurance products for their employees.
Well, Steve, I guess all of us left standing in this discussion have had a load of graduate economics courses, although some of us have final degrees other than in economics. And some of us have faced healthcare costs on other than a hypothetically modeled basis.
We seem to have a difference in semantics. As I use the term, a positive incentive is one that makes the offerer more appealing than the competition, or looked at another way, one that positively motivates the reciever . Your definition seems different.
Interestingly, even on the theoretical basis, there is a a substantial body of work about incentives in the workforce. I haven't studied it in a while and don't have time to look it up and cite it. However, the gist is that some of the things that employers offer are genuine incentives -- that is, the motivate performance or loyalty, while others are required, but to not motivate or incentivize. Their absence is negative, but their presence is just taken for granted.
Be that as it may, health care costs do not pass through easily to customers -- nor do any other costs in the 21st century. I could support this assertion, if I had time, by showing you a good sample of financial statements from real companies, or better yet, digests of the compendia of financial data that I recieve from various industry groups. It is simply the case that health costs are a significant and growing burden to almost all businesses. Those facing direct foreign competition fare the worst, but in many industries even before this downturn/recession/whatever you call it, margins have been shrinking (which is prima facie evidence that costs are not passing through).
Anyway, this is a woodworking forum, the OP probably has no interest in our obstruce discussions, and I must concede that aparently I am not talented enough to explain this to you, so I am over and out on this topic.
"Your final point -- about what happens when competitors don't have to bear these costs, is absolutely right. That is part of the reason why we lose jobs to China and India. They have very low wages, no benefits, no environmental controls, etc. It really isn't a contest -- until the buyers in the US need quality control and high levels of service -- but that is another discussion.
Please understand, I am not arguing or advocating policy here and I am not going to do so. I am just relating what I personally and my many clients face out there.
Cheers!"
You left out a biggie "TAX STRUCTURE". If you look at what it costs alone in manufacturing there is no wonder manufacturing jobs are leaving the us shores in droves. Now does the Feds look to lower that tax structure to allow the use to compete with a world economy? NOOOOOOOOOO, they are wanting to increase taxes on busines or corporate welfare as they call it. After all that their money (feds), they know better what to do with it! The sad part most people go yea stick it to the man!!!!!!!! The only problem is the consumer is the one left paying the bill and are in reality the man.
I read a good article about GM and the cost of health care to the bottom line. The need to grow sales at an asounding rate annually just to pay for the health care for retireees. Right wrong thats the way it is. They have changed the rules over the years and new retirees get less. They referred to it as the death curve. This peak in outlays for bennefits will peak by 2012-2013, and as the older retirees die off, GM will return to stronger footing, but it's been difficult. I'm not saying they have not made many other blunders, but it illistrates how it can impact a company.
The quandry is would the Gov't do a better job? Have they ever run anything well? It would be worse you can bet on it, and they would get a toe hold to start regulating your habbits to "keep costs down" They use the dispursment of fed highway dollars to the states to keep them in line. I still say it should be a private run business. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
You won't get an argument from me.
J
Some facts that may interest you (even if they don't change your mind):The UAW developed real clout in Detroit after a series of bitter strikes in the mid- to late 30s. After the U.S. entered WWII, wages and prices were frozen, and workers could not bargain for additional hourly compensation (since many things were rationed, there wasn't much to spend it on even if they could). So union leaders began bargaining for benefits- and especially health care and pensions. At the time, this was affordable, as there wasn't much that could be done in the hospital for most conditions, and the leading cause of death in the U.S. was communicable diseases. Since there were many more workers than retirees, pensions were doable as well.After the war with the advent of the antibiotic era and the technologic explosion in medicine, health care became even more desirable- and expensive. In the 1980s, GM was desperately trying to maintain its profit margins in the face of declining market share and increased competition. Rather than reinvent itself and improve its productivity and product line, GM chose a different course. Senior management wanted to restrain wage growth to protect near term profits (and their stock options). So they made a bargain, in exchange for limiting wage increases now, workers would get improved health and pension benefits "later". "Later" being the time when senior management was safely retired or moved on. Someone else would have to deal with the problem "later".Well, "later" is now. To some extent, Ford, and to a lesser degree Chrysler also have this problem. But GM has it in spades because the top management at GM made a short sighted deal to mortgage the future by not dealing with compensation head on 15-20 years ago, and leaving the bill to someone else. GM has the oldest workforce in the auto industry, so the worker to retiree ratio is much smaller. The unions should have seen the handwriting on the wall long ago, but chose not to. Thus GM is heading towards the same fate as Bethlehem Steel, and they have no one to blame but themselves. Interestingly, when Harry Truman proposed the first national health act for universal coverage back in the late 40s- it was opposed strenuously by the auto industry, who feared it would be financed by a rise in taxes on corporate profits. Their successors now claim that paying for health care makes them unprofitable compared to other countries, like Japan. It's like killing your parents and begging for mercy as an orphan...Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
You said it might not change your mind about what? It's a mess I will agree. The gov't coming to the resuce, spells disaster. Past performance is a good indicator of the future. Let's say GM were to go the way of Steel and fold. Who holds the bag, we do. Do you think the retiree's are going to get to keep that great deal they have now? Not likely. Should have the folks in the 40's been able to see the future? I'm sure they made the best decision at the time with the information they had. Take a look at medicade and SS. In my retirement planning, I don't even count SS as being there!
My mother-in-law recently passed away and had numerous health issues. She was covered by the United Mine Workers and paid nothing for anything! When my plant closed and the company moved me to another, she was upset that I was moving her daughter and grandkids halfway across the country. She said why don't you just get another job in this area? I told her that I needed the health coverage for the wife and kids and they paid better than most and the company was good to work for and I wanted to retire from them if possible. She lived in a different era and just did not understand.
I guess what I'm saying is there needs to be some reform but its more than the gov't to the rescue. We need real tort reform and better understanding what drives the cost. People are angry about the 500 dollar bandage, but don't see all the folks who walk into the Emergency room get services and don't pay a nickle. Somebody has to pay! Take a look at the number of emergency rooms that are closing nationally. There is no such thing as a free lunch!
If Gov't gets control of healthcare it will be used as a method of gaining more control of your actions and a few more freedoms dissapear.
Just look at the council in CA that wanted to pass an ordinance to ban more fast food joints in a poor neighborhood because it would lead to more fat people. After all you know, poor people can't be trusted to make sound eating decisions anyway.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Bones,Read my post again (carefully).I am not saying either explicitly or implicitly that a government bail out is the answer. What I am pointing out is that private enterprise has a rather mixed record in the health care arena. So those whose mantra is "the market is best for everything" have some 'splaining to do.Health care is unique for a number of important reasons: the demand curve is very inelastic (when you need care, you will seek it irrespective of cost or barriers), customers frequently do not pay (directly) for their services, patients attach great importance to quality (if your child needs a heart operation, you don't chose the surgeon on the basis of pricing discounts). There are many more...I don't pretend to have a comprehensive answer for a complex problem but I do have a few observations:1. Universal coverage is desirable, otherwise younger, healthier patients with lower disposable incomes will tend to opt out... until they have an accident, develop MS or get older- cost shifting the burden of their care to the public sector (unless we are willing to let them go without care when they arrive bleeding in the ER). Moreover, absent universal coverage, insurance companies are more able to cherry pick their customers, leaving higher risk patients without coverage.2. A government single payer system is hard to reform (see VA Health System).3. A hybrid system is worth a look. Medicare spends 3% on administration, 97% on claims. Blue Cross spends about 80% on claims, the other 20% is for administration + profits. A system where private insurance is permitted, but where several standard packages are mandated (and others may be added), with pricing left to the companies would make it easier for customers to compare costs and benefits. It would also make price competition more intense, and insurers could not cherry pick their customers. Insurers could offer additional types of coverage to suit specific markets/individuals. Everyone would be required to have coverage, those who could not afford it would be eligible for a subsidized Medicare type coverage. This means that private companies would have to compete against government coverage- if they got too expensive, they would lose business (this is what happens with the elderly at present).4. Phasing in coverage makes sense. If we extended coverage to young people up to 25 yo (to cover them in college or in their early working lives when they are just leaving home) and if we extended Medicare eligibility to those who are say 58, then 55, we would be able to correct course while at the same time addressing important needs.5. Solving the health care problem requires pragmatism, not ideology. The pressure to mend the system is intense, and it will only grow stronger. Those who build brick houses on this fault line will find themselves buried under the debris.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
It will require a lot more than we can bring to the table for sure! Take care!Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Frank ,
Each state will have a set of conditions or rules concerning Pre existing conditions .
Here in the state of Oregon if you have been covered by " like " insurance 6 months prior and until you make a new application they will cover the pre existing if they accept you . Some companies either accept or reject with no conditions beyond the normal scope of coverages.
dusty
We live in NY state.
Her current employer won't provide the extended benefits. Makes sense since she would be putting in her notice to them. All our three kids live with us and are 16 years and under.
You take for granted the health coverage provide by your employer until you need to purchase it on your own. My wife had gone to school to become an RN and her plan was to work part-time but that changed to full-time when I got laid-off and lost our med coverage.
Hopefully the next president will tackle the health care issue.
Frank
"Hopefully the next president will tackle the health care issue." S/he can tackle all s/he wants, but if congress doesn't put their heads together, and the American people don't get smart and support a plan, it'll be all for naught. Our stubborn independence is really hurtin' us here.
I do wish you luck, the whole thing is very frustrating!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
My wife is in the medical field as well (respiratory therapist). My company just drastically changed our plan (we are all under me). If you are healthy and single, or are in serious health it's great. If your in the middle lilke me with kids who need medicines, you'll take a beating. I looked around for a couple of months and found several Bluecross/Blueshield type plans for around a grand a month with a thousand dollar deductable & 5k out of pocket max with an 80/20 match. Not bad, but when I did the math it was a tad better to stay with my company plan. My current plan is Aetna and when my wife was diagnosed with a brain tumor this past year, all the web sites I visited suggested getting a lawyer right up front because insurance companies will fight payment for treatments for tumors due to the high cost of treatment. Her Surgeon's business rep (who meets with you before even seing you to see if you can pay) asked me who was covering us, and I said Aetna, and they said no problem they will pay. And they did and were very prompt and did not question anything. At the end of the treatment the bill was around 60k. I can't imagine what would have happened if we had not been covered. We go 2/20 for another MRI (5k) to see if the treatment worked (fingers crossed doc says 95% success rate). Get Something don't leave yourself open. One minute your fine and then next, your world can come crashing down! Been there done that! Good luck, but get something!
.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Good luck and God bless your wife, you and your family.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Thanks man I'll take all the help I can get! I'm confident the test will show the thing is not grown since last fall. If so, its over except the yearly MRI's. Hey, if that's all we need to do for the next 40 years, I'll take it!Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
I hope she is doing well. If she is, then the MRI generally holds no surprises. Hope so, this would reduce the problem to how she's gonna deal with you for the indefinite future.... :^) [my wife has solved that problem... she's a saint]Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
One thing to check about COBRA. You have a "grace period" after the company subsidized coverage lapses to choose it. I'm not sure how long it is, but what we did recently when my wife switched jobs (she is also a nurse) was we went without insurance. We decided that if we needed it, we could still get it during the grace period. If not, we would save a few thousand bucks. We had to pay more for a few prescriptions, but overall, it was (going to be) much less expensive. It turned out that I needed surgery during the COBRA grace period. We activated the COBRA (easily)and it was still much less expensive than it would have been to get our own insurance for those three months.
Scotty
Interesting about the grace period. Thanks, I will definitely look into it since we hopefully only need coverage for 3mos.
Yes, it takes more than the next president to make things happen. I just got thru teaching my son about that. We do need to provide affordable coverage for those who don't have it. I'm worried about 3 stinking months and there are many families who go w/out it regularly. Not sure how to fix the affordable part. Where my wife works (and the major reason why she's getting out of there) the staff is stretched so thin. Since she started close to 15 nurses on her floor have left. She is one of the last ones remaining from when she started 2 years ago. She says she feels so guilty sometimes when she flies from room to room due to her patient load knowing that she is barely attending to their needs. Also, even though she is in the nursing union she never has time for lunch or breaks. I tell her to just take the time for herself but she says she would fall so far behind she would never be able to catch up.....AND...the hospital is losing money to boot!!!!!
Oh well, my time to rant. Thanks for advice and listening.
Frank
Bless her. I've seen many like her- my mother is one (now retired)- who worked very hard but never had anything but a smile and a kind word for their patients, no matter how hectic things became. It is worse now because of cutbacks, but also because patients must be much sicker to be admitted and to stay in the hospital. Fewer nurses are taking care of sicker patients.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Franky:
No insuror is going to give you three months' coverage. It is not economical for them. Consider that they would be taking on the pre-existing conditions risk, along with normal risks -- in exchange for only 3 months' premiums. Wouldn't make any sense at all.
Any insuror is going to expect a year's contract, and will probably have a pre-existing conditions clause in the contract. The only way around it would be to sign a standard contract in bad faith and cancel (if you can) or stop paying after three months.
In short, COBRA is probably your best bet.
I have an individual insurance policy for the family and me. Just switched to Blue Cross, away from another firm. It costs me just under $400 per month -- BUT -- the deductible is $5,000. I do get the in-network pricing on doctor visits and drugs. This is true Major Medical coverage. If you do the math, you'll see that if you needed the only major medical coverage, you'd be slightly ahead with the COBRA, but if you had any routein medical needs, you'd be much farther ehead with the COBRA.
Joe
Hi Frank
Move to Canada. If you can draw a breath you are covered. I look in amazement that your nation of talented industrious people as your greatest resource leave so many uninsured or underinsured. Good luck.
Your wife could get a oncology nursing position in short order. In fact you could bring a few doctors with you too. Move to Windsor ON and go across the bridge to Detroit, many do. Use travel insurance for the first three months is also a possibility.
Cheers, Mark the Canuck
You should look into the fine print on the current medical plan. For many of them, your coverage ends at the end of the calendar month you stop working. If your last work day is on the first of March (for example), your coverage would run until March 31st. That could save you $1500.
-t
I don't know what kind of leverage your wife has with her potential new employer, but why not ask for a signing bonus of $450O as a bridge until her new insurance cuts in.
The COBRA law just mandated that ins cos are required to continue the coverage at the rate that the current employer is paying. Before COBRA, an employee who changed jobs had no recourse at any price.
Here is a chronology of how the gov't got us into this mess in the first place. Wage/price controls(after WWII)prevented employers from raising wages. Companies offered free health insurance as a way to circumvent the wage caps. Health care became essentially free for those lucky enough to work for large corps. Since it was free, it was abused. First step in any reform is to create a level playing field -- either make premiums fully deductible for everyone, or not deductible for anyone. Or if you prefer a more progressive approach, scale the deductibility by income level (eg. if you make $50K its 100% deductible, $300K, 0% deductible. The idea that if gov't pays for it, it gets better and/or cheaper is comical. I think that making you aware of this "free" $1500 benefit demonstrates this. Even if you decided to pay it out of pocket, you couldn't deduct it unless it amounted to more than 7.7% of your AGI. And while your getting screwed the govt is collecting more revenue because you (rather than your wife's employer) are spending that $1500. Go figure.
So the current system stinks, in my view, largely because of govt intervention. And many of the proposals do no more than to build on this failure.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled