I have had asthma ever since I can remember. For the last 5 years or so, I’ve been on a preventative drug that has kept me from having to use an inhaler, which I used to do daily. In fact, I just found my last inhaler in my backpack; it expired in mid-2004. This medicine has been a godsend, as preventing an asthma attack is obviously preferable to having to go to the emergency room. Under my old insurance, a 90-day supply of medicine cost $90. That small out-of-pocket expense kept me out of the hospital, where I used to end up with some regularity when I was young.
But here in the US, our healthcare is tied to our employment. Try as I might, I have been unable to find a permanent job, although at least I’m working steadily and paying my bills. My new health insurance, though, is virtually worthless. Knowing this, I had already stretched a 3-month supply of medicine to 6 months. Finally, this weekend, I ran out and had to re-order. This time, the pharmacy wanted $640 for a 3-month supply.
I went home without it. I simply can’t afford the upfront cost to stay healthy under my new insurance.
Fortunately, my wife is becoming eligible for benefits at her job, and I should have my medicine soon. Otherwise, I would have been in the position of so many Americans: unable to afford preventative care, my condition would begin deteriorating until I wound up at the emergency room. From where I stand, the health care equation seems simple. Either we develop a system that values preventative care, or more and more of us whose health used to be stable will end up in the emergency room.
Your situation is unfortunate, and, I believe, most are in agreement that something has to be done about health care in the United States. My question is this; someone has to pay for these pharmaceuticals. In a case like yours, who should that be? If your answer is to shift the burden to taxpayers, let me say as a taxpayer that I am having enough trouble paying for my own family’s living expenses. I simply cannot afford to pay for yours as well. Sorry.
Do you realize you are already paying for healthcare for those who can’t afford it, through much more expensive trips to the emergency room and to his poor health and possible inability to work — and therefore pay taxes and be a prosperous member of society? How much more costly is a trip to ER and maybe a hospital stay than a $90 prescription for 3 months.
And why wouldn’t we keep everyone as healthy as possible even if it costs all of us some. My bet is that when single-payer passes (and it will, maybe not this year) we will all pay less. I have insurance; I am healthy; I still pay (and I’m retired) over $7300 a year in copays, prescriptions, whathaveyous.
That’s exactly how they want it to be. Some GOP members(and ill-advised Democrats) want you to have the high deductible HSA plan(Health “Savings” Account) which means if you are born with something, you will pay the maximum deductible every year of your life. This is the “better” solution than a working healthcare system.
The problem is, from many people’s point of view “If it works for me it must work for you” when that is almost never the case.
This scenario is going on in every city, town and hamlet in America. The reason every poll of American citizens shows we want change in Health Care is because every person either has had your problem or knows someone who has had your problem. I wonder if politicians realize what will happen if they are on the wrong side of this issue and are tagged as Insurance Company stooges? Watching Grandma cut her pills in half to try and stretch critical medicine puts a perspective on the rhetoric.
And before the Insurance Company stooges turn up, why can EVERY First World country and many of the Second World countries provide a decent public health care system yet America is incapable?
We put a man on the moon but can’t keep our infants from dying in their first year at a rate higher than Canada, Cuba or the Czech Republic. (Those just some of the “C” countries that do a better job than we do.) If there is a single measure of the health of healthcare it has to be this most common of human achievements: birth.
I do believe America is an exceptional place, it is just in the case of Health Care we are exceptionally foolish. How unlike our normal practical and positive approach to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I completely understand your predicament. I have good health care, but as a Democra/Progressive, I can empathize with others who have less.
I lived in Norway for a year (2007-2008) and I feel like I’m shouting at the top of my lungs about how awesome my health care was over there (I had a few accidents) and no one is listening.
I want to preface this by stating that I was paid the equivalent of $70,000/a year and only paid 36% of my salary towards taxes in TOTAL. PLUS each year, they give you 10% of your salary back so you can go on a vacation (you know, so you stay healthy and sane). PLUS, they half your tax in December so you can buy presents. Anyways…
I blew out my knee (tore my ACL) and my MRI was $40.00 (the most anyone could pay for care; I native would have MAYBE paid 20). I never had to wait for care…yes, never. I was scheduled to have surgery a couple weeks later ONLY because my swelling needed to go down. I would have also had 6 weeks PAID time off. I elected not to have it only because I was a teacher and it would have been the last 6 weeks of the school year and I didn’t want to leave my students.
I elected to have physical therapy in the USA bc it was cheaper.
I also had severe pink eye in Norway and learned that there is a law that states an individual can only pay up to $300 for prescription medicine in one year — the government will pay the rest.
People are health and happy over there. Paid Maternity/paternity (you can each get 6 months or one parent can get a year) leave is for a year in a normal situation; people who adopt get two; unwed teen moms get two years paid; plus you get money for daycare, diapers, help, etc.
I WOULD LOVE TO CHALLENGE A CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN TO TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG/UNDOABLE ABOUT ALL OF THIS.
they have 4,600,000 people and they are ranked third in the world in oil exports. Population less than Minnesota with that kind of wealth being generated makes it easy to cover everybody. In fact, according to this article, Norway had $78,000 in the bank for every citizen in the country. http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080130.w-OS-main-31/BNStory/oilsands/feature-topic
You really can’t compare the two.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Norway-TAXATION.html
Taxation in Norway. You’re right. It’s not comparable.
you know Lojasmo, it is an interesting case. Say, for example, if Minnesota had followed the same mindset about iron that Norway had about oil. Still enough profit to spur investment, but the state took 78% of the profits. When you look at cases such as these http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/04/manganese_mining_in_emily_minnesota/ Thats a lot of money that could pay for a lot of public good.
Natural resources are usually finite resources. I wouldn’t be opposed to the state of Minnesota taking 78% of natural resource profits for state park creation etc. Its a model that warrants further discussion. Given the margin on taconite extraction, its not viable, but for some of our natural resources, it might be a good source of revenue? What are your thoughts?
People have brought up the population excuse before, but if that were the case, we shouldn’t be able to run our country at all with 350 million people.
The oil money is not used — it is a rainy day fun.
Also, Sweden has a higher population, no oil money, and they have the same, if not better, health care.
There really is no excuse if we are creative. Our country runs millions of people through the military, medicaid, etc.
Norway simply has better priorities than the US and they know how to invest to save money in the end.
Joe, I don’t wish in anyway to make light of your condition, but why didn’t you exercise you COBRA option when you were seperated?
I am self-employed and have a very affordable health insurance premium. I achieve this by choosing a plan with a $2,500 annual deductible. I’ve never come close to the deductible amount, so as of this point in time my Insurance company has made a few bucks off me.
Your situation means your health cost will be $2,560 just for you asthma medication. You’ve chosen “not to stay healthy” because you no longer have someone else footing the bill. Why should the government pay for something you haven’t made a top financial priority? Certianly you could adjust your personal budget to find the $213.33 per month.
Do you get paid to blog? If not, couldn’t you replace the many hours a week you put into blogging, working at a second job. 10 hours per week at even a minimum wage job would more than cover your drug costs.
“Either we develop a system that values preventative care, or more and more of us whose health used to be stable will end up in the emergency room.”
I hope you don’t end up there, but I ask if you don’t make preventative care a top value for yourself, why point fingers at the government.
Janet, the point of this post was not my priorities. I’ll be covered soon under my wife’s insurance. Otherwise, yes, I would have to pay. But you’re missing the main points here.
“You’ve chosen “not to stay healthy” because you no longer have someone else footing the bill. Why should the government pay for something you haven’t made a top financial priority?”
This isn’t about the government at all. I never suggested the government should be responsible for providing my healthcare. But our system, in which healthcare is coupled to employment for the vast majority of Americans, doesn’t make much sense to me. My problem has more to do with my employer’s priorities than my own.
I have a job. In fact, I have a job that pays well. I make more than the national average, and I have a health plan too — which I pay $200 per month for!
“Do you get paid to blog? If not, couldn’t you replace the many hours a week you put into blogging, working at a second job. 10 hours per week at even a minimum wage job would more than cover your drug costs.”
Considering that I make more money than the national average, doesn’t it seem at all problematic to you that I would need to take a second job just to pay for one medication — and a comparatively affordable one at that?
Are you really so ignorant that you think someone with a pre-existing condition is going to get the same rate you do? And your personal responsibility speech? Pathetic.
Tell you what - why don’t you get a clue about what you are talking about and stop demonstrating your self-righteous ignorance. And hope that you don’t get sick.
Thank you for sharing your story. It is a good example of how the accidental evolution of insurance being tied to employment has gotten out of control.
I would just say that decoupling insurance from employment is the right thing to do. However, it doesn’t suggest to me that the only logical solution is adopting more of a government-run approach. In fact, in between the starting point of wanting to decouple insurance from employment, and the ending point by many of having a single payer, there are alot of twists and turns that I don’t follow and I frankly think are flawed assumptions.
But I do appreciate you sharing your story, and realize that there are many others like yours.
I have been in a similar situation of having to forego a precription and an appointment with a specialist becuase I couldn’t afford it…and I have insurance. I feel for you…you have the American Healthcare Dream, a system run for profits over people, a system of incredible waste that is defended by so many lies and even more money. It is sick. It is immoral. It is the G.O.P. and Blue Dog prescription for healthcare and they have a lot of blood on their hands.
And with Medicare, patients have carte blanche to the specialists and prescriptions that they want?
Well, perhaps not in those terms, but Medicare recipients are VERY satisfied with their care. In fact, about TWICE as satisfied as users of private insurance products. Free market ho!
That is because it is nearly free to them, meanwhile the taxpayer is going broke paying for it.
Nobody has carte blanch for anything in any health care plans and never will. Quit throwing out red herrings or straw horses or whatever. Try reason.
Even Republicans agree that Medicare is great.
We are not going broke to save lives. Geez, I thought you all claimed to be the “pro life” party?
I’ll take the politicians seriously on this issue when they start addressing the single biggest health issue in this country - overconsumption and obesity. When they start calling the American electorate what they are, which is morbidly obese and lazy, start taxing television use, soda, candy and overconsumption, and get people enrolled in physical fitness programs, then we’ll know they’re serious about increasing preventive care and reducing costs in the health care system.
Further, switching who pays for health care from companies to the government only means a switch from higher premiums paid to your employer to higher taxes paid to the government (and frankly, this system will break the federal government - Norway can pay for it because they don’t bring in millions of legal and illegal immigrants each year - look to the UK for a country about to break due to its public obligations).
Taxes will have to be raised for EVERY American to pay for this - I don’t have a problem with that, but these politicians cannot be honest with the citizenry and claim that the “top 1%” can pay for everything they’re proposing. That top 1% has the mobility to avoid taxation - meanwhile, our tax revenues collected are at their lowest since 1932. Bootom line: the burden of government healthcare will fall on the middle class. I’m okay with that though it’ll mean 10% less in my pocket over time, which means my kids won’t have much of a choice when they want to go to college since I can’t save for that. But, I’m certain everyone else here is okay with that too, right?
I often wonder what model these companies run under. They know what the cost of raw materials are, and what assembly cost are, the development cost and yet they charge based on fear and need. This is greed at its very best. I hear all the time that the research is what drives up the price on drugs but I know that goverment grants are given for each research project. Do the Pharms pay back the grants? No
Dan, I am an actuary who has been pricing Health Insurance for the past 26 years.
Health plans are often based on group experience, but they don’t charge individuals based on their individual experience. This isn’t like auto insurance, where you get surcharged for accidents or moving violations.
If pre-existing exclusion apply, then those conditions simply aren’t covered. You aren’t charged a higher rate.
If Joe has maintained continuous coverage, COBRA law will ensure that he asthma treatment is not excluded under a new plan. You should really do some research before calling me ignorant.
Joe has made my point, he can afford the extra out of pocket costs even without getting a second job. He chooses not to because some else isn’t paying for it. “Either we develop a system that values preventative care ..”
I’ve done dozens of studies of the years looking at the cost effectiveness of preventive measures in health care. Prenatal visits and DRE’s are highly effective. Mammograms and smoking cessation programs are a bust. I’m not neccessarily opposed to Insurance paying for preventative treatments that are cost effective - but you consumers need to realize that this adds to the cost of the monthly premium.
“If pre-existing exclusion apply, then those conditions simply aren’t covered. You aren’t charged a higher rate.” Well, that’s just perfect. What are you supposed to do then? I know people who can’t leave their jobs because their kids have been sick and can’t get covered. In your world, its just too bad, right? You may not be ingorant with regard to the mechanics of coverage, but when it comes to actually understanding the problem, and really just being a human being, you are beyond ignorant.
Health care is a right, just as education is a right, access to safe drinking water is a right, protection provided by the government by fire and police departments is a right, safe bridges to drive over are a right, a right to free speech and freedom of (and from) religion.
None of these should be part of the so called free market and corporations whose main interest is making a profit.
Ginny - Wow. Could you please point me to the provision in the Constitution for safe drinking water and bridges? Or, perhaps the drinking water that the government provides which has traces of drugs in Miami, or increased levels of flouride in other parts of the country?
And I’m pretty sure bridges are not a constitutional right, but through the Necessary and Proper Clause, they spur commerce as envisioned in the Commerce Clause.
What drives me nuts about the left and right is that it just doesn’t seem to register that private and public need to work together to drive innovation and progress in this country. On one hand we’ve got conservatives railing on government. On the other hand we’ve got Ginny here talking about corporations making a profit, which is somehow a bad thing when you consider over 70% of the country owns corporate stock. Both government and the private sector have worked together the past 130 years or so to create a country full of abundance and endless choices in consumer goods, food, drinks, travel, and public goods. Yet, somehow it’s a fun game for one side to blame the other.
The only way for the country to move forward is for the government and business to work together. Conservatives and Ginny (just an example) don’t get anything done by pidgeon-holing the other side.
Jason and anyone else:
Perhaps your civics class or government class or whatever was too long ago and you don’t remember it, but there are a lot of steps between the Constitution and our day-to-day governance. You get to elect presidents, and representatives and senators at state and local levels (and city council people and judges and a lot of other people not covered in the Constitution). And our elected representatives at all levels create the laws through an often agonizing process. Much of these laws are the result of campaigns at the various levels. And somewhere back there (I could look it up if you want me to) various local governments decided they wanted access to clean fresh water and because everyone having their own well was not feasible, over the years local governments set up a clean water system that processed the water to make sure it was really clean and healthful and devised a whole set of plumbing systems to get it to the people. That’s just one example. It’s also an example of public-private working together which we do get — I just didn’t mention it because it’s not in the Constitution. If you look at the Constitution, you can see that it is only a framework. We are guaranteed the right to have and express our own opinions, to have our own religion (or lack thereof) and not be forced to belong to a state church, to elect representatives, senators, etc. Those people who harp on “activist” judges do not know whereof they speak. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted; our intelligent forefathers understood it would stand for many generations, and they were smart enough to know they couldn’t foresee every eventuality — like automobiles, clean water, airplanes, butcher shops (the Constitution doesn’t guarantee you’ll have a fair price on that chicken, either, or that you get the gallons of gas you pay for, but I don’t see many people lobbying to get rid of these weights and standards and so on.
I suggest you go back and read not only the Constitution but some American history to see how our democratic system (it’s mostly democratic, with exceptions like the Bush administration overriding habeas corpus — that is in the Constitution, by the way, which is why7 some of us were upset when the president and his friends single handedly did away with it).
Reading American history since the Revolution would almost assuredly be enlightening for you.
Jason and anyone else:
Perhaps your civics class or government class or whatever was too long ago and you don’t remember it, but there are a lot of steps between the Constitution and our day-to-day governance. You get to elect presidents, and representatives and senators at state and local levels (and city council people and judges and a lot of other people not covered in the Constitution). And our elected representatives at all levels create the laws through an often agonizing process. Much of these laws are the result of campaigns at the various levels. And somewhere back there (I could look it up if you want me to) various local governments decided they wanted access to clean fresh water and because everyone having their own well was not feasible, over the years local governments set up a clean water system that processed the water to make sure it was really clean and healthful and devised a whole set of plumbing systems to get it to the people. That’s just one example. It’s also an example of public-private working together which we do get — I just didn’t mention it because it’s not in the Constitution. If you look at the Constitution, you can see that it is only a framework. We are guaranteed the right to have and express our own opinions, to have our own religion (or lack thereof) and not be forced to belong to a state church, to elect representatives, senators, etc. Those people who harp on “activist” judges do not know whereof they speak. The Constitution was intended to be interpreted; our intelligent forefathers understood it would stand for many generations, and they were smart enough to know they couldn’t foresee every eventuality — like automobiles, clean water, airplanes, butcher shops (the Constitution doesn’t guarantee you’ll have a fair price on that chicken, either, or that you get the gallons of gas you pay for, but I don’t see many people lobbying to get rid of these weights and standards and so on.
I suggest you go back and read not only the Constitution but some American history to see how our democratic system evolved (it’s mostly democratic, with exceptions like the Bush administration overriding habeas corpus — that is in the Constitution, by the way, which is why7 some of us were upset when the president and his friends single handedly did away with it).
Reading American history since the Revolution would almost assuredly be enlightening for you.
Emily !…..
…oh, never mind.
Okay…GINNIE !…
…nah.
Sigh.