17
Why I say no to health insurance
Journalist Duncan Moore.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Duncan Moore: I'm the kind of guy who believes in insurance for everything. So when the COBRA extension on my health insurance ran out, I assumed I would shop around and find an individual policy.
Bob Moon: Freelance writer and journalist Duncan Moore decided to voluntarily join the ranks of people in this country living without health insurance. Here's why:
Moore: The prospect of paying $600 a month in premiums got me thinking real hard. I rarely go to the doctor. I don't smoke, don't drink too much and don't use illegal drugs. I'm 53, single, with no dependents and good mental health.
If I were going to get a chronic disease, like diabetes or high blood pressure or asthma, I'd have it by now. I exercise a lot and eat right. I don't play contact sports, and I don't roller blade. I'm probably not going to break my arm or sprain my ankle. My folks, by the way, are 82 and 80, and they're going strong. So as of this week, I have been one full year without health insurance coverage. No premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles, no incomprehensible statements in the mail. Just pay as you go.
With health insurance, I would've paid at least $6,000 in premiums, plus, any deductibles and co-pays. As it stands, my total personal outlay for medical care in the past 12 months, $175. I went to the doctor for a check up and told him I didn't have insurance. He trimmed the office visit fee from $100 down to $65. And he cut the fee for the blood and urine tests from $195 down to a $110. That's a pretty good deal.
But you're probably thinking, "Wait a minute, what about the risk of major illness, like cancer? What if I get hit by a bus? What if I'm unlucky?" Well, I have about $50,000 in savings that I'm ready to pay out, if I need to. Beyond that, I'm definitely taking a risk.
But let's face it, even with insurance, there's risk. Insurers don't always live up to their promises. If you have heart surgery or a cancer diagnosis, the insurance company can pore through your medical records and find some little niggling hang nail in your history. Then they declare that you actually had a pre-existing condition, and they're not going to pay. They get away with whatever they can.
To be honest, I shouldn't be allowed to do what I'm doing. Everybody should be in the pool for health insurance. But if the insurers have the freedom to deny claims after the fact, then I'm glad I have the freedom not to buy what they're selling. It's not a freedom I want, however. I'd rather have good guaranteed health insurance with no pre-existing condition exclusions that I can afford.
Until then, I'm on my own.
Moon: Duncan Moore is a writer and journalist living in Chicago.
Pages
Mr. Moore illustrates exactly why we need to have compulsory insurance. Although he can talk his providers into providing lower costs, those of us with insurance are picking up those costs.
Let's suppose he develops, heaven forbid, cancer, or heart problems or is in a serious accident. His $50,000 in assetts will be gone within the first day. Then those of us who have insurance will be paying, not only for all of his medical insurance, but we'll be paying for his housing, food and other requirements. Unfortunately, his odds are about 1 in 2.
It is irresponsible for a 50 year old to expect the rest of it to pay for the rest of his life. As others have noted, there are low cost ways to have catastrophic insurance and to spare himself and all of us his future costs.
Maybe we need to rethink the entire debate, ask difficult questions and offer tough solutions.
Give hospitals the option to refuse to treat people unless they can pay for services.
If Mr. Moore is diagnosed with an expensive disease the hospital should have the right to refuse to treat him unless he can prove he can pay the estimated fees before any assistance is rendered.
Maybe we need to give hospitals & doctors permission to talk to people about affordable options for coping with diseases or injuries (pain management drugs and end of life options).
A hospital shouldn't be obligated to provide any treatment Mr. Moore can't afford. He will have to find some way to pay for the treatment, try to find a less expensive provider or do without.
Our country might look into the idea of creating many "charity care" hospitals that are funded by donations, churches or etc. Let's say that Mr. Moore is injured in horrible accident and can't afford medical care. He should be sent to a charity care hospital for whatever treatment he or the hospital can afford.
I'm not being sarcastic and I'm not picking on Mr. Moore. I have a serious health condition which, left untreated, would eventually become life threatening. Obtaining & keeping health insurance during the last 10 years has been incredibly difficult. I'm single. 40. No dependents. Treatment for additional expensive health problems (caused by disease or injuries) would bankrupt me.
Does it make sense to treat a serious injury or illness if the result would be financial ruin for the patient?
Obviously, we'd need to hammer out a lot of the painful details, but let's consider this option.
I don't understand the people who claim it's "immature" of someone to "not take responsibility for his own health" by not purchasing health insurance. They are two different things. Duncan is doing what is in his power to do: living right. Paying for health insurance does not mean you will be healthier, just ask the people who are sicker from being denied care they need by their health insurer. How is that better than having "the government involved in your health care"? Health insurers are in business to cash checks, not write them, plain and simple.
I make the same decision as Duncan because I think health insurance is legalized fraud.
No one has satisfactorily answered me this: What value do they provide to the system? They make it vastly more complex and don't improve anyone's care. They are only a burden on us, they feel no responsibility to do ANYTHING for their money, no responsibility to give anything back for what they are paid. They take everything they can get away with. When new laws are made, they will be finding other ways to cheat people and justifying it with their PR people.
I'll be REALLY angry if I am forced to give money I don't have for care I won't be able to afford including deductibles and copays so that another CEO can get yet another fur-lined sink. If I had the CHOICE of a public option, I would at least have the comfort of knowing that the money I gave that I didn't use myself would go to someone else's care. I WANT my grandmother, and yours, and anyone else who is unfortunate enough to be sick, to have the care they need. PERIOD. I have no problem paying for that. It is what is just.
Unlike Mr. Tucker I think it's very mature. Mr. Moore has applied rational thought to his position and secured financial responsibility with his savings. My employer insists on covering my every need - I'd rather have the the money and select the insurance company and the coverage I want. That's what we do with autombiles, homes - works the way the market is supposed to work.
Mr. Moore is a freelancer, not a freeloader. He manages his own workplace. He pays both the employer and employee portions of his Social Security tax.
I, too, have been freelance for 20 years. In the recent economic crisis, I have been unemployed for about 10 weeks a year, yet I receive no benefits from anyone and I don't expect them. When my expensive interim health insurance expired, I chose to go without for the same reasons cited by Mr. Moore. I exercise, do not eat red meat (research this:red meat is a factor in many cancers) and I drink about 4 sodas a year. In other words, I take responsibility for my health the same way I do for my work.
And work is picking up again. The rest of the year looks good. Does that mean I can afford health insurance? Not at the ridiculous, inflated prices of the current market which take no account of healthy life style.
I did get affordable life insurance this year, for which i submitted to a complete physical (I'm 51 years old). If a company is willing to sell me affordable $300,000 life insurance coverage, they must calculate that I'm a good risk. Why won't a health insurance company do the same?
The reason behind including everyone in the risk pool, whether all private or a mixture of public and private, is to keep premium costs down for everyone. Moore is the typical kind of freeloader who deliberately pockets the savings of not having insurance, but will then jump on the bandwagon once he's eligible for Medicare. Several years of not paying in, then soaking up the benefits of being old enough to have the government fix prices for you. That's disgusting. Where has the spirit of civic responsibility gone in this country?
What really needs to happen is that the insurance companies need to have a 1 year limit for canceling a policy due to 'preexisting conditions', period. Doesn't the MIB Group (www.mib.com) keep all of this history available to it members anyway?
Why not give every citizen of the US the same options that members of Congress have for health care and pay on a pro rated basis based on the premiums the members pay? Maybe we would find out just how subsidized the health care for members of Congress is. What ever Congress comes up with, they should be required to be members of that system and not exclude themselves as they are pron to do on other laws they pass. Maybe if they lived in our world, they might work for us. Thank you.
Wes
Mr. Moore could get a high-deductible catastrophic policy for just about a hundred dollars a month (maybe even less).
My family was without health insurance for a month several years ago because of a job change and this is what we did to ensure that if something really awful happened, we would be covered. He could also use a health savings plan with the high deductible insurance. It's not that expensive, and it can provide peace of mind.
Pages
