I agree with Ms. Carlson: We are required to pay a whole bunch for nothing. [Letters, “Full-Time Poor,” 9/23/10.]
At my last job, a representative from Blue Cross came by (in July) to explain the new insurance policies. When asked what would be the annual cost, he dodged the question, repeatedly. I had to explain to the others in the room that between the premiums (more than $3,500 per year), and co-pays ($20.00 per visit), the deductible ($3,500), and the share of cost above $3,500 (the insurer would only cover only 40 percent above $3,500 to a limit of $10,000), that the net cost per year for a single person’s insurance policy would be approximately $10,000 before the insurance would actually “kick in.”
I liked the idea of insurance reform, but I didn’t like the mandate. And now you know why: We are paying a whole bunch for a lot of nothing.
Yesterday every insurance carrier in the nation dropped individual child care on the eve of that portion of the law taking effect. What’s next, when the next round of “reforms” kicks in? It seems insurance is not the way to go, and there should be universal health care for all. What we have bought into is the same proposition that got Enron into trouble: a “liberated” market that can jerry-rig the costs at will. I’m not for (total) repeal, but I would certainly prefer an opt-out option, which the new system does not offer. We can opt out of auto insurance by not having a car, but they gave us no (public) option to opt out to—unless we die from health insurance. To me, that can’t be any more unconstitutional, and wrong, and too expensive for too little coverage to boot.