HERE's why so many people are satisfied with their Health Coverage

[Armstead]

Polls, politicians and the media tell us that a majority of Americans are "satisfied" with their health insurance plans.

If this is true, there is a very simple explanation. They probably haven't had to use it intensly. They haven't had to deal with the routine rejections, low co-pays and otehr problems.

To use an analogy -- Suppose you own a really beautiful car that had a really crappy engine that barely runs. If you never use that car, and it just sits in your driveway looking beautiful, you will be happy with that car....However you will feel differently if you actually have to use it and find that the motor dies and leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere.

[Odin2005]

1. Exactly. K&R

[LiberalFighter]

2. You got that right.

If most everyone only uses certain parts of their health insurance how do they know if they have good health care coverage? How many have had a problem with their claims being denied and try to get answers or getting the problem fixed through the insurance company directly? Most people don't have someone that works directly for them to resolve those problems. They either work for the insurance company or the employer and both want to keep costs down by any means possible.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. until the wheel comes off the car

if they lose their job - no healthcare.

[dionysus]

4. yes, the plans are great if you have a checkup once a year and pay your $20 copay.

it's if you really get sick when you get screwed.

[PVnRT]

5. I think you hit the nail on the head

If you haven't had to navigate the red tape morass that is private health care, you just don't know what kind of a nightmare it truly is.

[rurallib]

6. I'd say it is the battered wife syndrome working

after being told how wonderful it is for decades AND not really knowing any different, people are so fearful that any health care will be taken away from them that they are ecstatic with the shit they have since it is better than nothing.
This is probably a corollary to your statement which I fully agree with.

[CTyankee]

9. One of my former colleagues has no health care insurance nor do her sons

who are all over age 18 but living with her. She doesn't want "government" health care because her kids won't get MRIs when they are injured in soccer. She is convinced of this. "But you don't have any health care now," I said to her. She said she knew that, but she still didn't want government health care.

She calls herself a "conservative Democrat."

If you can figure out what is going on in her mind, please tell me...I give up...:shrug:

[Kalyke]

17. I don't want government health care, either.

I want government health care INSURANCE.

Do people like your former colleague know that the doctors are still in private practice - and would be under either a public option or a sinlge-payer plan.

I'm sure it's frustrating to talk with her.

[Laelth]

7. Agreed, with a caveat.

Many of us who oppose the "reform" bills currently being considered are opposed to the mandate to buy insurance. It's not that I like my current complete lack of coverage, it's that I can't afford insurance. Ordering me to buy insurance fixes nothing. I would rather have no coverage than to be ordered to buy something I can not afford.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed public health system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Armstead]

10. A very good point

I live in Massachusetts, where "reform" has really meant deform.

Mandates without a guarantee of ACCESS TO Truly AFFORDABLE Public Coverage is worse than the present system.

[unblock]

8. people also compare it to the nearby alternatives, not to the theoretical ones

so compared to an inferior plan they had at a previous job, or compared to not having insurance at all, they're "satisfied" with their own plan.

it's really hard for most people to compare their current, actual plan against a theoretical proposal that doesn't exist yet.

[Orsino]

11. ...or to the many people around them with *zero* coverage. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Yep. I've got good BC/BS coverage which I can live with - I'd

prefer a lower deductible and my co-pays recently went up again, but I'm OK with it. But a couple years ago I had an emergency appendectomy and my total costs out of pocket - what the insurance didn't cover - STILL came to over $2500, damn near 10% of my total annual income. I handled it, but it was a major setback, and I could only think,

What if it had been something SERIOUS?

[Armstead]

13. My brother's wife is out $30,000 to learn she had anxiety attacks

She had some worrysome dizzy spells and other symptoms that could have been a stroke or otehr condition.

The system put her through all kinds of tests -- and they hAD TO fight with the insurer to get any coverage of them, and the co-pays are minimal.

The upshot was that the doctors decided they were anxiety attacks. She and my brother are now about $30,000 in debt as a result.

[Mimosa]

21. ^ Whoa!^

Yikes. Sad.

I've got very bad BC/BS 70/30 obscenely high deductible nearly unaffordable insurance. I'm afraid not to have it for fear of catastrophe and losing my home. But I'm afraid to get tests for symptoms because I'd have to meet and pay an impssibly high the high deductible and the 30%. So why do i keep paying? Fear.

I want better insurance at least. At most I want singlr payer. MDs I've known agree with me about changing the paradigm. They have real hassles getting paid by insurance.

As the OP says, most people probably don't use their insurance and they don't know their doctors well enough to discuss the issues with them.

[Skidmore]

14. Just like they keep voting for RW jokers because they've

bought the pap about America is a "center-right" nation. Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth. When will Dems learn?

[pdxmom]

15. They also don't see the long term. My hubby and I have one of those

"Cadillac" policies through his work. He's an amputee and we need that kind of coverage. But what do we do when he retires? Even if we continue with our current coverage, which we can do, it will cost us, combined, almost $3,000/month. He would like to retire before Medicare kicks in, because of problems with his leg, but that may not happen, because we can't afford the coverage.

Also, what would we do if he was outright laid off? No way would we find coverage from anywhere with his pre-existings.

So we squirrel away money...almost 25% of our monthly income (pre-tax), so that we may be able to survive for a while if we need to. We haven't done improvements to our home, because we want to keep the equity high, for the same reason. And we shop and vacation as if we were currently in dire financial straights, which we aren't.

I see the long term and it's scary, as far as health care is concerned. I want something done now, not because of my situation now, but because of what I know could happen in the future if there isn't reform.

[central scrutinizer]

16. Some people (me, e.g.) had too much insurance

I had a minor heart attack two years ago. At the time I was covered under my BC/BS plan as the primary insured and as a dependent on my wife's union plan. Two days in the hospital to implant a stent and recover resulted in a $36,000 bill. And followup care and meds after that is probably a few thousand more. My out-of-pocket to date: $4.16. But now my wife has been laid off so long that she has been dropped from the union plan. And if my job goes away, I will probably be unable to buy health insurance on my own due to underwriting.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Nice analogy, Armstead.

:thumbsup:

[Fire1]

19. I think you're right. n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

20. K&R. Exactly... It's much different if you become really sick...

;(

[Rebellious Republican]

22. That's those who actually have Insurance, I never see how many

actually have insurance as opposed to how many do not have coverage. All I ever see on the MSM is how many have insurance and how many of those are satisfied with it. So the real question should be how many are satisfied with the coverage they have. I believe you would see a drastic change in the numbers between those satisfied and not satisfied. Does this make sense to anyone else besides me?

:think:

[mdmc]

29. makes sense

:toast:

[seemunkee]

23. My nephrecomy was covered completely

I would say I'm satisfied with my coverage, but I'm not satisfied that EVERYONE doesn't have the same coverage. If mine has to change for the better of the country, I'm all for it. I'm also well aware that if my wife changes jobs that coverage will change and I may or may not have good coverage. The plan my company offers is no where near as good as what we get through my wife's company, so my co-workers are SOL.

[flpoljunkie]

24. Yes, but we all have family who are either uninsured or struggling to pay ever increasing premiums

[harmonicon]

25. true, and another thing:

most Americans have never lived in another country. Find me a poor or middle class American who's lived in a Western European country who would rather pay for health insurance from a US corporation than have free universal health care. I doubt you'd find any.

[marshall]

26. Most of the unsatisfied people are dead

And that's pretty much how it will always be.

[mdmc]

27. I was very happy with my insurance until I became sick

Then I realized what a nightmare have "for profit" health insurance is.
Everything required jumping through hoops, payments being refused prior to being paid, "prior authorizations" taking a long time to arrive. The list goes on.

My doctor last saw me in June. He prescribed a med for me that my "health insurance" company did not want to pay for. But my primary care physician and two rheumotologist agreed that it was necessary.
Well, they approved it, but claimed that they have been trying to "get in touch" with me regarding how I could receive this med (it had to be mailed ordered from a certain pharmacy). I never received a telephone call or a letter.

While the RN from my Rheumotologist was explaining this to me, another call came in. It was my "health insurance" company informing me that I would have my meds tomorrow (which is today, actually).

[redqueen]

28. Didn't see this in time to rec it.

I heard that claim last night on BBC America, where whatshisface was busily painting Obama as looking 'tired' and 'worn out' and saying that he needs a holiday, as the whole country does.

He's right about the holiday... Americans are so shortchanged in that department.