Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:08 PM
Original message |
San Francisco residents: Please tell us about your universal health plan (SFHP) |
|
And why aren't people in need moving to San Francisco to get your insurance when they can't get coverage elsewhere? I've seen the interviews on TV with your mayor. Typical politician speak... never any details.
So what's up with this? I take it that this is run by private insurance companies? Will they write anyone? What do the plans run $$? IS it working? Are they rationing care?
|
floridablue
(996 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I heard Mayor say on tv a while back |
|
it cost 285 per person. That is all I know. I guess if that is the best that is done, I will plan on being creamated and fed to the fish in the Gulf.
|
Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Well $285/mo is a lot for a healthy young person but easily half of what employers pay for adults |
|
Edited on Sat Jul-25-09 06:17 PM by Shagbark Hickory
The republicans and blue doofs would have me believe prices like that will run the sweet little mom and pop ins co's out of business.
|
quiller4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-26-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. I'd do a happy dance if my premium fell to $285/mo. My husband |
|
and I buy our own insurance at $375 each per month and that is a plan with a $3,000 deductible.
|
movonne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I would like to know too. |
anigbrowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:15 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It's run by the city. You need to make below a certain level of income to qualify (unsurprisingly). If you do, then your membership works like insurance - that is, you'd give that information at a clinic or hospital, there may be a copay depending on your income level, and...er...that's it. In fact it's better than private insurance insofar as the bill goes from the medical provider straight to Healthy San Francisco so you don't get buried in paperwork.
Unfortunately, although the scheme itself is quite good the website for it is a bit of a disaster, unhelpful for either learning about it or dealing with it as a member. I'd say it's good for critical care, not so much for things like mental health services.
|
Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. So is a family of one making "Up to $4,515"/mo considered poor in san francisco?!? |
|
Because that's a fine income for where I live.
|
anigbrowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
1) please reread my message: there may be a copay, depending on your income level. You won't get soup-to-nuts care at that kind of income. There might even be an annual fee, I forget.
2) an income of $54,000 a year isn't considered poor here, but it's not particularly large either. A studio apartment here costs at least $1000/mo, owning a car is very expensive, median house price is in the $4-500,000 range (even after the financial crisis). SF is the 2nd most expensive place to live in the US after Manhattan, not least because we're surrounded by water on 3 sides.
|
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I used it for four years -- |
|
when I was without insurance.
I had a tremendous experience.
Because I was working parttime, all my medical services and drugs were free. My mental health care was free for a year and my medication was $10 a month. During that time I was seen for many issues, including a breast health issue, alopecia, a badly sprained ankle, allergies, anxiety and insomnia, and general medical care.
To give you an example of the kind of care I received:
When I was with Kaiser I developed a breast lump. The doctor determined it to be a cyst and drained it. He advised against a mammogram (even though I was 42 and had not had a baseline yet) because my "breasts were very dense and he wouldn't be able to see anything anyway." The cysts returned and I was told to wait a few cycles to see if the body absorbed it (it didn't).
When I went into the Women's Health Care Clinic at SF General for a breast cyst, I was hooked up with a NP who specialized in breast health -- I was given a mammogram, the cyst was drained, and I was given information on some changes I could make to reduce my incidents of cysts. When the cyst returned within the week, I was brought back in and the cyst was drained again, this time using ultrasound to locate the walls of the cyst so they could be puntured thoroughly so the cyst would not return. My NP contacted me every four months to come in for an exam to see how my breasts were doing.
I was never refused any type of test or treatment the doctor or nurse thought I needed. Every doctor and nurse I saw were truly wonderful people - I felt incredibly cared for and well treated. When I returned to work fulltime and got back on health insurance, I was kind of depressed. I really, REALLY hated getting back into that system. :(
The only drawbacks were it could take awhile to get an appointment -- though they did try to get you in sooner if a cancellation came up -- and you had to go to one of the city health centers, which could take some getting to.
I would take that kind of healthcare again in a heartbeat.
|
Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-25-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. When the mayor says that "Kaiser" has joined the plan, what does that mean? |
|
Edited on Sat Jul-25-09 11:37 PM by Shagbark Hickory
Does he mean their hospitals now accept the plan or does he mean the plan is basically a privately run HMO?
If someone lived in North Carolina and they were dumped by their ins co because they were interfering with profits, pre-x condition, etc, would this person be able to move to San Francisco, rent an apartment and provided they were eligible income-wise, would they be able to get this insurance plan? Because you'd think if that were the case, many more people would be moving to SF.
|
comrade snarky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-26-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I believe it means Kaiser hospitals will |
|
Treat people in the San Francisco plan as a partner in the city run HMO. I'm not sure of the residence requirements for eligibility, honestly I haven't looked into it because I'm still covered through an employer plan and I'm a fairly long term resident. There may be something though.
As for moving to the city for health benefits it might happen more if the plan were better known. Of course moving to this little 7 by 7 mile island (OK... peninsula end. We don't like to think of ourselves as sharing contiguous land with San Jose) isn't always that easy. It's expensive, crazy expensive. A 2 bedroom apartment can't be found for under 16 to 18 hundred a month. On the low end you may not like what you find either. The median price is still a little over 2 grand.
Hell, even food at the grocery store is more expensive.
|
Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-27-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Am not sure about the Kaiser angle -- |
|
would have to look into that.
As for eligibility, I do not remember anything other than showing an ID with my SF address on it and a paystub with my income -- I was never asked how long I had lived here. My sister from Texas lived with me for around 6 months and was treated for an emergency through the City program during that time -- since she was not working at the time, her treatment was covered.
As for moving here of the health care, sadly, San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the country -- it might not make economic sense to maek such a move. :( But to answer your question, yes, someone could move to SF for the healthcare coverage and get the treatment they needed. As it should be all over the country.
|
Shagbark Hickory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-27-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Don't you have a "UPS Store" in SF where you can rent an address? |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-27-09 01:19 PM by Shagbark Hickory
I mean... If they're just looking at an ID.... you should be able to get a d/l or id card with a rented mail drop. I used to have one. In fact I even had a USPS PO Box shown on my D/L at one point.
Then again maybe not... Once upon a time I tried this stunt to register a car in another state to save on the car taxes and they actually looked up the address and said "Sorry sir but ummm that's a Mail Boxes etc you can't register your car with that address."
So you know what I did then? I made up a bullshit address and they used that! I called up the DMV a couple weeks later and asked where my title was and they said they mailed it to 123 Bullshit Lane and I said, no it's not 123 Bullshit lane, you morons!!! It's 123 Real Address Blvd! And they sent the title to me there 2 states away, those freaken morons.
I know, I'm scum.
Edit: It just occured to me, supposed the mailbox didn't work. You can rent the cheapest apartment you can find or maybe an extended stay hotel, even. Stay just long enough to get some utility bills and a new drivers license then take off. You wouldn't have to pay SF rent for very long.
|
comrade snarky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-26-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. SF General is fantastic |
|
I was there for a broken collar bone in the late 80s. A time before we had an official city health plan, back when it was the place you went for free care when you didn't have anything else.
Top notch help from people who give a damn.
Now I'm with Kaiser and while there are some great people it's no better that SF General.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:21 AM
Response to Original message |