A poll of some sorts...do you go for your "annual"?

[creekland]

Except there are a lot of things not covered by health share plans. 

 

 

My son's medical issues would make us ineligible. Thankfully, we don't need to rely on such a service. But, that is why it is able to operate like it does. It doesn't accept people with congenital or pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, they would need a much larger pool of healthy people paying in. Permanent conditions are ineligible for "sharing." So, you're golden as long as one of your children isn't diagnosed with a serious life-long medical problem. There are a lot of adult medical issues that are also ineligible for "sharing." You may feel you're making a wise decision. But, I believe you're taking a gamble.

 

Current health shares do not work for everyone - very true.  In my ideal world, that would be fixed (general non-profit).  There's no reason non-profit can't include everyone IF the pool were large enough - say - the whole country.

 

And no, we're not taking a gamble for our family.  With the amount we save monthly (compared to insurance) we can easily cover non-covered issues that could affect us should we want to.  We've been with the health share for over 10 years now and saved a minimum of $300/month for 10 months (much more in later years - the other two months covering things we've paid cash for).  We're still saving monthly as my current issue is costing us nothing.

 

There's a reason countries with non-profit methods spend less and cover more.

 

[Audrey]

Except there are a lot of things not covered by health share plans. 

 

 

My son's medical issues would make us ineligible. Thankfully, we don't need to rely on such a service. But, that is why it is able to operate like it does. It doesn't accept people with congenital or pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, they would need a much larger pool of healthy people paying in. Permanent conditions are ineligible for "sharing." So, you're golden as long as one of your children isn't diagnosed with a serious life-long medical problem. There are a lot of adult medical issues that are also ineligible for "sharing." You may feel you're making a wise decision. But, I believe you're taking a gamble.

 

I just said that I don't even know what a health share is, but your example is a bit of a stunner. That's a huge issue!  Here, there is no such thing as ineligibility because of conditions.  You just have to be a legal resident.  That's all.   IIRC, when my dad was in the military there were no barriers for conditions either.  My mom had surgery during the time he was in the Navy.  It was for her back which was damaged from years before she met my dad, but which gave her increasingly difficult issues.  I think, but am not entirely sure, that she may have had 2 back surgeries.  I was pretty young, so I'm not 100%, but I clearly remember the surgery she had when I was 8.  I think that, if I were in the position of having a child who could be denied coverage (and potentially, services), and I couldn't be here, I would stay in the military for the rest of my natural life!  And, that is saying a LOT.  

 

All that ramble is to say, I'm really sorry about your son, but I'm really glad you are able to get him the care he needs. 

[Mrs Mungo]

And no, we're not taking a gamble for our family. With the amount we save monthly (compared to insurance) we can easily cover non-covered issues that could affect us should we want to. We've been with the health share for over 10 years now and saved a minimum of $300/month for 10 months (much more in later years - the other two months covering things we've paid cash for). We're still saving monthly as my current issue is costing us nothing.

 

IMO, you are still taking a gamble. My son didn't come out of the womb with a diagnosed problem. It took years to diagnose. His monthly medical treatments (not counting hospital stays or doctor appointments) easily exceed $100k/year. None of that would be covered under the sort of plan you subscribe to. His last hospital stay in a civilian hospital would have cost $40k for 6 days without insurance. If you would be able to pay those sorts of fees out of pocket without a hardship, then I am impressed. Most people don't have those sorts of resources.

[Audrey]

You know what is especially nuts?  Lets say you don't have employer based insurance.  You can buy insurance.  It's always been that way.  Granted, buying it yourself can be quite expensive, but it's an option.  BUT insurance companies can drop you.  So something expensive comes along, you are dropped.  I mean the point is it's a risk right?  They risk, you risk, etc.  Except they have all the control.

 

I was going to click 'like' on your post -- thanks for the info -- but I can't "like" that post, KWIM?  Dropping people? -- That's a cruel shame.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that, if I were in the position of having a child who could be denied coverage (and potentially, services), and I couldn't be here, I would stay in the military for the rest of my natural life! And, that is saying a LOT.

 

All that ramble is to say, I'm really sorry about your son, but I'm really glad you are able to get him the care he needs.

Me too. I think people would be surprised at the number of families who stay in the military primarily for health care related issues.

[creekland]

I missed the bit about "health share" as opposed to insurance. I have been gone long enough that I admit I don't even know what that is.

 

It's like a co-op, though with many checks and balances to be sure it works.  Members pay a certain amount monthly and end up sharing bills.  Since there are enough members, statistically costs can be worked out quite accurately.  As health care costs go up, so does our monthly payment.  In 10 years I believe it's gone up $120 +/-.  Ten years ago insurance was running us $600/month (and only paid 80% + a deductible - forgot the OOP cap).  When running an ACA calculator current costs (for 3 vs 5) would run up $790/month (and only pay 70% + $12,700 OOP annually).

 

Costs stay low due to people paying the small stuff themselves - and eliminating profit.  There is no paid CEO, board members, or stockholders.  Large stuff certainly is covered (cancer, heart, transplants) - as are more basic things (broken bones, varicose veins, childbirth).

 

There are "catches."  Many pre-existing things are not covered, nor is vision, dental, or mental illnesses.  Anything under $300 is not covered.  The one we belong to is also only open to church-going Christians (and won't cover alcohol events or abortions, etc).  So yes, it isn't for everyone as things stand now.

 

That doesn't mean the concept is bad.  I love the concept and it certainly does work for us and many others.  It just means people with more power and/or ability need to take the concept and turn it into something many people can use, either through more groups (any group large enough to be statistically viable would work), or a large inclusive group of some sort.

 

The group we belong to is growing incredibly quickly as more people discover the option and more growth is projected for the future.  I've even seen a "regular" news story about the groups and how there are those out there who feel these types are the wave of the future.  (There are a couple of other groups out there, but I don't pay much attention to them.  I believe all current groups are Christian, but am not positive.)

[Catwoman]

IMO, you are still taking a gamble. My son didn't come out of the womb with a diagnosed problem. It took years to diagnose. His monthly medical treatments (not counting hospital stays or doctor appointments) easily exceed $100k/year. None of that would be covered under the sort of plan you subscribe to. His last hospital stay in a civilian hospital would have cost $40k for 6 days without insurance. If you would be able to pay those sorts of fees out of pocket without a hardship, then I am impressed. Most people don't have those sorts of resources.

:iagree:

 

Many people simply don't realize that medical care can be so costly. My dh will need surgery that costs over $500,000. His medical costs this year have been well into 6 figures, and that is without lengthy hospital stays or any major procedures. His health issues were completely unexpected, as is the case for many people. And if they don't have insurance or enough cash to cover sudden, unexpected major expenses, they may not be able to get the treatment they need.

 

I'm not willing to take that kind of gamble with my family's health or with our financial security.

[creekland]

IMO, you are still taking a gamble. My son didn't come out of the womb with a diagnosed problem. It took years to diagnose. His monthly medical treatments (not counting hospital stays or doctor appointments) easily exceed $100k/year. None of that would be covered under the sort of plan you subscribe to. His last hospital stay in a civilian hospital would have cost $40k for 6 days without insurance. If you would be able to pay those sorts of fees out of pocket without a hardship, then I am impressed. Most people don't have those sorts of resources.

 

If you had belonged to our group prior to your son's birth, it would be covered... all except for prescribed meds.  There is no maximum cost (for those who choose the program as we have - part of it is optional).  My son developing epilepsy at age 16 was totally covered from ambulance trip to eventual diagnosis - as will be any future costs needed should something change with it.  A hospital visit is certainly covered - as are prescription drugs used during one (and 2 months thereafter).

 

I first thought my brain tumor was a vision issue and we were prepared to pay for it.  Since it's a medical issue they are even covering all the original vision "stuff" as it was used to diagnose what the problem really was.  They are even covering all the basic exam stuff I hadn't done for 18 years since new, accurate numbers were helpful.  I feel guilty about that last part (since that should be our cost has I been doing annual tests), so will donate $$ to a fund they have to support those who lose jobs or other temporary "assistance" issues, but that's voluntary on our part.   This whole thing will cost us nothing.  After it is "done" (if it's ever done), then we'll likely pay for some follow up MRIs, but we'll still be ending up less expensive than insurance would have been for us (and yes, I've absolutely seen MRI costs to know what I'm talking about).  Remember, this year, insurance would be costing us $12,700 OOP - and after tomorrow I'd need another $12,700.

 

 

[creekland]

:iagree:

 

Many people simply don't realize that medical care can be so costly. My dh will need surgery that costs over $500,000. His medical costs this year have been well into 6 figures, and that is without lengthy hospital stays or any major procedures. His health issues were completely unexpected, as is the case for many people. And if they don't have insurance or enough cash to cover sudden, unexpected major expenses, they may not be able to get the treatment they need.

 

I'm not willing to take that kind of gamble with my family's health or with our financial security.

 

Mine could end up costing as much too.  ;)

 

I absolutely agree that people should have SOMETHING - just in case.  I just feel health share is far better for our needs AND I like it better - sending $$ to people who need it (assigned, not choice) - not CEOs and stockholders.  It's certainly less expensive.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you had belonged to our group prior to your son's birth, it would be covered... all except for prescribed meds.

 

But, his condition would not be eligible for sharing in several circumstances (according to their website). Again, my son's treatments and prescriptions alone add up to around $100k/year.

[Mrs Mungo]

I absolutely agree that people should have SOMETHING - just in case. I just feel health share is far better for our needs AND I like it better - sending $$ to people who need it (assigned, not choice) - not CEOs and stockholders. It's certainly less expensive.

Your previous statement was slightly different and seemed to imply that everyone should ditch insurance. I agree that different families have very different situations upon which they base their decisions.

 

I agree that a single-payer system would be in a better place to argue for better prices, etc.

[creekland]

Your previous statement was slightly different and seemed to imply that everyone should ditch insurance. I agree that different families have very different situations upon which they base their decisions.

 

I agree that a single-payer system would be in a better place to argue for better prices, etc.

 

Truly sorry for any misunderstanding!  I want our COUNTRY to ditch for-profit insurance and replace it with something better.  ACA has some good aspects to it, but it's not what I'd like to see - and we're certainly not switching since I do consider what we have to be "better" (for us).

 

Health care and educational opportunities (including college) should be available to all regardless of ability to pay.  Someone has to pay, of course, but I believe there are better options than what our country has.  I just don't get to change things to make my ideal world, so like most (all?) of us I can only share my experiences and thoughts.  Health shares are legitimate (and less expensive) options for many.  They aren't perfect, but neither are other options.  All of us have to consider how any option works for us.  We're experiencing (and have experienced) using health share for accidents, for the onset of epilepsy, and now for this tumor.  It works well - far better than any insurance experience we had from the "old" days.

 

But we have gotten side-tracked from the original direction of this thread...  I still have no intent on going in for annual female checks.  I'm not high risk and I don't care if I find something early (for that) for reasons mentioned before.  There are other things I like keeping up on, but almost always do so at home and/or via donating blood (BP, sugar numbers, etc).

 

IMO, one should have some sort of health cost coverage because there are far more things out there that can happen and can be costly (accidents, etc).  There are other things that can be fixed and still leave a decent quality of life (many heart issues, etc), but they're still costly.

 

[Laura Corin]

We also have a higher-than-average obesity rate, lower-than-average produce consumption, high crime rate, low population density leading to a high number of total annual miles driven, etc. If we could get those numbers to similar to the ones of Scandinavia or Japan, how much money would that save in healthcare costs?

 

I refer you to the terrible diet of the UK, if you want a comparator.  The UK spends 7.2% or GDP on public health care to cover everyone, whereas the US spends 7.4% of GDP on public health care to cover only some.

 

Our rate of violent crime (with victims who survive) is high, whereas more people are murdered in the US, so I suspect the health burden there is not dissimilar.  You are right that 4 times as many people die on the roads in the USA as in the US (adjusted for population).  As a proportion of overall health spending, I suspect that road injuries still do not have the effect of lifestyle diseases shared by the UK and the US.

 

ETA: to give an idea of how the UK health service works: I work 28 hours a week as an administrator; Husband is a consultant, earning about 1/5th or his previous full-time salary.  He has had investigations for an ongoing issue this year, including invasive tests at the hospital.  He is also due for a sleep study.  Over the last year I have also had specialist treatment for one condition and will be having more for a different condition in the New Year.  We are each on continuing medication.  Both of us have been called in for routine age-related screening for cholesterol, cancer-risk, etc.  

 

Our out-of-pocket expenses have been zero.  We pay no income taxes on our (individual) first USD12,000 of income, so USD24,000 between the two of us.  VAT (similar to sales tax) is 20%, but we don't pay it much, as food and children's clothing are exempted.  Our major tax load is on petrol, but I can't believe that our overall tax burden reaches anything like the cost of paying for health care under the US system.

 

L

[Melissa in Australia]

I refer you to the terrible diet of the UK, if you want a comparator.  The UK spends 7.2% or GDP on public health care to cover everyone, whereas the US spends 7.4% of GDP on public health care to cover only some.

 

Our rate of violent crime (with victims who survive) is high, whereas more people are murdered in the US, so I suspect the health burden there is not dissimilar.  You are right that 4 times as many people die on the roads in the USA as in the US (adjusted for population).  As a proportion of overall health spending, I suspect that road injuries still do not have the effect of lifestyle diseases shared by the UK and the US.

 

L

 

Here in Australia road injuries are not covered by universal health cover, rather every single car owner pays car registration which a large percentage is an insurance for road accident health cover. It is called TAC- This is different to car insurance.

 

I tried posting a link to TAC but for some reason this forum has been blocking me posting links for the last few weeks

 

[Laura Corin]

Here in Australia road injuries are not covered by universal health cover, rather every single car owner pays car registration which a large percentage is an insurance for road accident health cover. It is called TAC- This is different to car insurance.

 

I tried posting a link to TAC but for some reason this forum has been blocking me posting links for the last few weeks

 

 

That's interesting - I think in the UK that the NHS covers road traffic accidents.  

 

The NHS doesn't really have systems set up for billing other people.  In theory, foreigners who don't have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK are charged when they use UK hospitals, but I think that it often doesn't happen just because billing anyone is a complicated and rare event.

 

L

[creekland]

Here in Australia road injuries are not covered by universal health cover, rather every single car owner pays car registration which a large percentage is an insurance for road accident health cover. It is called TAC- This is different to car insurance.

 

I tried posting a link to TAC but for some reason this forum has been blocking me posting links for the last few weeks

 

 

With regards to posting links... my guess is you are using Internet Explorer.  The last update they made caused me (and others) to lose the ability to add links, do multi-quotes, cut and paste, and assorted other things.  I "fixed" it by switching to Firefox or Chrome (pending which computer I'm using).

 

With regards to car accidents, here one can add medical (for themselves) onto their car insurance policy if they wish.  If one is not at fault, the other person's insurance has to pay.  I'm not sure if there are caps (never had experience with it).  Does anyone know?  I know we pick a "higher than required" amount for liability (amounts paid to the "other" person) as the minimum amount seems very low if we were to actually get into a major accident.  I consider my family to be good drivers, but... accidents happen.

 

Again, our health share covers accidents unless the member was driving under the influence, so my knowledge of what others need to do is limited.

 

[Melissa in Australia]

thank you Creekland. I am using Internet Explorer

[creekland]

thank you Creekland. I am using Internet Explorer

 

I keep hoping they'll fix it.  So far, I've been disappointed... my last check was yesterday.

 

This isn't the only site that has problems with IE.  When I was browsing some sites looking for Christmas options, many of the pop ups for more info didn't work correctly either - but did with Firefox/Chrome.

 

One would think IE would want to fix it.

 

And it's not just my (two) computers I access at home.  It's the same on school computers when I'm there, plus others have mentioned it here.  I'm pretty convinced it's IE - esp since it happened right after one of their updates.

 

[Wheres Toto]

Injuries sustained in a car accident are covered by our car insurance here in NJ.  I always thought it was that way everywhere but maybe it's a NJ thing?  Maybe that's part of the reason our car insurance is so high here.

 

I usually go for all my annual exams.  I've had issues and family history so I'm also getting mammograms yearly.   I'm actually about a year late right now because I didn't go last year due to lack of insurance.