College Students Demand Free Tampons

[MSNative]

I don't think living abroad as an expat is completely comparable. As an expat you usually do not qualify for all, or the same, tax/social benefits as the native population. This has been experience anyway. ymmv

The experience in the UK was as a British citizen, not as an expat.

 

France and Germany were as expat so I did not mention specifics about them. But as I said, my colleagues and friends who weren't expats had similar experiences.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

And I wasn't arguing that more disposable income equals more happiness.

Though we are veering way off topic, I also have to say that my family's experience with healthcare in those countries was not good. Super long waits - like over a year for care for cancer in the UK. Not acceptable and it certainly did not take a weight off my shoulders. We were blessed to be able to fly back to the U.S. to get the required care.

My experience was not unusual based on what my friends and colleagues overseas shared.

 

The U.S. system isn't perfect by a LONG shot. But neither were the systems that we dealt with overseas.

I am sorry your family had these experiences but I wonder if they had a very slow form of cancer such as some skin cancers or prostrate cancer which some are saying may not need aggressive treatment from what little I read. The long waits in the UK you describe does not agree with these stats on wait times:

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

Also, many of our members from Canada are quite pleased with their health care. Also, this study survey shows that US patients have longer waits than those in UK:

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/in-the-literature/2013/nov/pdf_schoen_2013_ihp_survey_chartpack_final.pdf

 

lastly, then there is the fact that if you cannot pay your bills for cancer treatment in the US even when you have insurance then you will not get treatment since it is not considered emergency care. My mom was told that if she could not pay her bills then no radiation and no chemo. In countries with universal healthcare this is not an issue whereas here we have plenty of people who cannot get care, period.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yeah. Well our free k-12 has gotten us a dumber populace than quite a few other nations manage within that age span.

 

If we actually started to get an educated populace for our tax dollars we probably wouldn't be quite so irritated.

 

ETA: and might even consider it worthy of expanding up to colleges.

I agree that schools could do much, much better, but I still don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead let us fight to improve our public schools. I also think it is worth noting that there are many public schools that do well and that many of our state colleges are quite good.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I agree that schools could do much, much better, but I still don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead let us fight to improve our public schools. I also think it is worth noting that there are many public schools that do well and that many of our state colleges are quite good.

 

Agreeing.

 

 

We still have a more educated populace with poor public education instead of no education.

 

 

I'm all for improving public schools, home school is great but it's not a viable option for everyone.

[EmseB]

 

 

 

We still have a more educated populace with poor public education instead of no education.

 

 

I think the disconnect is that when someone talks about public schools being bad the alternative is not "no education" for anyone.  Certainly not.  Just like if someone doesn't support a university being the bequeath-er of tampons doesn't translate to that person not wanting those in need to have menstrual products.  It's a ridiculous assumption to jump to those types of conclusions.

 

Often times people who disagree in these areas simply disagree on the method of best providing these things, not that they are, in fact, good for society at large.  But it's much easier to demonize the other side by insisting they must mean that poor people shouldn't be educated or have tampons or some such nonsense.

 

Also, I don't think that above statement is necessarily true.  What good is a poorly educated populace, for example, if they elect leaders like...um certain candidates now running for president?  That sort of thing, ultimately, does not lead to a better society, or even one that is better for everyone.  If a majority of students graduating are gullible towards populist claims and outright lies, that's a pretty poor indictment on what people consider an "educated populace".

Edited March 21, 2016 by JodiSue

[Haiku]

Yeah. Well our free k-12 has gotten us a dumber populace than quite a few other nations manage within that age span.

 

Here's my opinion, which probably isn't worth much.

 

We try to do too much with our schools.

 

When I lived overseas, the kids were in school for about 4-5 hours a day at the high school level and had four classes. The super-achievers stayed later for an extra class. The kids studied math, science, history, and language. That's it.

 

In the US, schools try to cram seven (and sometimes eight) classes into a day. They sprint through the material at breakneck speed but still rarely finish the book. Students are bouncing from room to room and subject to subject like ping-pong balls, and then they have hours and hours of homework every night.

 

I don't blame kids for being burned out, bored, and disconnected. It's too much.

 

I have long advocated for shorter school days and cutting the fluff. There are too many electives and not enough core classes. The days are too long.

 

Focus on what we really want kids to know instead of trying to offer a smorgasbord and, imo, our level of education will rise.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I think the disconnect is that when someone talks about public schools being bad the alternative is not "no education" for anyone.  Certainly not.  Just like if someone doesn't support a university being the bequeath-er of tampons doesn't translate to that person not wanting those in need to have menstrual products.  It's a ridiculous assumption to jump to those types of conclusions.

 

Often times people who disagree in these areas simply disagree on the method of best providing these things, not that they are, in fact, good for society at large.  But it's much easier to demonize the other side by insisting they must mean that poor people shouldn't be educated or have tampons or some such nonsense.

 

Also, I don't think that above statement is necessarily true.  What good is a poorly educated populace, for example, if they elect leaders like...um certain candidates now running for president?  That sort of thing, ultimately, does not lead to a better society, or even one that is better for everyone.  If a majority of students graduating are gullible towards populist claims and outright lies, that's a pretty poor indictment on what people consider an "educated populace".

 

 

 

Yep. We do disagree on the how. If private parties and charities were able and willing to meet the needs, they already would have.

 

And yep, when I hear that those receiving social welfare of any kind (SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, free tampons) referred to as moochers, freeloaders, scammers, lazy and more....I find it very easy to demonize the other side.

[Bluegoat]

Yep. We do disagree on the how. If private parties and charities were able and willing to meet the needs, they already would have.

 

And yep, when I hear that those receiving social welfare of any kind (SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, free tampons) referred to as moochers, freeloaders, scammers, lazy and more....I find it very easy to demonize the other side.

 

I think that is really simplistic.  There are some needs where private charities do well and are a good method for the purpose.  In other cases they may not be, but there are still very different models for meeting the need in other ways.  Centralization of services doesn't work well for everything and can sometimes have unexpected side effects too. 

 

And some ideas are self-serving.  The idea that a school should as a matter of course provide a personal product for all because sometimes people forget them isn't really about an unmet social need at all. 

[Bluegoat]

Here's my opinion, which probably isn't worth much.

 

We try to do too much with our schools.

 

When I lived overseas, the kids were in school for about 4-5 hours a day at the high school level and had four classes. The super-achievers stayed later for an extra class. The kids studied math, science, history, and language. That's it.

 

In the US, schools try to cram seven (and sometimes eight) classes into a day. They sprint through the material at breakneck speed but still rarely finish the book. Students are bouncing from room to room and subject to subject like ping-pong balls, and then they have hours and hours of homework every night.

 

I don't blame kids for being burned out, bored, and disconnected. It's too much.

 

I have long advocated for shorter school days and cutting the fluff. There are too many electives and not enough core classes. The days are too long.

 

Focus on what we really want kids to know instead of trying to offer a smorgasbord and, imo, our level of education will rise.

 

Yes.

 

Also - the funding models for public education in the US seem very weird.  Depending on where you go it my be funded at different levels in other countries, depending on their needs and social philosophy, but students seem to be funded much more evenly. 

[EmseB]

Yep. We do disagree on the how. If private parties and charities were able and willing to meet the needs, they already would have.

 

And yep, when I hear that those receiving social welfare of any kind (SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, free tampons) referred to as moochers, freeloaders, scammers, lazy and more....I find it very easy to demonize the other side.

 

I guess that's fine, except it doesn't lend to much discussion on a board like this.

 

I mean, I can disagree with your assertions without assuming the worst about you (general you), but if that only works one way then why even bother?  Just to come on and chastise people with logically fallacious arguments doesn't seem worth it to me.

[maize]

 

Here's my opinion, which probably isn't worth much.

 

We try to do too much with our schools.

 

When I lived overseas, the kids were in school for about 4-5 hours a day at the high school level and had four classes. The super-achievers stayed later for an extra class. The kids studied math, science, history, and language. That's it.

 

In the US, schools try to cram seven (and sometimes eight) classes into a day. They sprint through the material at breakneck speed but still rarely finish the book. Students are bouncing from room to room and subject to subject like ping-pong balls, and then they have hours and hours of homework every night.

 

I don't blame kids for being burned out, bored, and disconnected. It's too much.

 

I have long advocated for shorter school days and cutting the fluff. There are too many electives and not enough core classes. The days are too long.

 

Focus on what we really want kids to know instead of trying to offer a smorgasbord and, imo, our level of education will rise.

French schools have longer days and at least as many subjects as ours.

 

Not that I want to emulate the French school system, just pointing out that we are not the only ones trying to pack a lot in and sending our kids from class to class. My schedule in French public middle school included French, history/geography, music, technology, PE, two foreign languages, life science, physical science, art, and math. School ran from 9:00-5:00, and the schedule was different every day.

Edited March 21, 2016 by maize

[Upward Journey]

French schools have longer days and at least as many subjects as ours.

 

Not that I want to emulate the French school system, just pointing out that we are not the only ones trying to pack a lot in and sending our kids from class to class. My schedule in French public middle school included French, history/geography, music, technology, PE, two foreign languages, life science, physical science, art, and math. School ran from 9:00-5:00, and the schedule was different every day.

 

My children in Canadian high school also have just as many subjects as their American (US) counterparts (over the course of the school year).  The difference is that most of their subjects are semestered, so they only have 4 classes each term. There are optional periods before and after "official" school hours if they want to add more subjects, but they're not required to.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Upward Journey

[Bluegoat]

My children in Canadian high school also have just as many subjects as their American (US) counterparts (over the course of the school year).  The difference is that most of their subjects are semestered, so they only have 4 classes each term. There are optional periods before and after "official" school hours if they want to add more subjects, but they're not required to.

 

Our system tends to have a lot of the same problems as the American one though.  It's probably not a good example of an alternate approach.  I'd say the same for the British system.  There are some interesting differences but they seem to share a strong family resemblance compared to, say, European models.

[MSNative]

I am sorry your family had these experiences but I wonder if they had a very slow form of cancer such as some skin cancers or prostrate cancer which some are saying may not need aggressive treatment from what little I read. The long waits in the UK you describe does not agree with these stats on wait times:

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer/Pages/Introduction.aspx

 

Also, many of our members from Canada are quite pleased with their health care. Also, this study survey shows that US patients have longer waits than those in UK:

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/in-the-literature/2013/nov/pdf_schoen_2013_ihp_survey_chartpack_final.pdf

 

lastly, then there is the fact that if you cannot pay your bills for cancer treatment in the US even when you have insurance then you will not get treatment since it is not considered emergency care. My mom was told that if she could not pay her bills then no radiation and no chemo. In countries with universal healthcare this is not an issue whereas here we have plenty of people who cannot get care, period.

It was a fast spreading cancer that had already killed one member of my family.

 

I'm sorry you don't seem to believe me. I know that the official documents show that there shouldn't be long wait times but even current data shows there are still unacceptably long wait times.

 

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/11/12/unacceptable-cancer-waiting-times-are-testing-patients-patience/

"This is particularly a problem in some cancers and not others. And breaking these figures down by cancer type shows that only breast cancer and skin cancer patients met the 62 day target during financial year 2014-15. Patients with other cancer types – notably lung cancer, lower gastrointestinal cancers (such as bowel cancer) and urological cancers (such as bladder and prostate cancers) were failed."

 

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Aboutus/News/Latest_News/CONTINUOUSBREACHOFCANCERWAITINGTIMESRISKINGLIVES.aspx

"Dr Fran Woodard, Director of Policy and Research at Macmillan Cancer Support, says:

 

“Once again we see an unacceptable and recurring problem within our healthcare system as the cancer waiting times target has been breached for the fifth time in a row. People with cancer are having to wait too long for access to treatment and their lives are being put at risk - this simply cannot continue

 

“Today’s figures are yet another warning sign that cancer in this country is not fixed. The NHS is under pressure and there is an urgent need for a coordinated effort across the system to address these delays.'"

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802344/condemned-die-waiting-list-shambles-day-3-mail-s-expose-welsh-nhs.html

"Kirsty Williams, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats said: 'These figures are nothing short of a national disgrace. It is completely unacceptable that nearly 1,400 people are being forced to wait over a year before being treated."

 

 

I'm glad some people are happy with their healthcare. My experience and the experiences of many others show that all systems have problems. I'm sorry your mother had that experience. That is not right. Was she able to challenge it? That seems horribly wrong. But your final statement is incorrect. Unfortunately in countries with universal healthcare some people are not getting care either. It is wrong in both systems.

Edited March 21, 2016 by MSNative

[MSNative]

French schools have longer days and at least as many subjects as ours.

 

Not that I want to emulate the French school system, just pointing out that we are not the only ones trying to pack a lot in and sending our kids from class to class. My schedule in French public middle school included French, history/geography, music, technology, PE, two foreign languages, life science, physical science, art, and math. School ran from 9:00-5:00, and the schedule was different every day.

Yep that sounds like my experience with French schools too. And there was a lot of homework too. I would love to see our American schools be more like French schools in many ways.

[TranquilMind]

The countries that come to mind when I think of "no-tuition college for all academically eligible students" do require young people to work, though, or at least some of them do.  Some of them include a year or more of "work study" type experience in addition to academics, before they can graduate.  Some of them won't train you for anything other than a trade if you aren't academic enough by 9th or 10th grade, and then you go to work instead of college.  Some of them have free or very cheap tuition for those who test well, but because of the economic realities, only people from well-to-do families can participate in that.  So the reality is that most young adults (and teens too) have to work.  So I don't know what's so special about young adult Americans that makes work just too much to ask of them.

No kidding.  You have to work your patootie off.  Most Americans can't even directly enter some European universities without a "make up" year first.  Our students are behind their norm, in many areas. 

 

(One of mine directly entered a European University.  This one said the first round of exams for first years was more difficult than every single American university exam or AP exam this one had taken, approximately 14 exams in this case, several at the 400 University level.  Of course it was in another language too, which may have skewed that result, but still, 50 of the 70 mostly native students who began in this core of classes dropped out because they couldn't do it or didnt' take it seriously enough). 

 

It's no joke. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by TranquilMind

[MotherGoose]

Whenever I think about government run healthcare, I think of the abysmal job our government does with health care for our veterans. Why would we think they'd do a better job for the general population?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Whenever I think about government run healthcare, I think of the abysmal job our government does with health care for our veterans. Why would we think they'd do a better job for the general population?

Yes but look at Medicare. I would wager a lot of seniors are thrilled to have Medicare. I know it saved my parents lives and gave them many more options for treatment and doctors. I want Medicare for all and I honestly don't think that anyone wanting universal healthcare wants government run facilities but instead envision something along the lines of medicare for all.

[SKL]

Yes but look at Medicare. I would wager a lot of seniors are thrilled to have Medicare. I know it saved my parents lives and gave them many more options for treatment and doctors. I want Medicare for all and I honestly don't think that anyone wanting universal healthcare wants government run facilities but instead envision something along the lines of medicare for all.

 

The people I know on Medicare have many problems with it.  And there is nothing they can do about it at this point.  They have no choice.

 

All the people I know who have family in both Canada and US have seen significant problems with Canadian health care.   Multi-year waits for things that affect life quality.  How does a developed country explain a multi-year wait as unavoidable?

 

The fact is that nobody has it perfect.  The grass always seems greener on the other side, but it isn't better, just different.

 

The knee-jerk reaction to compare our system (education, health, whatever) to other countries is really more of a distraction than anything else.  The US system is different at a basic level.  Our political process is too different to just graft some European practice onto it.

 

But speaking of how other countries do it, what would be the reaction in any of those countries to the link in the OP?  Are young adults in other countries as eager about being treated like children as some are here?  Or would this sort of thing embarrass them?

 

[Bluegoat]

The people I know on Medicare have many problems with it.  And there is nothing they can do about it at this point.  They have no choice.

 

All the people I know who have family in both Canada and US have seen significant problems with Canadian health care.   Multi-year waits for things that affect life quality.  How does a developed country explain a multi-year wait as unavoidable?

 

The fact is that nobody has it perfect.  The grass always seems greener on the other side, but it isn't better, just different.

 

The knee-jerk reaction to compare our system (education, health, whatever) to other countries is really more of a distraction than anything else.  The US system is different at a basic level.  Our political process is too different to just graft some European practice onto it.

 

But speaking of how other countries do it, what would be the reaction in any of those countries to the link in the OP?  Are young adults in other countries as eager about being treated like children as some are here?  Or would this sort of thing embarrass them?

 

 

I don't know that I would say the grass is always greener on the other side.  You can measure people's satisfaction levels with their system. 

 

If you compare the US, UK, and Canada, satisfaction rates are:

 

Very satisfied:

US - 6%

Canada - 16%

UK - 7%

 

Somewhat satisfied:

US - 19%

Canada - 41%

UK - 36%

 

Somewhat dissatisfied:

US - 28%

Canada - 24%

UK - 27%

 

Very dissatisfied:

US - 44%

Canada - 17%

UK - 25%

 

As far as satisfaction, across a variety of European countries, Canada, Australia, and the US, Americans are twice as likely to think the whole system needs to be scrapped.  Wait times are worst in Canada and the UK, but Americans are much more likely than any others to report access problems and simply forego care.  In many other countries besides Canada and the UK access is as quick or quicker than the US.  The US spends about twice as much per capita as the next most spendy country (that being Canada.)  Outcomes are fairly similar in all systems.

 

So I don't think we are really so poorly as to have to guess that people just want what they haven't got, or that all the systems have problems.  There is a fair bit of data to show that some systems are more effective than others.

[MSNative]

I don't rely on satisfaction surveys as satisfaction is not well defined. People all have different expectations, requirements, etc. They are like approval ratings. I may not approve of a certain politician because I think his/her policies are wacky or becasue I don't think he/she is pushing hard enough to implement the policies. You can't tell which just by my disapproval.

There are some solid data points that we can use to compare health care systems. Wait times, quality of care, access to care, etc.

One major problem though: universal healthcare is like a car. There are so many different models. Just because one works for one country doesn't mean it will be implemented in the same way or meet the demands of the people in other countries.

And as a pp mentioned, our VA does a terrible job. After all the scandals and problems came to light very little was fixed. We still have terrible care for our veterans. Wikipedia has a good overview of the problem for those who havent heard of the VA scandals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration_scandal_of_2014

[Upward Journey]

The people I know on Medicare have many problems with it.  And there is nothing they can do about it at this point.  They have no choice.

 

All the people I know who have family in both Canada and US have seen significant problems with Canadian health care.   Multi-year waits for things that affect life quality.  How does a developed country explain a multi-year wait as unavoidable?

 

The fact is that nobody has it perfect.  The grass always seems greener on the other side, but it isn't better, just different.

 

The knee-jerk reaction to compare our system (education, health, whatever) to other countries is really more of a distraction than anything else.  The US system is different at a basic level.  Our political process is too different to just graft some European practice onto it.

 

But speaking of how other countries do it, what would be the reaction in any of those countries to the link in the OP?  Are young adults in other countries as eager about being treated like children as some are here?  Or would this sort of thing embarrass them?

 

 

I always hear people saying this in the states. But, having lived under the US system almost my entire life, and now experiencing the Canadian system firsthand, I vastly prefer the Canadian model.

[SKL]

I don't know that I would say the grass is always greener on the other side.  You can measure people's satisfaction levels with their system. 

 

If you compare the US, UK, and Canada, satisfaction rates are:

 

Very satisfied:

US - 6%

Canada - 16%

UK - 7%

 

Somewhat satisfied:

US - 19%

Canada - 41%

UK - 36%

 

Somewhat dissatisfied:

US - 28%

Canada - 24%

UK - 27%

 

Very dissatisfied:

US - 44%

Canada - 17%

UK - 25%

 

As far as satisfaction, across a variety of European countries, Canada, Australia, and the US, Americans are twice as likely to think the whole system needs to be scrapped.  Wait times are worst in Canada and the UK, but Americans are much more likely than any others to report access problems and simply forego care.  In many other countries besides Canada and the UK access is as quick or quicker than the US.  The US spends about twice as much per capita as the next most spendy country (that being Canada.)  Outcomes are fairly similar in all systems.

 

So I don't think we are really so poorly as to have to guess that people just want what they haven't got, or that all the systems have problems.  There is a fair bit of data to show that some systems are more effective than others.

 

And again, you really are comparing apples to oranges, because the US has had a completely different conversation in recent years.  There has been constant rhetoric to tell the US people that they should be dissatisfied - fueled largely by he politicians who have been in charge in recent years.  I doubt the Canadian government is encouraging Canadians to feel dissatisfied with their current system.

 

Satisfaction levels are very subjective.

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

I hate to be a distraction by reverting to the original topic, but didn't these young ladies HAVE an effective feminine hygiene system in place years before going to college? Why are they transferring responsibility now? It sounds like they funneled a lot of energy into a dud of a cause because it was the one they could think of.

[Haiku]

And again, you really are comparing apples to oranges, because the US has had a completely different conversation in recent years.  There has been constant rhetoric to tell the US people that they should be dissatisfied - fueled largely by he politicians who have been in charge in recent years. 

 

I disagree. The conversation has been fueled by people who have realized that their healthcare is too expensive and that they have no control over decisions that are made by for-profit companies whose interests lie in making money for their shareholders, not in providing effective, efficient, affordable care. 

[Haiku]

I hate to be a distraction by reverting to the original topic, but didn't these young ladies HAVE an effective feminine hygiene system in place years before going to college? Why are they transferring responsibility now? It sounds like they funneled a lot of energy into a dud of a cause because it was the one they could think of.

 

Yup. I learned how to deal with my period in the 8th grade, when I started getting it.

[maize]

Yup. I learned how to deal with my period in the 8th grade, when I started getting it.

You got to wait until 8th grade? Lucky!

 

(5th grade here...)

[Haiku]

You got to wait until 8th grade? Lucky!

 

(5th grade here...)

 

Yup. My mom didn't get hers until 10th grade!

[SKL]

Yup. I learned how to deal with my period in the 8th grade, when I started getting it.

 

I'm wondering if Miss Columbia's mom always packed her previous backpacks so she never had to worry about such things.

 

I kinda hope not, but ....

 

I got mine in the 8th grade too.  Our tampons were purchased with the groceries (by my dad when I was 13), but it was my business to keep supplies on me when I needed them.  I used to put them in my tube socks since I didn't carry a purse.  :P

[Reefgazer]

I'm not touting government run healthcare with this comment (I'm generally a low-government interference type), but we have military health care and it is totally government-run and government-administered, and I have gotten top-quality, prompt care for 20+ years on it.  Sometimes, they offer me an appointment that day and in so immediate a time that I can't make it in that short a time-frame and need to get a later appointment.  I think the difference between the VA and military medicine for AD and retirees is funding.  The VA is so poorly funded it can't function, whereas if something has enough money to function (like military health care) it will do well.  I also think the excellent health care I receive is due to a facility running with military precision and expectations (I don't think that is the norm).

Whenever I think about government run healthcare, I think of the abysmal job our government does with health care for our veterans. Why would we think they'd do a better job for the general population?

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by reefgazer

[EmseB]

I'm not touting government run healthcare with this comment (I'm generally a low-government interference type), but we have military health care and it is totally government-run and government-administered, and I have gotten top-quality, prompt care for 20+ years on it. Sometimes, they offer me an appointment that day and in so immediate a time that I can't make it in that short a time-frame and need to get a later appointment. I think the difference between the VA and military medicine for AD and retirees is funding. The VA is so poorly funded it can't function, whereas if something has enough money to function (like military health care) it will do well. I also think the excellent health care I receive is due to a facility running with military precision and expectations (I don't think that is the norm).

I would have said the same thing until recently. My AD husband ended up hospitalized (twice!) because of appointment wait times with our military clinic. Since that happened to him, three or four other people have relayed anecdotes to us about the same thing happening to them. They and we had no trouble getting follow up appointments after getting critically ill and being discharged from hospital, but were given 21-30 day wait times for acute issues. I've come to realize that there is a ton of reliance on emergency room care in a lot of places in the military.

 

In general, I think if you are stationed near a great, or even good-ish, MTF then you're probably going to be ok. At satellite clinics or remote? It can well and truly suck.

Edited March 22, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

And again, you really are comparing apples to oranges, because the US has had a completely different conversation in recent years.  There has been constant rhetoric to tell the US people that they should be dissatisfied - fueled largely by he politicians who have been in charge in recent years.  I doubt the Canadian government is encouraging Canadians to feel dissatisfied with their current system.

 

Satisfaction levels are very subjective.

 

 

 

There was a serious lack of confidence in health care well before the last few years, and since then there have been huge amounts of money directed toward convincing people that any form of universal health care is bad.

 

If satisfaction is subjective then these arguments that get trotted out that people in universal systems are unhappy shouldn't matter either. (Assuming they were true which generally isn't actually the case.)

 

In any case, patient wait times, cost per capita, patient access and numbers forgoeing care, and patient outcomes are not subjective.

[OnMyOwn]

Yes but look at Medicare. I would wager a lot of seniors are thrilled to have Medicare. I know it saved my parents lives and gave them many more options for treatment and doctors. I want Medicare for all and I honestly don't think that anyone wanting universal healthcare wants government run facilities but instead envision something along the lines of medicare for all.

And I know that many are not thrilled. My parents certainly weren't pleased when they were forced onto medicare from the private plan they had at the age of 65. And they certainly weren't happy when they had to leave the practice of one of their favorite doctors because he does not accept medicare, which is a pretty common occurrence.

Edited March 22, 2016 by OnMyOwn

[Reefgazer]

Yes, this is definitely key, along with the funding.  Being willing to send a patient outside the MTF when there is over-crowding (as ours does) is also key.  We go to Portsmouth Naval; very crowded and for certain things (like dermatology) you are automatically referred outside.  But for routine acute care when we get sick, we get an appointment that day if we want it. 

I would have said the same thing until recently. My AD husband ended up hospitalized (twice!) because of appointment wait times with our military clinic. Since that happened to him, three or four other people have relayed anecdotes to us about the same thing happening to them. They and we had no trouble getting follow up appointments after getting critically ill and being discharged from hospital, but were given 21-30 day wait times for acute issues. I've come to realize that there is a ton of reliance on emergency room care in a lot of places in the military.

In general, I think if you are stationed near a great, or even good-ish, MTF then you're probably going to be ok. At satellite clinics or remote? It can well and truly suck.

 

[OnMyOwn]

I disagree. The conversation has been fueled by people who have realized that their healthcare is too expensive and that they have no control over decisions that are made by for-profit companies whose interests lie in making money for their shareholders, not in providing effective, efficient, affordable care.

And yet, in my world, it has only become magnified by 1000 since the government stepped in to improve things. For the first time ever in my life, I am thinking of discontinuing a treatment that has greatly benefitted both of my children (allergy shots) or not seeking treatment with a specialist because of cost. And if I didn't feel like I had much control over decisions made by a for-profit company, I certainly don't feel like I have any control where the government and it's many layers of bureacracy are concerned. In fact, the government's actions seem to have greatly empowered the private companies and taken away some of the influence the consumer did have. Not saying it was perfect the way it was, but things are much worse for my family now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

And I know that many are not thrilled. My parents certainly weren't pleased when they were forced onto medicare from the private plan they had at the age of 65. And they certainly weren't happy when they had to leave the practice of one of their favorite doctors because he does not accept medicare, which is a pretty common occurrence.

If I am not mistaken the reason medicare was started was because private insurers did not want to insure seniors back in the day and I am pretty sure they would rather not even now if allowed to do so since they are more expensive to insure. 

 

Additionally, prior to ACA insurance companies happily dropped people left and right who they thought were high risks and or refused to insure anyone they thought was high risk which happened in my family for ridiculous reasons. So IMHO I am grateful Medicare is there since I am pretty sure private insurers motivated by profit only will not step up to the plate to insure seniors unless a gun is put to their head so to speak.

Edited March 22, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

And yet, in my world, it has only become magnified by 1000 since the government stepped in to improve things. For the first time ever in my life, I am thinking of discontinuing a treatment that has greatly benefitted both of my children (allergy shots) or not seeking treatment with a specialist because of cost. And if I didn't feel like I had much control over decisions made by a for-profit company, I certainly don't feel like I have any control where the government and it's many layers of bureacracy are concerned. In fact, the government's actions seem to have greatly empowered the private companies and taken away some of the influence the consumer did have. Not saying it was perfect the way it was, but things are much worse for my family now.

I am sorry it is worse for your family. Unfortunately, it has been getting worse every year decades prior to the ACA went into effect. Insurance premiums were increasing in the 1990s by 20 to 50% according the hopsital CEO were I worked and consequently our health insurance costed more and more each year with less and less benefits. My own parents went without insurance for 3 years prior to the law since they could not afford it and it was harrowing. My son and I were refused health insurance prior to the ACA because we were seen as to too risky health wise which was laughable since we were fairly healthy and we never had any gaps in health insurance.

 

The current ACA health care law was envisioned by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative right think tank for the record. Many on the left wanted universal health care like medicare for all or a public health care insurance option for the healthcare marketplaces to be available to all but those ideas were shot down by those on the right:( Hopefully, we can get to where many countries are and not have to worry about not seeing specialists or getting the treatment we need:(

 

:grouphug:

[Reefgazer]

I know so many people in this position, as well.  Their insurance covers more, but they have to pay so much for it they can't afford the routine copays now, where they could before.  ACA just took from some people and gave to others (big surprise :001_rolleyes: ).

And yet, in my world, it has only become magnified by 1000 since the government stepped in to improve things. For the first time ever in my life, I am thinking of discontinuing a treatment that has greatly benefitted both of my children (allergy shots) or not seeking treatment with a specialist because of cost. And if I didn't feel like I had much control over decisions made by a for-profit company, I certainly don't feel like I have any control where the government and it's many layers of bureacracy are concerned. In fact, the government's actions seem to have greatly empowered the private companies and taken away some of the influence the consumer did have. Not saying it was perfect the way it was, but things are much worse for my family now.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know so many people in this position, as well. Their insurance covers more, but they have to pay so much for it they can't afford the routine copays now, where they could before. ACA just took from some people and gave to others (big surprise :001_rolleyes: ).

One point though - insurance rates and copays were already increasing rapidly prior to the ACA. Blaming all increases after the ACA on that legislation and ignoring rate activity over the past two decades is extremely misleading.

[TranquilMind]

And yet, in my world, it has only become magnified by 1000 since the government stepped in to improve things. For the first time ever in my life, I am thinking of discontinuing a treatment that has greatly benefitted both of my children (allergy shots) or not seeking treatment with a specialist because of cost. And if I didn't feel like I had much control over decisions made by a for-profit company, I certainly don't feel like I have any control where the government and it's many layers of bureacracy are concerned. In fact, the government's actions seem to have greatly empowered the private companies and taken away some of the influence the consumer did have. Not saying it was perfect the way it was, but things are much worse for my family now.

I've heard this story a thousand times. 

 

I've just lived it too.  We just completed payment (to four different entities) for the surgery a family member had recently.  We had to pay cash because of the ridiculous amount of bureaucracy involved.  We weren't willing to let the person just stay sick while jumping through their stupid hoops.  Thankfully, living below our means (or below what most do with our means, more accurately, as no one who owes a dime is living below his means) came in handy at this moment.  We could do it. 

 

So over it.  I'm old enough to remember when insurance was useful and really helped you when you needed it. 

[TranquilMind]

I am sorry it is worse for your family. Unfortunately, it has been getting worse every year decades prior to the ACA went into effect. Insurance premiums were increasing in the 1990s by 20 to 50% according the hopsital CEO were I worked and consequently our health insurance costed more and more each year with less and less benefits. My own parents went without insurance for 3 years prior to the law since they could not afford it and it was harrowing. My son and I were refused health insurance prior to the ACA because we were seen as to too risky health wise which was laughable since we were fairly healthy and we never had any gaps in health insurance.

 

The current ACA health care law was envisioned by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative right think tank for the record. Many on the left wanted universal health care like medicare for all or a public health care insurance option for the healthcare marketplaces to be available to all but those ideas were shot down by those on the right:( Hopefully, we can get to where many countries are and not have to worry about not seeing specialists or getting the treatment we need:(

 

:grouphug:

 

 

So people can afford it now?  Not likely, unless they are below the poverty line or getting it subsidized by the government. 

 

We are all paying more for considerably less coverage now, except for a few with preexisting conditions, who couldn't afford it, but now can with a subsidy (or perhaps a few without).    I'm glad for them, but everyone else got screwed. 

 

The thing is, if you still can't afford it, you are now penalized by a huge fine by the government for not being able to afford it. 

[TranquilMind]

One point though - insurance rates and copays were already increasing rapidly prior to the ACA. Blaming all increases after the ACA on that legislation and ignoring rate activity over the past two decades is extremely misleading.

Rates were increasing.  But now the coverage is worse, the deductibles and premiums are higher, and you get fined a whopping amount if you still can't afford to pay. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Rates were increasing. But now the coverage is worse, the deductibles and premiums are higher, and you get fined a whopping amount if you still can't afford to pay.

1.) Coverage is not worse for everyone. And again, prior to the ACA some plans were already being scaled back.

2.) Premiums are rates, which was previously addressed. It should be noted that the average premium increase is lower over the past 4 years. Deductibles have seen an increase, but again, deductibles had been climbing in recent years.

3.) Those who truly can't afford coverage will likely qualify for an exemption.

 

Personally, I am not overly fond of the ACA as I believe it has left numerous gaps that prevent people from accessing affordable coverage, and I don't believe enough was done to control premiums. It would be really cool if Congress actually tried to fix it rather than scrap it, but unfortunately that is not how our system works.

[TranquilMind]

1.) Coverage is not worse for everyone. And again, prior to the ACA some plans were already being scaled back.

2.) Premiums are rates, which was previously addressed. It should be noted that the average premium increase is lower over the past 4 years. Deductibles have seen an increase, but again, deductibles had been climbing in recent years.

3.) Those who truly can't afford coverage will likely qualify for an exemption.

 

Personally, I am not overly fond of the ACA as I believe it has left numerous gaps that prevent people from accessing affordable coverage, and I don't believe enough was done to control premiums. It would be really cool if Congress actually tried to fix it rather than scrap it, but unfortunately that is not how our system works.

Yes, coverage is far worse for almost everyone.  Prices have gone through the roof, deductibles are insane  - like $5000 and up per person, in general (ours is $12,500 per family, $4500 a person, I think it was just bumped to).  $4500 A PERSON.  Unless you have a catastrophic year, you won't ever use anything near that.  It is merely a Robin Hood scheme, without consent.    A few comments from this article about worse coverage and insane deductibles: 

 

In terms of worse coverage: 

In the process of trying to make medical care cheaper for those with pre-existing conditions, Obamacare has made most enrollees worse off than prior to the Affordable Care Act. Paradoxically, they are even worse off than being uninsured.

Indeed, deductibles in the exchange have risen to the point that most enrollees pay virtually all their routine medical needs out of pocket. With deductibles of $5,000 or more becoming common, Obamacare is becoming little more than a sickness tax on people who don’t expect to reach their deductibles. It’s an unofficial tax on most enrollees to reward insurers and offset some of the cost of insuring the few people with major health conditions. That is not an efficient way to subsidize medical care.

 

In terms of the astronomical deductibles: 

 

 

For many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.

“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,†said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.†…

“We could not afford the deductible,†said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.â€

He dropped his policy. …

“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,†said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.â€

Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700. …

Alexis C. Phillips, 29, of Houston, is the kind of consumer federal officials would like to enroll this fall. But after reviewing the available plans, she said, she concluded: “The deductibles are ridiculously high. I will never be able to go over the deductible unless something catastrophic happened to me. I’m better off not purchasing that insurance and saving the money in case something bad happens.†  (bolded emphasis mine)

 

 

Average premiums is skyrocketing.  I see you actually carefully worded that to say "average premium INCREASE".  Well, sure, when you have the government holding a metaphorical gun to the citizens' heads, demanding they buy a ridiculously expensive product whether they see utility in it or not, you can then scale back your graft (yes, insurance companies - I'm looking at you).  The government has done it for you and the money is rolling in to insurance company coffers.   

 

No, people who cannot afford it are not getting out of it, in any large numbers. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by TranquilMind

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, coverage is far worse for almost everyone. Prices have gone through the roof, deductibles are insane - like $5000 and up per person, in general (ours is $12,500 per family, $4500 a person, I think it was just bumped to). $4500 A PERSON. Unless you have a catastrophic year, you won't ever use anything near that. It is merely a Robin Hood scheme, without consent. A few comments from this article about worse coverage and insane deductibles:

For many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.

“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,†said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.†…

“We could not afford the deductible,†said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.â€

He dropped his policy. …

“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,†said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.â€

Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700. …

Alexis C. Phillips, 29, of Houston, is the kind of consumer federal officials would like to enroll this fall. But after reviewing the available plans, she said, she concluded: “The deductibles are ridiculously high. I will never be able to go over the deductible unless something catastrophic happened to me. I’m better off not purchasing that insurance and saving the money in case something bad happens.†(bolded emphasis mine)

 

 

Average premiums is skyrocketing. I see you actually carefully worded that to say "average premium INCREASE". Well, sure, when you have the government holding a metaphorical gun to the citizens' heads, demanding they buy a ridiculously expensive product whether they see utility in it or not, you can then scale back your graft (yes, insurance companies - I'm looking at you). The government has done it for you and the money is rolling in to insurance company coffers.

 

No, people who cannot afford it are not getting out of it, in any large numbers.

Sounds like we are in agreement that universal coverage is needed. Nice to have you on board.

[TranquilMind]

Sounds like we are in agreement that universal coverage is needed. Nice to have you on board.

So long as insurance companies are eliminated and the power is in the hands of the people to make decisions, not some administration, sure.

 

Not bloodly likely that is happening.  Insurance companies own lots of politicians.  Like the joke goes, Congressional members should be required to wear suits indicating who has funded them, like race car drivers. 

[LMD]

For the record, I'm thrilled with our universal health care and I've always been treated well. As is most everyone I know. Threads like these remind me how lucky we are here.

I do pay for my own sanitary products though.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, coverage is far worse for almost everyone.  Prices have gone through the roof, deductibles are insane  - like $5000 and up per person, in general (ours is $12,500 per family, $4500 a person, I think it was just bumped to).  $4500 A PERSON.  Unless you have a catastrophic year, you won't ever use anything near that.  It is merely a Robin Hood scheme, without consent.    A few comments from this article about worse coverage and insane deductibles: 

 

In terms of worse coverage: 

In the process of trying to make medical care cheaper for those with pre-existing conditions, Obamacare has made most enrollees worse off than prior to the Affordable Care Act. Paradoxically, they are even worse off than being uninsured.

Indeed, deductibles in the exchange have risen to the point that most enrollees pay virtually all their routine medical needs out of pocket. With deductibles of $5,000 or more becoming common, Obamacare is becoming little more than a sickness tax on people who don’t expect to reach their deductibles. It’s an unofficial tax on most enrollees to reward insurers and offset some of the cost of insuring the few people with major health conditions. That is not an efficient way to subsidize medical care.

 

In terms of the astronomical deductibles: 

 

 

For many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.

“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,†said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.†…

“We could not afford the deductible,†said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.â€

He dropped his policy. …

“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,†said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.â€

Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700. …

Alexis C. Phillips, 29, of Houston, is the kind of consumer federal officials would like to enroll this fall. But after reviewing the available plans, she said, she concluded: “The deductibles are ridiculously high. I will never be able to go over the deductible unless something catastrophic happened to me. I’m better off not purchasing that insurance and saving the money in case something bad happens.†  (bolded emphasis mine)

 

 

Average premiums is skyrocketing.  I see you actually carefully worded that to say "average premium INCREASE".  Well, sure, when you have the government holding a metaphorical gun to the citizens' heads, demanding they buy a ridiculously expensive product whether they see utility in it or not, you can then scale back your graft (yes, insurance companies - I'm looking at you).  The government has done it for you and the money is rolling in to insurance company coffers.   

 

No, people who cannot afford it are not getting out of it, in any large numbers. 

 

Just for fun, I decided to see what the most recent survey data indicated for health insurance costs for employers.  The Kaiser surver of employer benefits is a great starting point due to their sample size.

 

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-summary-of-findings/

 

In 2015 they found:

--No significant change in the number of employees eligible or in the number using coverage from 2014.

--Premiums increased an average of 4%.  (Note: slightly higher than inflation, but significantly lower than the 10%+ average increases in the early and mid-2000s.

--Premiums for family coverage increased 27% from 2010-2015, the same rate as 2005-2010, but lower than the 69% increase from 2000-2005.

--Average deductibles for single coverage have increased to $1318 from $1217 in 2014.  (Note: well below the average you cite.)

The likelihood of a high deductible is directly related to the size of company that supplies the benefit.

 

Based on the above, there is zero evidence that people are fleeing employer sponsored plans, or that by and large employers were eliminating their plans.

 

I did notice that although you talk about "everyone" in your post, the quotes were all about ACA coverage.  Breaking down the ACA numbers is more difficult, as the state exchanges vary so greatly, and the deductible is often related to the plan cost.  But let's see what we can do, shall we?

 

Starting here:

https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/2016-obamacare-premiums-deductibles#.VvGwrHry3vs

 

We can see the average 2015 and 2016 premiums and deductibles by tier.  What stands out is yes, we have seen premium increases around in the low double digits, and deductibles at the lower tiers that are over $3000. At the higher coverages we do see deductibles more in line with private insurance averages.

 

Remember what I said about how using averages here is difficult?  Let's take a closer look first at the states.

Our friends at Kaiser again did a small study to see if they could make sense out of what is going on.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

 

You can read the link for yourself, but in summary, they found:

"However, the patterns in these 10 states and DC, where more complete information is available, suggest that the premiums for the two lowest-cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are not necessarily increasing, and where they are increasing, the growth has generally been moderate."

 

I am still looking for something more updated that takes in to account consumers being able to change plans to see what the actuall effective premium and deductible changes are for 2016.

 

In general, some states have MUCH better marketplace alternatives under the ACA, so national averages will always be a little misleading, and can hide what is actually working in some areas.

 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

1.) Coverage is not worse for everyone. And again, prior to the ACA some plans were already being scaled back.

2.) Premiums are rates, which was previously addressed. It should be noted that the average premium increase is lower over the past 4 years. Deductibles have seen an increase, but again, deductibles had been climbing in recent years.

3.) Those who truly can't afford coverage will likely qualify for an exemption.

 

Personally, I am not overly fond of the ACA as I believe it has left numerous gaps that prevent people from accessing affordable coverage, and I don't believe enough was done to control premiums. It would be really cool if Congress actually tried to fix it rather than scrap it, but unfortunately that is not how our system works.

 

I'd like to see your source material for numbers one and two. 

[TranquilMind]

Just for fun, I decided to see what the most recent survey data indicated for health insurance costs for employers.  The Kaiser surver of employer benefits is a great starting point due to their sample size.

 

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-summary-of-findings/

 

In 2015 they found:

--No significant change in the number of employees eligible or in the number using coverage from 2014.

--Premiums increased an average of 4%.  (Note: slightly higher than inflation, but significantly lower than the 10%+ average increases in the early and mid-2000s.

--Premiums for family coverage increased 27% from 2010-2015, the same rate as 2005-2010, but lower than the 69% increase from 2000-2005.

--Average deductibles for single coverage have increased to $1318 from $1217 in 2014.  (Note: well below the average you cite.)

The likelihood of a high deductible is directly related to the size of company that supplies the benefit.

 

Based on the above, there is zero evidence that people are fleeing employer sponsored plans, or that by and large employers were eliminating their plans.

 

I did notice that although you talk about "everyone" in your post, the quotes were all about ACA coverage.  Breaking down the ACA numbers is more difficult, as the state exchanges vary so greatly, and the deductible is often related to the plan cost.  But let's see what we can do, shall we?

 

Starting here:

https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/2016-obamacare-premiums-deductibles#.VvGwrHry3vs

 

We can see the average 2015 and 2016 premiums and deductibles by tier.  What stands out is yes, we have seen premium increases around in the low double digits, and deductibles at the lower tiers that are over $3000. At the higher coverages we do see deductibles more in line with private insurance averages.

 

Remember what I said about how using averages here is difficult?  Let's take a closer look first at the states.

Our friends at Kaiser again did a small study to see if they could make sense out of what is going on.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

 

You can read the link for yourself, but in summary, they found:

"However, the patterns in these 10 states and DC, where more complete information is available, suggest that the premiums for the two lowest-cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are not necessarily increasing, and where they are increasing, the growth has generally been moderate."

 

I am still looking for something more updated that takes in to account consumers being able to change plans to see what the actuall effective premium and deductible changes are for 2016.

 

In general, some states have MUCH better marketplace alternatives under the ACA, so national averages will always be a little misleading, and can hide what is actually working in some areas.

Well, sure, in 2015, when everyone in the country who had not yet bought insurance was threatened with a rising fine.    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.   When you merely rearrange the numbers, and "reduce" your premium cost by demanding unaffordable deductibles, the proponent can claim "lower premiums" yet the person is still more burdened than ever financially. 

The truth is that it is unaffordable by almost all standards, for those who have to pay for it: 

 

"For the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for job-based family coverage rose a relatively modest 4 percent, reflecting slowed health spending.  (SURE, BECAUSE IT IS A GOVERNMENT DEMAND WITH A PENALTY NOW.  Pay or we will extract it!)

 

Nonetheless, workers are likely to feel an increased pinch from health care costs: More than a third have annual deductibles of at least $1,000 this year before their insurance kicks in, while wages continue to grow far more slowly than health insurance costs.

 

The average family plan premium topped $16,000 for the first time, with workers paying on average $4,565 toward that cost, not counting copays and deductibles, according to a survey of about 2,000 employers released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

 

The average cost of a single employee’s insurance premiums rose 5 percent, to $5,884, with workers paying an average of $999, the survey found. Workers’ wages increased 1.8 percent on average, while general inflation rose 1.1 percent. The survey was done between January and May of this year.

 

“The premium increase this year is very moderate, but the pain factor for health insurance cost has not disappeared,†said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the foundation. “Over time, what people pay for health care has dramatically eclipsed both their wages and inflation.â€