So, since my husband's company was taken over by the government, I've gotten a small taste of what will happen to health benefits under a government-run system. In short, fewer benefits at a higher cost. Who could have called that?
Specifically, my prescription benefit was halved, meaning I pay double what I used to. My dental care benefits have been reduced by one quarter for annual visits, and cut in half for x-rays, unless I can prove there is something wrong first (which is what the x-ray is for, but don't bother the government with minor details like that.) What ever happened to much-touted preventative care? Apparently not going to happen by cutting back on basic preventative measures like routine visits and x-rays to detect early warning signs.
I'm eager to visit my primary care physician for my chronic neck pain, and am so looking forward to the joy of pre-natal care (once I become pregnant). I can't wait to find out how much more I'll be paying out of pocket, and eventually, how much more reluctant doctors will be to treat me, or recommend important or expensive treatments since I won't be able to afford them.
The goods news is that I'm going to try much harder to be much healthier, as I'm certain I won't be able to afford proper care when I get sick. There are probably some of you thinking, "Ha, now she knows how the other half lives." If so, you sure are one sick puppy. Making health care worse for everyone is not an improvement.
photo by yomi955
5 Comments:
I find that interesting, considering I also have government sponsored healthcare (my wife is an employee of the state). I've dealt with the same BS that I did with my private insurance, but certain parts have been much easier to deal with, mainly no longer needing a referral for a specialist.
Seems that the same 'government' plan gets administered by different folks, which in turn lay it out as they see fit. Because that bill the government and pocket the difference, it's still in their best interest to take as much as possible while paying out as little.
This sounds foreboding. What is the plan administered by the government? Is it the same one given to federal employees?
I could only hope to get federal government health care, that would be nice! No, this is the plan GM was forced to adopt under the bailout.
Didn't GM have the option for a better plan but negotiated this one because in the end they are actually paying less for it? I know my roommate works for the Federal government and she has a stellar plan, she also pays for the upgraded version but it's around the same many small business workers pay for the standard plan here.
It isn't unreasonable that a company the government paid to bail out is not getting the state of the art, though I think the whole thing is if there were standard fees for service, and one large group, the cost would be significantly lower for any insurance plan.
@Cooper - I'm certain GM had a multitude of options, the least of which was the bailout. I hope you don't confuse my displeasure with the reduction of my health benefits for thinking I deserve more on the taxpayer dime. That is not the case.
In fact, I feel horrible that taxpayers have to foot the bill for any of my health care needs via bailout funds without any choice in the matter. I find it reprehensible that Americans now have to buy GM products via taxation despite the fact that many of them may not like the cars, nor even drive! I think the whole thing is sick.
I'm not surprised that your friend in the Federal government has an incredible plan, but that is not the plan suggested for the general population. Government and unionized employees represent powerful bargaining cartels, whereas the general public is too disorganized and disinterested to fight for any kind of rights.
I am interested in the issue you bring up of standard fees and why there is a huge disparity in fees for insured vs. uninsured people.
Post a Comment