Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Cancelled insurance policies not worth much

50 posts in this topic

WINTER HAVEN, Fla., Nov. 6 (UPI) -- Many U.S. adults who bought individual health insurance policies and now received cancellations letters are discovering their plans weren't worth much.

Diane Barrette, a 56-year-old woman from Winter Haven, Fla., was interviewed by CBS News and was upset Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida was canceling her $54-a-month "GoBlue plan 91," but offering to replace it with a $591-a-month "Blue Options Essential plan."

{snip}

Barrett's health plan, officially known as a mini-med, and also known as a "junk plan," provides limited coverage for lower-cost items such as doctor's visits. They often do not cover higher cost items such as hospitalization, expensive diagnostic tests or maternity care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it sounds like a scam from the insurance company. They should have checked her understanding of her cover at the point of sale including common examples (they have to do it by law in the UK), if she would have known what little cover she was paying for she would probably not have bothered with it or gotten a higher level of cover many years ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but most people don't seem to pay attention to anything except the up-front costs of doctor visits, since that is what they use insurance for 90% of the time.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it sounds like a scam from the insurance company. They should have checked her understanding of her cover at the point of sale including common examples (they have to do it by law in the UK), if she would have known what little cover she was paying for she would probably not have bothered with it or gotten a higher level of cover many years ago.

IF she could afford it and IF she wanted it. That's what the dispute is about here, Bulveye. Many people are losing the only coverage they could AFFORD. Now they will be forced to pay exorbitant rates (if they even can) and all that extra money is pulled out of the economy. Also, the subject is (feebly) being attempted to change from outright LYING by our chief executive to some other smoke and mirrors. The dems wanted this and the US public positioned them to achieve it. Kind of similar to date rape imo.

I believe that this mess was conceived to be a colossal failure that would break up insurance companies and pave the way to a NHS here in the US. I don't think Oby even CARED that it might fail spectacularly coming out the gate. He has no more elections to run. Medicaid for everyone - probably before he leaves office.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF she could afford it and IF she wanted it. That's what the dispute is about here, Bulveye. Many people are losing the only coverage they could AFFORD. Now they will be forced to pay exorbitant rates (if they even can) and all that extra money is pulled out of the economy. Also, the subject is (feebly) being attempted to change from outright LYING by our chief executive to some other smoke and mirrors. The dems wanted this and the US public positioned them to achieve it. Kind of similar to date rape imo.

I believe that this mess was conceived to be a colossal failure that would break up insurance companies and pave the way to a NHS here in the US. I don't think Oby even CARED that it might fail spectacularly coming out the gate. He has no more elections to run. Medicaid for everyone - probably before he leaves office.

The dispute is whether under Obamacare she actually gets healthcare, which she evidently did not despite paying under her junk plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but most people don't seem to pay attention to anything except the up-front costs of doctor visits, since that is what they use insurance for 90% of the time.

And from what I understand, that is the reason Health Insurance has skyrocketed.

It began as a way to just keep catastophic health events under control, not to cover us every time we need to see a doctor for a sore throat.

Maybe we need to completely re-evaluate the way Americans use insurance?

Imagine what Car Insurance would cost if we expected them to pay for routine oil changes, new tires, new wipers, minor repairs, etc etc....

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from what I understand, that is the reason Health Insurance has skyrocketed.

It began as a way to just keep catastophic health events under control, not to cover us every time we need to see a doctor for a sore throat.

Maybe we need to completely re-evaluate the way Americans use insurance?

Imagine what Car Insurance would cost if we expected them to pay for routine oil changes, new tires, new wipers, minor repairs, etc etc....

You are probably right, but waiting a year or two to go to the doctor for a cough because you don't want incur the visiting expenses only to have it turn out to be a now advanced stage of cancer is even more expensive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply misleading propaganda. This is not known as a 'junk plan' it's known as a high deductible plan, or catastrophic plan, and is so that healthy people who are healthy and don't expect to use thier coverage don't have to pay a ridiculous $500.00 a month. This is a plan for young healthy people. I had one for years and and broke my arm severly. The end result was that I paid $2,500.00 out of pocket and the plan picked up the other $18,000.00. How is that a junk plan. This article is nothing but propaganda and and misleading statements.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably right, but waiting a year or two to go to the doctor for a cough because you don't want incur the visiting expenses only to have it turn out to be a now advanced stage of cancer is even more expensive.

Yes, but if you are paying say $150 a month for a catastrophic plan instead of a plan that covers maybe one or two doctor visits a year for $500 a month you can afford to go to the doctor.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply misleading propaganda. This is not known as a 'junk plan' it's known as a high deductible plan, or catastrophic plan, and is so that healthy people who are healthy and don't expect to use thier coverage don't have to pay a ridiculous $500.00 a month. This is a plan for young healthy people. I had one for years and and broke my arm severly. The end result was that I paid $2,500.00 out of pocket and the plan picked up the other $18,000.00. How is that a junk plan. This article is nothing but propaganda and and misleading statements.

According to the article, her plan only paid for the first $50 of most things and thusly her plan wouldn't have picked up the other $18,000.00 you are referring to. She is also 56. Seems pretty junky to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply misleading propaganda. This is not known as a 'junk plan' it's known as a high deductible plan, or catastrophic plan, and is so that healthy people who are healthy and don't expect to use thier coverage don't have to pay a ridiculous $500.00 a month. This is a plan for young healthy people. I had one for years and and broke my arm severly. The end result was that I paid $2,500.00 out of pocket and the plan picked up the other $18,000.00. How is that a junk plan. This article is nothing but propaganda and and misleading statements.

It is. And get a load of this little jewel:

Barrette could purchase a Humana Direct Silver 4600/6300 plan for $165 a month -- or about $100 more a month than she is paying now. Her deductible would be $4,600 a year and her out-of-pocket costs limited to $6,300 a year -- a steep cost for someone making $30,000 a year.

Obamacare is nothing more than the corporate cronyism, and we the American people, are the ones get screwed. People need to look past the political bs and see this for what it is. But no, they would rather regurgitate the talking points of their political party, ad nauseam.....

Edited by Kowalski
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if you are paying say $150 a month for a catastrophic plan instead of a plan that covers maybe one or two doctor visits a year for $500 a month you can afford to go to the doctor.

Hate to say it, but anyone that poor is going to end up needing aid one way or the other. I just hope that the Obamacare and its subsidies lives up to its hype and can bail people like that out. Otherwise, we as a society are just going to be paying for them with our increased premiums just like before.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but anyone that poor is going to end up needing aid one way or the other. I just hope that the Obamacare and its subsidies lives up to its hype and can bail people like that out.

But the subsidies only cover a portion of the premium, you still have to pay the $4,600 deductible before they pay out any money.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but anyone that poor is going to end up needing aid one way or the other. I just hope that the Obamacare and its subsidies lives up to its hype and can bail people like that out. Otherwise, we as a society are just going to be paying for them with our increased premiums just like before.

I'm not talking about the poor in particular. I'm talking about generally healthy people not wanting to waste money on plans that will basically be of no benefit to them.

But the subsidies only cover a portion of the premium, you still have to pay the $4,600 deductible before they pay out any money.

I don't know what people don't understand. $500 a month plus $4600 deductible before they get any return on their investment into insurance doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the poor in particular. I'm talking about generally healthy people not wanting to waste money on plans that will basically be of no benefit to them.

I don't know what people don't understand. $500 a month plus $4600 deductible before they get any return on their investment into insurance doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

It will be as soon as you need your first by-pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be as soon as you need your first by-pass.

That's why I said generally healthy people.

My arteries are checked pretty regularly and they are free and clear, thank you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dispute is whether under Obamacare she actually gets healthcare, which she evidently did not despite paying under her junk plan.

The ACA is going to make sure that the uninsured get a card for their wallet and don't receive a bill. It CANNOT GUARANTEE access. Adding such large numbers to the system of appointments and scheduling of diagnostic exams without increasing the numbers of providers just creates a bottleneck in service. They may, in time, work that out but the final form this system will take will be very similar to NHS in Britain. The taxes for this system of single payer will continually climb and the service continually decline. It isn't difficult to prognosticate for anyone not bent on supporting a political view. Simple math explains it pretty well.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deductibles are basically for day to day doctor visits. Like Supervike said- the true purpose of insurance is for catastrophic illness/accidents. The stuff that bankrupts people and puts a huge strain on society as a whole. Maybe he is right, maybe we should restructure our health insurance system for just the catastrophic stuff.

Hmm, can't get this stupid underline to go away.

Edited by Gromdor
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACA is going to make sure that the uninsured get a card for their wallet and don't receive a bill. It CANNOT GUARANTEE access. Adding such large numbers to the system of appointments and scheduling of diagnostic exams without increasing the numbers of providers just creates a bottleneck in service. They may, in time, work that out but the final form this system will take will be very similar to NHS in Britain. The taxes for this system of single payer will continually climb and the service continually decline. It isn't difficult to prognosticate for anyone not bent on supporting a political view. Simple math explains it pretty well.

I'm still not understanding why people use this argument. So it is a bad thing that people now have a chance to see a doctor that is not in an emergency room? It is a bad thing that previously uninsured children have an opportunity to get the yearly checkups that my kids get? When people use this argument all I hear is "ME ME ME". If I have to wait a little bit longer for a visit so that other people can have a chance at a healthy life..I'm fine with that. It will also ensure that if I have to go to the ER, I won't have to sit in the waiting room for eight hours...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not understanding why people use this argument. So it is a bad thing that people now have a chance to see a doctor that is not in an emergency room? It is a bad thing that previously uninsured children have an opportunity to get the yearly checkups that my kids get? When people use this argument all I hear is "ME ME ME". If I have to wait a little bit longer for a visit so that other people can have a chance at a healthy life..I'm fine with that. It will also ensure that if I have to go to the ER, I won't have to sit in the waiting room for eight hours...

The "in attitude" nowadays is asocial and egotistic, so don't be surprised. Now, the "in" people should not be surprised if they succeed and then notice that there is no society left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the article, her plan only paid for the first $50 of most things and thusly her plan wouldn't have picked up the other $18,000.00 you are referring to. She is also 56. Seems pretty junky to me.

I work in the insurance industry, specifically in employee benefits, and that's not the whole of her plan, or even accurate at all.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good example of how the American public has been conditioned to think: rather than arguing for the freedom to make our own decisions, we're arguing over the details of forced compliance. We willingly have given up the freedom to make our own choices. Every election is representative of our decision to cede (or not cede) to the government our personal freedoms. The majority of voters prefer government control. This is now the world we live in. We voted for it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am agreeing with oversword here. I don't know if I accept the logic of dismissing a persons concerns by saying they are getting something better. While there are plenty of people that may not know the ins and outs of their own insurance, I have to assume people are going to be the best judge of what is right for them.

More generally I feel there is an trend to discount the thoughts of anyone who says no to something. We have seen that for some time with folks that oppose things based on faith. But recently I saw the media attacking Sinead O'connor for posting a basically feminist response to Miley Cyrus. Its as if anyone who say no on ground of conscious is being painted as a bigot or out of touch. Their ideas are then discounted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am agreeing with oversword here. I don't know if I accept the logic of dismissing a persons concerns by saying they are getting something better. While there are plenty of people that may not know the ins and outs of their own insurance, I have to assume people are going to be the best judge of what is right for them.

More generally I feel there is an trend to discount the thoughts of anyone who says no to something. We have seen that for some time with folks that oppose things based on faith. But recently I saw the media attacking Sinead O'connor for posting a basically feminist response to Miley Cyrus. Its as if anyone who say no on ground of conscious is being painted as a bigot or out of touch. Their ideas are then discounted.

You mean like getting sold a health insurance that only pays if you get mauled by an elephant stampede and additionally says in the small print that it will only pay for the damage caused by a small zebra?

Those insurances are being cancelled because they are cutpurse, not health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not understanding why people use this argument. So it is a bad thing that people now have a chance to see a doctor that is not in an emergency room? It is a bad thing that previously uninsured children have an opportunity to get the yearly checkups that my kids get? When people use this argument all I hear is "ME ME ME". If I have to wait a little bit longer for a visit so that other people can have a chance at a healthy life..I'm fine with that. It will also ensure that if I have to go to the ER, I won't have to sit in the waiting room for eight hours...

I guess you have never heard of the CHIP or Children's Medicaid.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.