From IssueSource:
The Connector subcommittee working on establishing a figure for a minimum credible coverage agreed to recommend that the full board cap the out-of-pocket maximum at $5,000 for individuals and $7,500 for families, cap the deductible at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families, and have prescribed drugs count toward the out-of-pocket maximum.
Maybe this has been defined somewhere, but what defines a “family”? Will a married couple with no children qualify for the $7,500 cap, or will they be treated like two individuals and capped at $10,000?
Why should a family of five have a per person cap of $1,500 per person whereas an individual have a cap of $5,000?
And will public employees get the same deal as the rest of us, or will their benefits outpace the private sector?
What a mess. What a bad idea.
now offer “self,” self + 1,” and “family” coverages. Still forces people with 1 kid to subsidize people with 7, but it’s better than the alternative. Let’s hope the Connector does the same.
thing, but I’ve never heard of treating a married couple as two individuals rather than as a “family.” I’m sure the “family” cap applies to married couples. You don’t need kids to have a family.
Why should a family of five have a per person cap of $1,500 per person whereas an individual have a cap of $5,000?
<
p>
It goes back to the traditional idea that a family has a single earner, usually the husband, and then a bunch of dependents. And that guy might not make much more just because he has a family than he did when he was single. He’s almost certainly got less savings than he would if he was single. So really, the cap on the deductable should be less if he’s got a family, but I guess now with lots of families being dual income, we feel it is fair to take a little more of a family’s money.
<
p>
It does seem to point out that maybe the cap should be based on income, or savings, and not fixed. Or maybe education level, with people that made it through law school or medical school having the highest cap, people that can’t read having the lowest.
…and FYI, they use three children for actuarial purposes, which means families with only children are overpaying to subsidize families with 5 kids!
instead of treating it as a public good. The latter is the more logical, workable and MUCH MORE civilized approach that every other industrialized country except the U.S. currently uses.
<
p>
Good heavens, can you imagine trying to craft, fund and implement fire protection services that treat it as a commodity instead of as a public good, where a person had to purchase fire insurance in order to get the fire dept to come and put out a fire??!! That’s what we are putting up with related to health care services.
<
p>
It’s not only stupid, wasteful and inhumane, it’s all made possible by us hardworking taxpaying saps rolling over and playing dead, in effect, in response to the yearly double-digit premium increases and the “reforms” driven by the insurance-medical-industrial complex and their elected official minions.
<
p>
One entry found for minion.
Main Entry: min·ion
Pronunciation: ‘min-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a servile dependent, follower, or underling
2 : one highly favored : IDOL
3 : a subordinate or petty official
That’s what we do with people who start fires in their homes, or call in false alarms. Or, maybe just put up the fact that some people are going to use more services than other people. Some are going to want to get three x-rays of the elbow after a falling off their bike, and then go out biking again the next day.
<
p>
How do other countries deal with that? I suppose they just give them the free xrays.
Not to get the Fire Dept. to appear, any more than medical care is denied in an emergency room.
<
p>
But we give discounts on homeowners insurance for alarm systems, communites are rated by the number of firefighters and proximity of hydrants in determining basic fire rates, buildings are rated for materials – stone vs. wood, square footage, stories – ALL these things are taken into account when a fire or homeowners policy is written. Not to mention extras like contents of a house or loss of use.
<
p>
And when owners or tenants don’t HAVE a policy, and wind up on the street for the Salvation Army to take care of while the fire departemnt puts the flames out – they are the equivalent of people who refuse to purchase health insurance because it’s ‘too expensive’ or ‘I’m only 28, I won’t get sick’ who later wind up in the free care pool.