rance56
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 4044 |
quote:
Originally posted by truly
I know this is factual not only from first hand accounts of folks who work in the healthcare industry but also from numerous media outlets. Here is an example:
from Consumer Reports magazine -- March 2012
[...]
Judith Goss, 48, of Macomb, Mich., believed that the Cigna plan she obtained through her job at the Talbots retail chain was “some type of insurance that would cover something.” When the store she worked at closed in January 2011, she even paid $65 a month to keep the coverage through COBRA.
“I was aware that it wasn’t a great plan, but I wasn’t concerned because I wasn’t sick,” she says. But in July 2011 she was diagnosed with breast cancer, at which point the policy’s annual limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization became a huge problem. Facing a $30,000 hospital bill, she delayed treatment. “Finally my surgeon said, ‘Judy, you can’t wait anymore.’ While I was waiting my tumor became larger. It was 3 centimeters when they found it and 9 centimeters when they took it out.” After a double mastectomy, radiation treatments, and reconstructive surgery, Goss is taking the drug tamoxifen to prevent recurrence.
The Talbots Cigna Starbridge plan is one of many similar mini-med insurance products aimed at workers in industries such as retail, food service, and temporary staffing agencies. Their hallmark is extremely limited benefits, often, as with the Talbots plan, no more than a few thousand dollars a year. A Cigna promotional brochure touts the plans as “coverage for everyone” and reassures employers that they don’t have to contribute to the cost of the coverage if they don’t want to.
[…]
I wish I knew how to bold things. But I don't, so go back and read that part about the "annual limit of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization".
This woman is paying nearly 800$ per year and the most she can get back is 3000$ in any year. That is junk insurance. Just about every insurer offers a few junk plans because they know there are consumers who want to buy junk. It gives them peace of mind. Then when they need it they are left to die or go bankrupt.
One of the huge advantages of Obamacare that I have talked about before is the requirement that all policies have a standard 4 page summary that explains in PLAIN ENGLISH what the benefits/caps/limits are. Even though some of these policies could have been grandfathered in, once consumers realize how junky the policy was they will never want to do business with that insurer again. And they will be able to use this standardized summary to do this. Many of those high deductible junk policies paid back only 60-70 cents on the dollar. They now must reach the threshold of 80% payback. SO even though these might be grandfathered in, once you can do an "apples to apples" comparison you would no longer want that policy.
nothing you posted showed how many of the cancelled plans fall under the description of a bad plan. you gave 1 example, 1 person. that proves nothing other than you are on the comuntity organizers mailing list of talking points.
regardless, one mans trash is another mans treasure, so who defines what a bad plan is? and where do we stop, i can show u plenty of bad car insurance plans that leave us all open to major losses because someone isnt carrying enough coverage
__________________
the oldest ride in the park, but still the longest line.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
11-05-2013 01:43 AM
