On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:12:44 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
om...
On 3/31/10 11:25 AM, Eisboch wrote:


Our disagreement may be on the term "life threatening".
Conditions that can lead to a life threatening situation should, in my
mind, be addressed and covered.

I am talking about subsidizing health insurance in an HMO type structure
whereby receipients get free or next to free medical services for
sniffles, colds or issues of convenience.

Eisboch


Do most people, even with HMOs, see the doctor for sniffles or colds? I'm
not sure what "issues of convenience" are.

My doctor wants to see me every four months. I usually have nothing to
report to him in terms of aches, pains, ailments, but he checks me over
anyway, and has blood drawn. Prior to flu season, I pop by his office for
the nurse to give me the "shot." I see my ophthalmologist once a year for
an eye exam. Are these "issues of convenience"?


Yes.

I won't bore you again with the tale or details, but I did a survey once
that proved that it would have been less costly for my (former) company and
for the employees if I had simply paid for or re-impursed the cost of the
services that you described to the employees and had a Major Medical
insurance plan to cover serious, catasrophic or life threatening injuries or
illness.

Unfortunately, the state of MA nor the Insurance companies would allow such
a thing.

Eisboch

I have argued on behalf of self-coverage augmented by catastrophic
care coverage in my state. The state doesn't allow it for some
obvious reasons. They don't trust business to keep the faith, even if
the money were put in escrow and an independent administrator hired to
oversee.

That was a good argument when my workforce was young. As me and my
workforce age, it makes less sense since the unmarried employees
married, pregnancies came, minor surgeries and the lot, which now
cost 1000s of dollars, make that particular combination difficult to
justify in a self-insurance plan, nevermind the overhead of
administration.

While your ideas have merit, your specific solution has limited
applicability to the broader issue of health care as a right or
privilege.