wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:48:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--

Doesn't that fall into the personal responsibility area?
If you don't want to take care of your own body, why should we all
have to fix it when it breaks?
You can bet your ass that if this nanny state government ever did get
control of health care they would be forcing you to take care of
yourself. Helmet laws and seat belt laws would be the guideline and
justification for plenty of other intrusions on your life. They might
just ban hazardous activities. Seen a lawn dart recently?


So now you're going to expect people to diagnose their own health issues???
How about prostate cancer or breast cancer. All these require regular
screening. Feel free to not wear a helmet on your dirt bike. I don't think
it's required if you're not on public property.

--
Nom=de=Plume