“…dangerous employer-based health insurance is really expensive even if it’s 100% deductible.”

Saying that community rated group insurance is more expensive than individual coverage is like saying snakes have two heads. As categorical statements, both are false even though you can find contrary examples. If you were able to obtain firm quotes for comparable individual coverage on everyone who currently receives employer-based coverage, the average price would be about the same for both kinds of insurance.

“…dangerous employer-based health insurance is really expensive even if it’s 100% deductible.”

Saying that community rated group insurance is more expensive than individual coverage is like saying snakes have two heads. As categorical statements, both are false. If you were able to obtain firm quotes for comparable individual coverage on everyone who currently receives employer-based coverage, the average prices would be about the same.

The claim that health insurers dump the sick is silly on its face given that MEPS estimates suggest that private insurers and private individuals paid for an estimated 62 percent of all health expenses in the US in 2003. People who don’t like employer health insurance are free, in most states, to purchase their own policy. Often those are considerably less expensive and, when combined with a HSA, provide better coverage.

Employer policies are generally guaranteed issue. State laws generally prohibit raising rates on sick people with individual policies unless everyone in a rating class gets a rate increase. Federal law requires that every state make arrangements so that people who have had coverage but lose their job and cannot be medically underwritten be able to purchase individual health insurance either via a high risk pool or an insurer of last resort. These programs are heavily subsidized and rates are reasonable given the fact that one gets to purchase insurance after one is seriously ill.

Finally, claiming that wellness programs will eliminate the need for health insurance suggests that a good diet and exercise will eliminate high dollar trauma cases, cancers, Type I diabetes, auto-immune diseases, schizophrenia and other brain based mental illnesses. Medicine is properly oriented towards people who are sick, not those who are healthy.

Moreover, two weeks of lost-income due to medical bills in the past two years seems questionable as a cause for declaring a subsequent bankruptcy “medical.” You could be in bed sick with the flu twice in two years without significant doctor bills and still lose two weeks pay. Since this is a common enough occurrence, I would not consider it to be a travesty of our health care system.

Nor would I necessarily assume having medical bills that exceed 10% of take home pay to be serious enough to result in a medical bankruptcy. Many people have health coverage that equals 10% of take home pay. What is the difference between spending the money on coverage versus spending it on care? Yet public health advocates often assume responsible people should have comprehensive (i.e. costly) health insurance but worry when the uninsured face costly medical bills that are no more expensive than the coverage would have cost.

Taking out a second mortgage to cover medical bills does not seem to be sufficient reason to declare a subsequent bankruptcy to be exclusively caused by medical bills. Paying a bill out of savings is the equivalent of paying for a service with past earnings. Paying a bill by taking out a loan is the same as paying with future earnings. Having to borrow isn’t necessarily worse than paying with savings. Both concepts are about smoothing consumption to match earnings over time.

It’s very hard to have a rational debate over health polilcy when reporters give credence to and repeat such clap trap.

Trust me, your employer-based health insurance will terminate all dependent childrens’ insurance when they are no longer full time students or reach the age of 24. Any child that is diagnosed with MS, like my daughter, would prefer coverage that they can keep at standard rates when they reach a majority age and have the ability to move from coast-to-coast in America.

Basically Mr Graham, I’m saying your think tank’s health insurance is very dangerous for employee’s children. At least you understand if you get bone cancer and become too sick to work you will be terminated off your 100% deductible employee health insurance.

Think tanks put their employee’s children in danger.

I’m at a think tank which provides employer-based health benefits, but we do it for the same reason as everyone else: The tax code prejudices us from doing it any other way. Believe me, my SVP Administration & Finance would love to just pay us the money and wash her hair of negotiating health benefits.

Hence 1/3 on current health care 1/3 on future health care 1/10 in taxes and hence I live on 1/5th of my income including trying to send my fifth kid to college.

It seems to me I come last and all others come first!