• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Health Insurance

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Location
Nebraska
About one-fifth of farmers and ranchers dipped into savings or borrowed money to help pay for medical costs in 2006, according to a broad seven-state survey of health care costs in the agriculture community.

The survey of more than 2,000 farm and ranch families indicated that more than 95 percent had health insurance coverage in the last year, a higher percentage than Americans as a whole.

More than half of farmers acquire health insurance through family plans offered by companies where a family member has an off-the-farm job, said Alana Knudsen of the Center for Rural Health at the University of North Dakota and a co-author of the report.

But 36 percent buy individual plans, pay higher premiums, have higher deductibles and receive fewer benefits. This leads to financial strains, according to Knudsen and other authors.

Co-authoring the report were Bill Lottero, Carol Pryor and Mark Rukavina of the Access Project, a Boston-based resource center for improving health care availability, and Jeffrey Prottas of Brandeis University.

Funding was provided by several organizations, including the Nebraska Office of Rural Health.

Sponsors released the report during a telephone conference Thursday.

Yvette Oloff, a farmer from Persia, Iowa, who suffers from a lung ailment, said her family pays $10,000 per year in premiums for an insurance policy that excludes her condition from coverage and has $1,500 in deductibles.

"I simply do not understand why the costs are so high when the coverage does not cover half of my body," she said during the telephone conference.

The Oloff family is paying off $24,000 in medical debt.

Survey data indicating that 20 percent of farmers and ranchers have debt from medical bills were "troubling," considering that most of the people are fully insured, said Lottero, a project manager for the Access Project's rural health care initiative.

"The implications of this must be factored into policy decisions," Lottero said.
 
SandHusker,

Interesting set of numbers, here's my take. You cannot afford insurance that makes a calamity painless or covers routine maintenance. House insurance can't mow the grass as efficiently as the homeowner can hire the neighbor kid, and medical insurance overcharges for checkups. In order to make insurance costs managable, the insured benefits from assuming all the risk they practically can - even if that means dipping into savings to cover deductibles and copays. If the insured faces say 20k in deductibles and copays, that's not an overwhelming jerk - even if he can't pay it out of his checking account. The scary thing to me is the half million dollar ride.

Americans need to apreciate the high quality of care available and move health care ahead of the cable bill on the budget priority list.
 
Hey Brad nice to see you around.

Try a tax rate of near 50% on higher income earners to get health coverage.

US disposable incomes have usually been much higher than in Canada even after health insurance.

Brad is bang on about priorities.

How many people really needed to buy those $400K homes?
 
My American sister and her Canadian husband recently moved back to the US and the health care issue was a big reason for their move. Yes, health care here IS expensive, but we have it. In Canada, with socialized medicine, health care is "free", but you can't get it, no matter how much you need it.

Here's an interesting article about Hillary and her program. I don't know about you, but this women and her hair-brained schemes scare me to death!

Universal Health Scare

Hillary Clinton is again proposing a universal heath care system for the United States. I am optimistic. The last time she tried it, the result was no change in the health care system, and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Liberals who favor socialized medicine seem to think that it works well in the many developed nations where it is practiced. John Stossel informs us as to how it really does work.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

"People line up for care; some of them die. That's what happens," Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, told "20/20". Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. ... You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months."


http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2007/week38/index.html#entry-39087335
 

Latest posts

Back
Top