Ask YC: What do you spend on health insurance?
62 comments
i recently stopped paying for health insurance, for me, it was $1800 a year. $5k deductible, and I got the healthy living discount.
In one of my first jobs out of college I worked for a medical billing company, here is what we learned, while writing the software.
I am not sure on the math, but I think you are more likely to come out ahead when you buy blackjack insurance, than you are in the US when you buy health insurance. HSA's are great and on average most Americans would come out ahead over their life expectancy. And I am almost positive, that if more than 50% of the US paid for healthcare without going through an insurance company, health care would become much more affordable.
The health insurance industry is broken in this country, more than 50% of claims do not get paid, so doctors jack up the rates 50% to cover the failed claims process. Not to mention the frivolous law suits, and hospitals adding crazy crap to the bill of better insurance companies to pay for care. The whole system is more corrupt than the Mob.
HSA's offer the advantage to save and invest that money tax free, so that you can put the buying power back in your hands. Since its your money and you want to save it for old age, you will have the option to opt out of care that is extra. If you feel fine, you go home. Hospitals will need to get better at explaining your risks, and the decision are put in your hands.
Did you know that if you talk to a doc, most will give you a discount on the procedure if you pay for it out of pocket and up front? We saw bills go through that were at 25% of a docs normal billing rate when people paid out of pocket and up front. An example, might be if you had a broken arm, instead of your insurance company paying $1200 for casting, and x-rays, you could walk in and pay $300-600 if you payed up front. The down side to this, for people who do this and have insurance, come in that it does not go against their deductible, so a future incident that year would need to be covered again out of pocket.
In a previous company I started, I set up a $5k HSA for each of my employees, and then they only had a $5k deductible. It was up to them to control costs, and health insurance with a $5k is pretty cheap, if you know how to shop for it.
In one of my first jobs out of college I worked for a medical billing company, here is what we learned, while writing the software.
I am not sure on the math, but I think you are more likely to come out ahead when you buy blackjack insurance, than you are in the US when you buy health insurance. HSA's are great and on average most Americans would come out ahead over their life expectancy. And I am almost positive, that if more than 50% of the US paid for healthcare without going through an insurance company, health care would become much more affordable.
The health insurance industry is broken in this country, more than 50% of claims do not get paid, so doctors jack up the rates 50% to cover the failed claims process. Not to mention the frivolous law suits, and hospitals adding crazy crap to the bill of better insurance companies to pay for care. The whole system is more corrupt than the Mob.
HSA's offer the advantage to save and invest that money tax free, so that you can put the buying power back in your hands. Since its your money and you want to save it for old age, you will have the option to opt out of care that is extra. If you feel fine, you go home. Hospitals will need to get better at explaining your risks, and the decision are put in your hands.
Did you know that if you talk to a doc, most will give you a discount on the procedure if you pay for it out of pocket and up front? We saw bills go through that were at 25% of a docs normal billing rate when people paid out of pocket and up front. An example, might be if you had a broken arm, instead of your insurance company paying $1200 for casting, and x-rays, you could walk in and pay $300-600 if you payed up front. The down side to this, for people who do this and have insurance, come in that it does not go against their deductible, so a future incident that year would need to be covered again out of pocket.
In a previous company I started, I set up a $5k HSA for each of my employees, and then they only had a $5k deductible. It was up to them to control costs, and health insurance with a $5k is pretty cheap, if you know how to shop for it.
I pay nothing, and never have.
Of course I don't live in the US. And btw. I think you should get your health system fixed over there, it's broken.
Of course I don't live in the US. And btw. I think you should get your health system fixed over there, it's broken.
So you don't pay taxes?
Per capita health expenditure in the US is $5711, in Denmark (where I'm from) it's $2743. And the healthcare here is excellent.
Source: OECD
Source: OECD
Interestingly, in a different post here I compute our (Massachusetts, USA) family's per-capita expenditure for health insurance as $5142. That's exclusive of the percentage of our income that goes toward health care via taxes: 6.6% of every dollar of income, for Massachusetts families in the 25% federal bracket.
Sometimes it's almost eerie how well statistics work.
Moral: Believe the OECD -- Our health care is incredibly expensive.
Sometimes it's almost eerie how well statistics work.
Moral: Believe the OECD -- Our health care is incredibly expensive.
Massachusetts now has student, employee, employer, self-employed, and low income earner insurance for free or at large subsidy, between the Commonwealth Connector and the Insurance Partnership programs.
High income taxes in Denmark worsen a labor shortage
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/business/labor.php
I'd rather not pay a 63% marginal tax rate. I'm sure that must hurt when you try to attract talent.
I'd rather not pay a 63% marginal tax rate. I'm sure that must hurt when you try to attract talent.
He pays taxes though, not to see the doctor. Difference is subtle but relevant.
but if there were no taxes there would be no doctor.
Not that subtle to me.
I'm not arguing that our system is not messed up, but I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare. I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else.
Not that subtle to me.
I'm not arguing that our system is not messed up, but I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare. I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else.
I'm not willing to pay an extra 10-20% taxes in order to have 'free" healthcare
And just what percentage of your income goes toward healthcare right now -- both for you and for other people?
My wife and I pay $600 per month in post-tax dollars for our health insurance, thanks to Massachusetts' healthcare plan which lets anybody buy group insurance through the state. (If it wasn't for Massachusetts, I'm not sure what we'd be doing for healthcare -- we're both independent contractors, and you can't buy health insurance through IEEE anymore -- so I consider myself lucky to get that rate. And if that sounds incredibly expensive to you -- well, congratulations on being 23 years old! But don't expect to be 23 forever!!)
The median annual household income in Massachusetts is 60K. (Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census... ). That's in the 25% federal tax bracket. (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm ) State income tax here is 5%. So $600 per month post-tax is $857 per month pretax. Thus, the median couple in Massachusetts can expect to pay $10,285 per year for their own health insurance, or about 17% of the median annual income.
Now, you could argue that your median couple might be getting their insurance "free" from their employer. In increasingly many cases this is not true -- fewer and fewer employers provide health insurance -- but even if it is true it merely raises the couple's real income to $70,285 -- of which 14.6% goes toward health care.
Now, that doesn't count the percentage of their federal taxes that goes towards health care for themselves and other people. As a quick estimate, a handy website (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 ) tells me that 22% of each Massachusetts resident's tax dollar went toward health in 2006. 60K * 30% * 22% is $3960, so that's another 6.6% of pretax income toward health care.
Thus, health care costs consume something between 20% and 24% of the median family income in MA. So, if you ask the median Massachusetts resident if they're willing to have taxes raised "10-20%" in exchange for free, guaranteed, universal healthcare the first-order answer is "hell, yes" -- even if you assume that the U.S. healthcare system would remain terribly inefficient relative to other systems worldwide. Which I would hope it wouldn't.
And just what percentage of your income goes toward healthcare right now -- both for you and for other people?
My wife and I pay $600 per month in post-tax dollars for our health insurance, thanks to Massachusetts' healthcare plan which lets anybody buy group insurance through the state. (If it wasn't for Massachusetts, I'm not sure what we'd be doing for healthcare -- we're both independent contractors, and you can't buy health insurance through IEEE anymore -- so I consider myself lucky to get that rate. And if that sounds incredibly expensive to you -- well, congratulations on being 23 years old! But don't expect to be 23 forever!!)
The median annual household income in Massachusetts is 60K. (Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census... ). That's in the 25% federal tax bracket. (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm ) State income tax here is 5%. So $600 per month post-tax is $857 per month pretax. Thus, the median couple in Massachusetts can expect to pay $10,285 per year for their own health insurance, or about 17% of the median annual income.
Now, you could argue that your median couple might be getting their insurance "free" from their employer. In increasingly many cases this is not true -- fewer and fewer employers provide health insurance -- but even if it is true it merely raises the couple's real income to $70,285 -- of which 14.6% goes toward health care.
Now, that doesn't count the percentage of their federal taxes that goes towards health care for themselves and other people. As a quick estimate, a handy website (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2008 ) tells me that 22% of each Massachusetts resident's tax dollar went toward health in 2006. 60K * 30% * 22% is $3960, so that's another 6.6% of pretax income toward health care.
Thus, health care costs consume something between 20% and 24% of the median family income in MA. So, if you ask the median Massachusetts resident if they're willing to have taxes raised "10-20%" in exchange for free, guaranteed, universal healthcare the first-order answer is "hell, yes" -- even if you assume that the U.S. healthcare system would remain terribly inefficient relative to other systems worldwide. Which I would hope it wouldn't.
As I said below, I pay $270 a month for my family with a $5k deductible. Worst case, I'm out $8200 before my 100% coinsurance kicks in. I am self employed as well, so this is my total out of pocket cost, no employer contribution.
Without getting into specifics, $8,200 is less than 10% of my income. I realize I am not in the "average" spectrum, but realize thay my opinion on the subject is just as valid as those on the other end of the income spectrum.
When I was broke, sure I wanted the government to pay for everything (college, etc.). Now that I'm not broke, I don't want the government to pay for anything (for anyone) if it's going to cost me money. It's funny how things work like that :).
Without getting into specifics, $8,200 is less than 10% of my income. I realize I am not in the "average" spectrum, but realize thay my opinion on the subject is just as valid as those on the other end of the income spectrum.
When I was broke, sure I wanted the government to pay for everything (college, etc.). Now that I'm not broke, I don't want the government to pay for anything (for anyone) if it's going to cost me money. It's funny how things work like that :).
When I was broke, sure I wanted the government to pay for everything (college, etc.). Now that I'm not broke, I don't want the government to pay for anything (for anyone) if it's going to cost me money. It's funny how things work like that :).
I have friends with a) cancer and b) no insurance, because they can't afford it.
I'm not laughing.
I have friends with a) cancer and b) no insurance, because they can't afford it.
I'm not laughing.
I suggest your friend move to massachusetts, if possible. Last I knew, there was no pre-existing condition exclusion allowed in MA, and now rates are available through the state.
My sympathies to your friend.
My sympathies to your friend.
a) that sucks for them
b) they need a better job
Listen, life isn't fair.
You want the benefits of capitalism without the risks? How does that work?
Listen, life isn't fair.
You want the benefits of capitalism without the risks? How does that work?
>a) that sucks for them b) they need a better job
You have a complete lack of empathy. I don't think that's healthy.
>You want the benefits of capitalism without the risks? How does that work?
Government that truly cares about the interests of the people.
You have a complete lack of empathy. I don't think that's healthy.
>You want the benefits of capitalism without the risks? How does that work?
Government that truly cares about the interests of the people.
> How does that work?
See Canada, Europe and other countries.
See Canada, Europe and other countries.
So I'm going to piss off more people, but "see the list of places I don't want to live."
And I have lived outside the US so this isn't myopia.
Listen, running a business and being successful is significantly harder in those places vs. the US.
I want to live in a place where the limit to my future is me. Not what the government says is my limit.
I don't want to have to pay employees to not work, to work 30 hours weeks (and complain about it), 5-6-7 weeks of vacation. I have no idea how small businesses make it in the EU. It's silly how much they have to pay their workers between salary and benefits.
For all the drones out there, the EU is a great place. For people with aspirations it's a death spiral.
And I have lived outside the US so this isn't myopia.
Listen, running a business and being successful is significantly harder in those places vs. the US.
I want to live in a place where the limit to my future is me. Not what the government says is my limit.
I don't want to have to pay employees to not work, to work 30 hours weeks (and complain about it), 5-6-7 weeks of vacation. I have no idea how small businesses make it in the EU. It's silly how much they have to pay their workers between salary and benefits.
For all the drones out there, the EU is a great place. For people with aspirations it's a death spiral.
You're giving capitalism a bad name by calling the American health care system capitalist ( especially the system in Massachusetts). American healthcare is just as regulated as Europe. The difference is that while most European systems run on a system of price ceilings for care, America has a system of price floors. Since there are pretty steep diminishing returns to health care spending, price floors have the neat effect of making health care super expensive without increasing quality.
American capitalism has many advantages. Health care is not one of them.
American capitalism has many advantages. Health care is not one of them.
I'm not saying that our system is capitalism. I'm saying that socialized medicine (which is what other countries have) and big government flies right in the face of what this country is based upon, personal liberty, responsibility and freedom.
And show me any place in history that price controls have been an effective fiscal policy.
Look at the third world and see how well it works for them.
I lived in a place where the price of a loaf of bread was fixed at x. Well when x was a fair price and provided profit to the baker everyone was happy. 10 years later, people were so used to bread being x that when noone could make bread any more because the cost of the ingredients had gone up so much there were riots. So what did the government do? They raised minimum wage and price controlled the ingredients for bread. So all the bakeries closed down. And now a bunch of other shops closed down or fired their employees. Then what? Laws making it impossible to fire an employee.
Price controls and fixing are not the answer.
And show me any place in history that price controls have been an effective fiscal policy.
Look at the third world and see how well it works for them.
I lived in a place where the price of a loaf of bread was fixed at x. Well when x was a fair price and provided profit to the baker everyone was happy. 10 years later, people were so used to bread being x that when noone could make bread any more because the cost of the ingredients had gone up so much there were riots. So what did the government do? They raised minimum wage and price controlled the ingredients for bread. So all the bakeries closed down. And now a bunch of other shops closed down or fired their employees. Then what? Laws making it impossible to fire an employee.
Price controls and fixing are not the answer.
You only responded to 50% of my argument though.
Canada is a good mix if you ask me. 40 hour weeks are the norm, small business is encouraged, but the understanding that people have lives and are not beholden to their employer has an overall positive impact on society as a whole.
Granted, I've never tried to operate a business in the US, so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but I'm certainly greatful that my son spent the first year of his life exclusively with mom.
Canada is a good mix if you ask me. 40 hour weeks are the norm, small business is encouraged, but the understanding that people have lives and are not beholden to their employer has an overall positive impact on society as a whole.
Granted, I've never tried to operate a business in the US, so maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but I'm certainly greatful that my son spent the first year of his life exclusively with mom.
Canada's great and all eh (sorry couldn't help it :), but there's a reason that what, 60%+ of the population lives within 20 miles of the US border.
But from what I know, the canadian system seems more likely to be what the US could transition to than, say the UK system.
FWIW, my understanding is that Canada's system is that the government acts like an insurance company, so rather than all medical facilities being government facilities, they are private and they simply bill the government. In the UK, all facilities are government run, so there is no billing at all [well I'm sure there is behind the scenes].
But from what I know, the canadian system seems more likely to be what the US could transition to than, say the UK system.
FWIW, my understanding is that Canada's system is that the government acts like an insurance company, so rather than all medical facilities being government facilities, they are private and they simply bill the government. In the UK, all facilities are government run, so there is no billing at all [well I'm sure there is behind the scenes].
>I have no idea how small businesses make it in the EU.
The governments outlaw the sort of things that large businesses do to drive small businesses out of business. Wal-Mart just pulled out of Germany because the government wouldn't let them abuse their employees. There's a downside though - try buying groceries after 8PM in Germany.
The governments outlaw the sort of things that large businesses do to drive small businesses out of business. Wal-Mart just pulled out of Germany because the government wouldn't let them abuse their employees. There's a downside though - try buying groceries after 8PM in Germany.
but how is having an expensive workforce keeping small shops in business? I mean the really small shops like mom and pop shops can do it, but the 10-20 employee businesses must be running much tighter than they could here.
I agree with goofygrin; this thread reminds me of this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-orourke4-2008may04...
> I'd likely be footing the bill for everyone else.
You already are. The rates you pay are based on a pooled snapshot of medical usage of all the people that particular insurer has in that demographic.
The only difference is that with a gov't plan the pool is larger.
EDIT: Actually, I should correct myself. Most government plans have an additional difference - there are no costs based on usage. In a private plan, if you spend everyday at the hospital, you'll feel it in your next premium renewal, with a government plan this isn't always the case, although some countries implement user fees.
You already are. The rates you pay are based on a pooled snapshot of medical usage of all the people that particular insurer has in that demographic.
The only difference is that with a gov't plan the pool is larger.
EDIT: Actually, I should correct myself. Most government plans have an additional difference - there are no costs based on usage. In a private plan, if you spend everyday at the hospital, you'll feel it in your next premium renewal, with a government plan this isn't always the case, although some countries implement user fees.
This is very true.
That said, I'd rather be in the pool of healthy, employed people than the unemployed moochers ;)
That said, I'd rather be in the pool of healthy, employed people than the unemployed moochers ;)
Look both ways before you cross the street. You're only one car accident away from being disabled for life.
And this has 0 impact on the cost of my health insurance. It has a real cost in terms of long term care insurance (which is horrendously expensive, but not what the OP was asking about).
Don't plan on growing old then. :-)
The best part about a government plan is that in the grand scheme of things, moochers are a small subset of the picture.
It poses problems for sure, like "crowded" emerge rooms, (brackets because the crowds vanish if you have a real issue) but overall the numbers all show that it's cheaper both to the consumer and to the system overall.
The best part about a government plan is that in the grand scheme of things, moochers are a small subset of the picture.
It poses problems for sure, like "crowded" emerge rooms, (brackets because the crowds vanish if you have a real issue) but overall the numbers all show that it's cheaper both to the consumer and to the system overall.
Like I said our system is screwed up, but getting rid of it is a HUGE ordeal with millions of jobs likely to be cut and a HUGE expense to cut over to it.
And in this country, where big pharma and big medical business runs the show (congress, etc.) it is likely that a "universal" healthcare system will result in a crappy, inefficient implementation that everyone will hate.
And in this country, where big pharma and big medical business runs the show (congress, etc.) it is likely that a "universal" healthcare system will result in a crappy, inefficient implementation that everyone will hate.
[deleted]
I'm working on reintroducing pricing information into medical decisions, but so far my chosen method of posting screeds on relevant sections of the internet seems to not be effective.
You do probably pay for extended Health Insurance though, most likely as part of your benefits package through your employer.
actually no - and I don't know of anyone that does.
What country do you live in?
Denmark
It's a part of your system, perhaps it just isn't as prevalent as in other jurisdictions.
See here: http://www.workindenmark.dk/Private_health_insurance
See here: http://www.workindenmark.dk/Private_health_insurance
Good find - yes there is private health insurance in Denmark, but its primary role is to get ahead of the waiting list for non-lethal operations such as bad knees, new hips, etc. And you get cushier treatment since you pay for it of course. But with the government program you can always see a doctor (I was there the other day, and I got an appointment the day after I called) and you will always get treated for whatever illness you have. The private health insurance will pay for glasses, etc. and it costs around $40 a month.
Yes, that's what Canada has as well. We've got an EHC benefit that is pretty standard that pays for drugs, private hospital beds, etc etc.
Nobody is left out in the cold, but to properly compare it to the US's medical insurance, you need to include the private portion as well to equate equal service.
Nobody is left out in the cold, but to properly compare it to the US's medical insurance, you need to include the private portion as well to equate equal service.
You're right - the original post may have been a bit biased. Thanks for bringing this into the conversation.
Completely agree, but not moving out of the US =) http://tinyurl.com/6973da
I joke that I have "American Health Insurance": don't get sick, and damn-sure don't get hurt.
No health insurance, can't afford it now. Tend to be pretty healthy and heal well, so so far the gamble is working out.
That said, the financial issues surrounding health care in the U.S. are disgraceful, and I don't understand how anyone in an industrialized first-world country could look at it and say, "Yep, looks fine to me."
No health insurance, can't afford it now. Tend to be pretty healthy and heal well, so so far the gamble is working out.
That said, the financial issues surrounding health care in the U.S. are disgraceful, and I don't understand how anyone in an industrialized first-world country could look at it and say, "Yep, looks fine to me."
We pay about $270/mo for the three of us on an HSA plan (in Texas). $5k deductible, 100% coinsurance after that, HSA approved.
ah, HSA = Health Savings Account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account)
We got our health insurance through the National Association of Self-Employed http://nase.org/ - paying approx $300/month for my wife and myself.
150 for aetna in texas
whats your deductable.. I think mine is 1k
I think rates also vary depending on location / age
whats your deductable.. I think mine is 1k
I think rates also vary depending on location / age
Quick Disclaimer, I work tangentially in the health insurance industry. That being said, I know what variables factor in to a rate:
1. Deductible
2. Age
3. Whether or not you use tobacco - This includes chew.
4. Your gender makes a difference.
5. Occasionally, your BMI makes a difference. But most often, it's age + tobacco use that makes the largest difference.
Insurance rates will also change by your location. Say you had a twin who lived 1 city over; you may get different rates depending on your location.
Occasionally, a rate quote will be different due to the time of year that you're asking for your effective date. That seems to differ between carriers, and not a lot of carriers do this type of discounting or loading.
Hope that helps.
1. Deductible
2. Age
3. Whether or not you use tobacco - This includes chew.
4. Your gender makes a difference.
5. Occasionally, your BMI makes a difference. But most often, it's age + tobacco use that makes the largest difference.
Insurance rates will also change by your location. Say you had a twin who lived 1 city over; you may get different rates depending on your location.
Occasionally, a rate quote will be different due to the time of year that you're asking for your effective date. That seems to differ between carriers, and not a lot of carriers do this type of discounting or loading.
Hope that helps.
Good call. I think I'm going to look into increasing my deductible.
In South Africa I'm paying R850, which is roughly $100. This is only for what is called a "hospital plan," which means that if I'm in an accident that requires hospitalisation that I'll be taken to a private hospital and not exposed to the national health care system. Which is rather scary.
About half of the US population is currently getting govt healthcare at a per-capita cost that is basically the same as the per-capita cost of the folks getting private healthcare.
If govt healthcare in the US will be cheaper than private, why isn't it now?
Note to single-payer advocates. Nothing is stopping you from fixing the existing US govt healthcare system to provide the promised benefits. When you do, then all you have to do to kill the private system is open up the fixed public system at cost. Of course, that assumes that you can actually make govt healthcare work as you've asserted, but surely that's no big deal....
If govt healthcare in the US will be cheaper than private, why isn't it now?
Note to single-payer advocates. Nothing is stopping you from fixing the existing US govt healthcare system to provide the promised benefits. When you do, then all you have to do to kill the private system is open up the fixed public system at cost. Of course, that assumes that you can actually make govt healthcare work as you've asserted, but surely that's no big deal....
When I was living in Seattle and self-employed, I was paying $155 / mo for Regence Blue Shield's best plan ($500 deductible & 80% coverage) [this was Jan 2007]
After a year, it increased $50. I left the insurance a few months ago, so no clue what will happen next year.
Before Regence, I was paying for COBRA, which was incredibly expensive ($430 / mo) -- this was because I was traveling abroad in places with weird diseases, and I didn't feel like taking a chance. I only did this for 6 months or so.
EDIT: Forgot to mention. I am/was 28, healthy, non-smoker. No kids.
After a year, it increased $50. I left the insurance a few months ago, so no clue what will happen next year.
Before Regence, I was paying for COBRA, which was incredibly expensive ($430 / mo) -- this was because I was traveling abroad in places with weird diseases, and I didn't feel like taking a chance. I only did this for 6 months or so.
EDIT: Forgot to mention. I am/was 28, healthy, non-smoker. No kids.
I pay $486/mo for myself to be covered under the most comprehensive plan available from BC/BS. Is it worth it? Not really, but co-pays are cheap and prescriptions are almost free.
$120/month with an HSA and a $1800 max out of pocket every year. found it through http://www.ehealthinsurance.com
I pay around $700-800/month for health/vision/dental. My employer takes care of around $400 of it, so out of pocket I pay around $300-400. BTW this is for me and my wife.
$172 per month (single person coverage) with a $2000 deductible (routine physicals, dental, eye care covered with small co-pay).
I'm in Massachusetts and use FCHP. The premiums for me have been going down a few dollars every year, which, come to think of it, is pretty remarkable. :-)
I'm in Massachusetts and use FCHP. The premiums for me have been going down a few dollars every year, which, come to think of it, is pretty remarkable. :-)
Healthy 20yr Old M.
115/mo + 1500 deductible. It's an HSA plan, with 100% covered after the deductible.
115/mo + 1500 deductible. It's an HSA plan, with 100% covered after the deductible.
Between the employer and my own contributions (about 50/50) costs are 5k USD/year for health and dental. I have a 1200 deductible that is paid by my employer 100%. I see a couple of specialists and can see anyone at any time. That embodies my appreciation for the US system.
Just get high deductible health care with an HSA, I pay about $80/mo and then however much I want to put in my account(which I keep!). Plus this does not keep me chained to a particular employer and I am free to change jobs without
fear of losing health care coverage
I pay $1232 per month, which includes wife and 2 kids, for pretty top end Blue Cross insurance in Massachusetts. No dental. I'm self-employed and this is through COBRA from a previous job. I suspect I could save by shopping around and going for a high deductible.
I spend $125 a month on aetna's individual plan, low copays / deductibles
I live in the USA. My employer provides my health insurance free of charge. I pay $12 / week for my spouse though.
"Nothing": I live in Austria.
Well, clearly it's paid for somehow, but I don't pay for it directly. It is important to understand that it's not "free". All told though, I'm happier than with the system in the US.
Indeed, I went to the doctor today, had to wait 15 minutes, and got some antibiotics and other stuff to clear up my cold, all for 18 Euro.
Well, clearly it's paid for somehow, but I don't pay for it directly. It is important to understand that it's not "free". All told though, I'm happier than with the system in the US.
Indeed, I went to the doctor today, had to wait 15 minutes, and got some antibiotics and other stuff to clear up my cold, all for 18 Euro.
Q: Is this high/low? Q: Who do you use and what do you pay?