It is very important that everyone buys a good health insurance plan. This helps them to pay for their medical care before they get sick or when sick. With a good health plan, you don't have to bother yourself about your medical bills because you are always ready for any sudden sickness attack. This is a relief for unprepared expenditures and you have no worries concerning your health because your plan take care of it all.
When buying a health cover plan, it is best you know the quality of service offered. This is because some insurers do not add some types of surgery, some needed inclusions and accident cover. There are guidelines that govern these policies; your knowledge of these rules and regulations will help you a great deal. For instance, you may end up with a yearly contract that does not include some needed amenities in the hospital.
Pregnancies, injuries and out of patient visits are the major cover services you find in most health insurance plans. While previously existing sickness likes cancer and sickle cell anemia and situations that endangers one's life are not included. In many occasions, you will discover that insurers give you paramount health care via their relationship with licensed hospitals and experienced doctors.
If you wish to get the best health cover provider, the right place to start is the internet. On the internet, you will contact reliable providers via trusted health cover websites, then you compile a list of available quotes from different of insurers, compare them and make the right choice.
Where to Get Trusted Health Insurance Companies, Compare Their Free Quotes and Choose Your Ideal Policy Online?
Read More ..
Sabtu, 25 Juli 2009
Sabtu, 18 Juli 2009
Low Income Health Insurance - Some Options For People on a Tight Budget
Medical care is extremely expensive and without health insurance, getting the care you need when you need it can be very difficult. People with health insurance get much better care than the uninsured do, they also get that care in a more timely fashion. For people that need coverage but simply can't afford it, there are some low income health insurance options available.
One option to consider would be a high deductible health plan also known as catastrophic health insurance. When your deductibles are high your monthly payments will be much lower. The problem is that the deductibles are so high that things like regular doctors visits and checkups would not be covered because paying for a doctors visit out of pocket would be less than paying the deductible for this type of plan. This type of plan is more for things like surgery, hospitalization, and other "catastrophic" incidents that would be very expensive.
One way to help pay for your less expensive and more common medical needs would be to set up a health savings account. A health savings account or HSA is a good way to save money on health insurance and works well in conjunction with a high deductible health plan. An HSA is like a savings account that is earmarked for health care expenses. Money would be taken out of your paycheck and deposited into the account at the end of each pay period. The money that goes into the HSA is free from any federal income tax and because it is taken out of your pay check it lowers your taxable income.
The money in an HSA can be taken out to pay for medical expenses without paying any taxes on the money. At age 65 the money in the account can be taken out for any reason at any time without any penalties.
Setting up a health savings account in conjunction with a high deductible health plan can be a good option for low income health insurance but it's not for everyone. A high deductible plan protects you in case of serious illness or injury and a health savings account helps lower the cost of occasional doctors visits but, if you have some type of chronic illness or require frequent doctors visits for any reason then you would be better served by a more traditional health insurance plan.
The best way to save money on any type of health insurance is to do some comparison shopping. You can get multiple quotes online from a number of different providers in just a few minutes and doing so would allow you to quickly and easily find the coverage you need at the best possible price
Read More ..
One option to consider would be a high deductible health plan also known as catastrophic health insurance. When your deductibles are high your monthly payments will be much lower. The problem is that the deductibles are so high that things like regular doctors visits and checkups would not be covered because paying for a doctors visit out of pocket would be less than paying the deductible for this type of plan. This type of plan is more for things like surgery, hospitalization, and other "catastrophic" incidents that would be very expensive.
One way to help pay for your less expensive and more common medical needs would be to set up a health savings account. A health savings account or HSA is a good way to save money on health insurance and works well in conjunction with a high deductible health plan. An HSA is like a savings account that is earmarked for health care expenses. Money would be taken out of your paycheck and deposited into the account at the end of each pay period. The money that goes into the HSA is free from any federal income tax and because it is taken out of your pay check it lowers your taxable income.
The money in an HSA can be taken out to pay for medical expenses without paying any taxes on the money. At age 65 the money in the account can be taken out for any reason at any time without any penalties.
Setting up a health savings account in conjunction with a high deductible health plan can be a good option for low income health insurance but it's not for everyone. A high deductible plan protects you in case of serious illness or injury and a health savings account helps lower the cost of occasional doctors visits but, if you have some type of chronic illness or require frequent doctors visits for any reason then you would be better served by a more traditional health insurance plan.
The best way to save money on any type of health insurance is to do some comparison shopping. You can get multiple quotes online from a number of different providers in just a few minutes and doing so would allow you to quickly and easily find the coverage you need at the best possible price
Read More ..
Sabtu, 11 Juli 2009
Public Health Insurance - An Essential Lifesaver For the American Health System
There is much debate about the type of insurance proposals that will be required in the new health system currently being negotiated in Congress. President Obama has just come out in support of a public health plan, which is opposed by private insurers who say that they could not compete with a public health plan that didn't have to make a profit. Supporters of the public plan proposal correctly say that it would give people more choices and create more competition. Opponents argue that private health plans would go out of business, leaving only an entirely government-run health care system.
Of course all sides are exaggerating and taking up extreme positions. They will all in time compromise and hopefully reach some form of agreement. The sad part is that at present they don't seem to be thinking of the person at the center of all this - the patient. It is widely acknowledged that health care costs far too much in this country, while at the same time at least 47 million Americans are uninsured. So, from a patients perspective, if you do have health insurance, you are paying way too much for it, and getting poor value, and if you don't have it, then you just continue to suffer. What a dreadful choice. What an indictment of America.
The goals of overhauling the health care system are to lower costs and extend care to the uninsured. Obama wants a bill on his desk in October at the latest. Where can Congress begin to compromise, and why is it that Republicans in particular, believe that public health plans are likely to be so dreadful. What is the evidence for this belief beyond their own philosophical ideas. They regularly bring up the supposed ogre of "socialized medicine" whenever public plans are discussed, but there is no evidence whatsoever that countries with more federal control over their health systems, especially in Europe, have worse health outcomes that the USA. In fact the contrary is true, health outcomes are much better overall, and cost a lot less money per capita of population.
As a physician who has lived and worked in the USA, Australia and Britain, and who has an interest in how health services are organized, I think America could move forward in a relatively simple way as long as we always keep the patient at the center of any health system we plan. It is essential that we do not design a health system primarily to protect profit levels for some or all of the various constituents, whether they be providers, health insurers or pharmaceutical companies. We have the opportunity of picking the best parts of other health systems from around the world and including these in the eventual plan to reform American health care, and we should learn from other countries.
What should we do?
Firstly we need a public-private partnership philosophy. Australia is a good example where this works excellently. That means public and private, not just private. American core business and social philosophies are based on capitalist principals so any new approach to health care must combine the need for profits in certain sectors of the health system, with the need to develop a number of core public health services that may be less likely to ever achieve a profit. Funding for care has to involve choice and should be provided in many instances through payment for annual or episodic whole of person care, rather than on individual piece rates as at present. These capitated payment systems work well for Kaiser Permanente, and in Britain. The primary gain from this approach is that it tends to force more resources into the prevention of illness and wellness promotion, rather than into the treatment of illnesses that have already commenced.
The public component of the health care system, seemingly strongly supported by President Obama, would include universal basic health insurance as well as catastrophic care insurance. We know that this type of system works well in America and is widely accepted and popular, because we have the very successful example of Medicare for seniors. Effectively broadening the base of Medicare for other populations would prevent many of the bankruptcies caused by healthcare costs, and would cover many of the current uninsured. Public insurance would then be likely to pay for many emergency and geographically isolated health services, as well as public health services, pre and postnatal and early child care as well as care of some special populations who cannot afford private health insurance such as the unemployed, and certain impoverished or geographically isolated groups. Medicare for seniors would of course continue. These are areas where there will be less competition from private insurers who have typically kept away from them, but of course any private health insurers would be able to enter these markets and compete if they wished.
The private component would be funded with the aid of broader tax incentives or similar financial tools to encourage most people (or companies) to take out private insurance. The aim should be that at least 80-90% of the population should have private insurance, whether it be comprehensive insurance, or top-up insurance to support core government provided insurance. It is important to reach this level of insurance to ensure that we all are financially responsible for at least a reasonable proportion of our health care costs. Here the Republicans are right as it is important that we do not see health care as something that is provided for free. The private sector should offer a full range of services from birth to death, but the industry should be more carefully regulated so that they would, for instance, be prevented from excluding patients on the grounds of pre-existing conditions. They should also have the ability to charge extra for certain "non-essential" services such as cosmetic surgery.
These ideas are taken from what I consider to be the best parts of the American, Australian and British health systems. No country has a perfect health system, and no country ever will. America can afford to choose the best from other countries as it debates how to improve its health care system. Lets hope that Congress can be creative, look outwardly, and not get bogged down in political dogma.
Read More ..
Of course all sides are exaggerating and taking up extreme positions. They will all in time compromise and hopefully reach some form of agreement. The sad part is that at present they don't seem to be thinking of the person at the center of all this - the patient. It is widely acknowledged that health care costs far too much in this country, while at the same time at least 47 million Americans are uninsured. So, from a patients perspective, if you do have health insurance, you are paying way too much for it, and getting poor value, and if you don't have it, then you just continue to suffer. What a dreadful choice. What an indictment of America.
The goals of overhauling the health care system are to lower costs and extend care to the uninsured. Obama wants a bill on his desk in October at the latest. Where can Congress begin to compromise, and why is it that Republicans in particular, believe that public health plans are likely to be so dreadful. What is the evidence for this belief beyond their own philosophical ideas. They regularly bring up the supposed ogre of "socialized medicine" whenever public plans are discussed, but there is no evidence whatsoever that countries with more federal control over their health systems, especially in Europe, have worse health outcomes that the USA. In fact the contrary is true, health outcomes are much better overall, and cost a lot less money per capita of population.
As a physician who has lived and worked in the USA, Australia and Britain, and who has an interest in how health services are organized, I think America could move forward in a relatively simple way as long as we always keep the patient at the center of any health system we plan. It is essential that we do not design a health system primarily to protect profit levels for some or all of the various constituents, whether they be providers, health insurers or pharmaceutical companies. We have the opportunity of picking the best parts of other health systems from around the world and including these in the eventual plan to reform American health care, and we should learn from other countries.
What should we do?
Firstly we need a public-private partnership philosophy. Australia is a good example where this works excellently. That means public and private, not just private. American core business and social philosophies are based on capitalist principals so any new approach to health care must combine the need for profits in certain sectors of the health system, with the need to develop a number of core public health services that may be less likely to ever achieve a profit. Funding for care has to involve choice and should be provided in many instances through payment for annual or episodic whole of person care, rather than on individual piece rates as at present. These capitated payment systems work well for Kaiser Permanente, and in Britain. The primary gain from this approach is that it tends to force more resources into the prevention of illness and wellness promotion, rather than into the treatment of illnesses that have already commenced.
The public component of the health care system, seemingly strongly supported by President Obama, would include universal basic health insurance as well as catastrophic care insurance. We know that this type of system works well in America and is widely accepted and popular, because we have the very successful example of Medicare for seniors. Effectively broadening the base of Medicare for other populations would prevent many of the bankruptcies caused by healthcare costs, and would cover many of the current uninsured. Public insurance would then be likely to pay for many emergency and geographically isolated health services, as well as public health services, pre and postnatal and early child care as well as care of some special populations who cannot afford private health insurance such as the unemployed, and certain impoverished or geographically isolated groups. Medicare for seniors would of course continue. These are areas where there will be less competition from private insurers who have typically kept away from them, but of course any private health insurers would be able to enter these markets and compete if they wished.
The private component would be funded with the aid of broader tax incentives or similar financial tools to encourage most people (or companies) to take out private insurance. The aim should be that at least 80-90% of the population should have private insurance, whether it be comprehensive insurance, or top-up insurance to support core government provided insurance. It is important to reach this level of insurance to ensure that we all are financially responsible for at least a reasonable proportion of our health care costs. Here the Republicans are right as it is important that we do not see health care as something that is provided for free. The private sector should offer a full range of services from birth to death, but the industry should be more carefully regulated so that they would, for instance, be prevented from excluding patients on the grounds of pre-existing conditions. They should also have the ability to charge extra for certain "non-essential" services such as cosmetic surgery.
These ideas are taken from what I consider to be the best parts of the American, Australian and British health systems. No country has a perfect health system, and no country ever will. America can afford to choose the best from other countries as it debates how to improve its health care system. Lets hope that Congress can be creative, look outwardly, and not get bogged down in political dogma.
Read More ..
Minggu, 05 Juli 2009
Is Medicare at Risk From National Health Care?
The money to fund a new National Health Care System is going to have to come from someplace. The cost is estimated in some circles at over 1.3 trillion dollars over ten years. Some estimate the cost as much more. Most Government entitlement programs have a history of costing more than projected.
The Obama administration plans to partially offset this cost by saving 117 billion dollars over ten years on Medicare expenses. This will result in a decrease in the services covered by Medicare as doctors and hospitals leave a system that no longer pays them adequately.
A decision has evidently been made that the elderly are going to die anyway so why bother giving them the quality of health care that could prolong their lives. Don't you think your life is worth saving/?
What are the elderly going to do to protect their medical insurance benefits? Will they protest these proposed changes? Will they contact their Senators and Congressmen to evidence their dissatisfaction and back it up at the ballot box in the 2010 interim elections? Will elderly organizations finally come off their neutral stand and back up their members? Will Seniors organize to protect their benefits and access to their doctors?
Then there is the Administration's current position that they will force doctors who accept Medicare to accept a new proposed Government backed insurance carrier. This will only result in driving more doctors out of the system that accepts Medicare. There is already a movement by a number of doctors to stop accepting Medicare recipients because of poor payment conditions. And as part of the Administrations program to take benefits from Seniors, they are going to try and eliminate the private insurance companies that offer additional benefits to us over our basic Medicare plan. Who is going to make up the difference to us - Medicare?
Has the Democratic Party written off the elderly voter? Do they think they can get away with taking away our benefits to pay for the uninsured? Is this the kind of new National health Care system that you want? Do you want your hard earned health care benefits redistributed to others? Wake up Seniors. It's time to take a stand and protect your interests. It's time to find your voice and tell the powers that be that you are not going to take losing your benefits without them losing your vote.
Who gives the current Administration the right to say you don't need a particular medical treatment because you are going to die any way?
Read More ..
The Obama administration plans to partially offset this cost by saving 117 billion dollars over ten years on Medicare expenses. This will result in a decrease in the services covered by Medicare as doctors and hospitals leave a system that no longer pays them adequately.
A decision has evidently been made that the elderly are going to die anyway so why bother giving them the quality of health care that could prolong their lives. Don't you think your life is worth saving/?
What are the elderly going to do to protect their medical insurance benefits? Will they protest these proposed changes? Will they contact their Senators and Congressmen to evidence their dissatisfaction and back it up at the ballot box in the 2010 interim elections? Will elderly organizations finally come off their neutral stand and back up their members? Will Seniors organize to protect their benefits and access to their doctors?
Then there is the Administration's current position that they will force doctors who accept Medicare to accept a new proposed Government backed insurance carrier. This will only result in driving more doctors out of the system that accepts Medicare. There is already a movement by a number of doctors to stop accepting Medicare recipients because of poor payment conditions. And as part of the Administrations program to take benefits from Seniors, they are going to try and eliminate the private insurance companies that offer additional benefits to us over our basic Medicare plan. Who is going to make up the difference to us - Medicare?
Has the Democratic Party written off the elderly voter? Do they think they can get away with taking away our benefits to pay for the uninsured? Is this the kind of new National health Care system that you want? Do you want your hard earned health care benefits redistributed to others? Wake up Seniors. It's time to take a stand and protect your interests. It's time to find your voice and tell the powers that be that you are not going to take losing your benefits without them losing your vote.
Who gives the current Administration the right to say you don't need a particular medical treatment because you are going to die any way?
Read More ..
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
