[Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI
Craine Kit
kcraine at verizon.net
Wed Oct 7 15:47:01 PDT 2009
I should think (hope?) so. Under our current system, one pays to cover
medical bills related to accidental injuries as part of auto and
property liability insurance. If those bills are included as a matter
of general health coverage, then the cost of the liability insurance
should fall. The number lawsuits should also decrease because people
would not have to go to court to determine who pays the doctor.
Kit
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Wayne Price wrote:
> Kit,
>
> Your comment raises an interesting question. IF medical/health
> insurance is going to be required for everyone in the US, does that
> mean that car insurance will go down?
>
> Wayne
>
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Craine Kit wrote:
>
>> Another cost of the lack of a realistic payment system for health
>> care involves car insurance. I drive a 20 year old Honda. Most of
>> my insurance premium is devoted to covering medical costs, just in
>> case I am in an accident. A good chunk of that covers me and my
>> passengers if the other driver is at-fault and un- or under insured.
>>
>> Kit Craine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Wayne Price wrote:
>>
>>> Saundra,
>>>
>>> Your message below has also brought up another unintended
>>> consequence that has resulted from the insurance problem - Law
>>> suits!
>>>
>>> "And, even for those able to make minimal contributions to an HSA,
>>> they may
>>>> never get ahead. All it may take is your kid falling of his bike
>>>> & breaking
>>>> his arm, or your daughter getting hit by a softball & needing
>>>> stitches, or a
>>>> slip on the ice, or an asthma attack to wipe out the little
>>>> saved . . . and
>>>> a good chunk of you annual salary to boot."
>>>
>>>
>>> A slip on the ice and underinsured? Result is to sue the property
>>> owner. Who threw the softball that resulted in little Susie
>>> needing stitched up? Sue them.
>>> Billy falls off his bike due to an uneven sidewalk - Sue the
>>> property owner!
>>>
>>> Folks that would normally just shake off the incident don't
>>> anymore. Because of the lack of insurance (or under insured) the
>>> solution is sue them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Again Paul,
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>> " I'm not quite sure why my ginormous and presumably unearned
>>>> salary has
>>>> become such a big issue. I was letting you know that there are
>>>> at least a
>>>> few situations where people are happily saving money on this plan."
>>>>
>>>> A couple of points.
>>>>
>>>> I'll say *again* I'm truly glad Plan H is working well for you.
>>>> As a member
>>>> of the UI community, I would certainly hope you would wish the
>>>> same for the
>>>> UI employees -- that they have affordable access to health
>>>> insurance that
>>>> works well for them -- who can afford nothing BUT Plan H that
>>>> ISN'T working
>>>> well for them.
>>>>
>>>> And, I apologize if it sounded like I was picking on your salary
>>>> -- that
>>>> wasn't my intention. I don't know what you make, and until your
>>>> response, I
>>>> didn't know you had no dependents, either. When I first started
>>>> looking into
>>>> the whole health insurance debacle in this country, I learned
>>>> that rural
>>>> parts of the country face unique challenges with respect to both
>>>> health
>>>> *care* and health *insurance*. Looking for an easy quick & dirty
>>>> comparison, I thought I'd compare UI & BSU. The results were
>>>> shocking, and
>>>> not in a good way. I then thought maybe I'd best check out ISU
>>>> so I
>>>> wouldn't have a sample of one that could very well be skewed.
>>>> When the
>>>> rates were identical, I checked out LCSC only to see that they
>>>> have the same
>>>> excellent choices and prices as the other two, and that's when I
>>>> learned
>>>> that the reason for the excellent choices and prices are because
>>>> they are
>>>> part of the state pool.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, UI employees ***with families*** are at a HUGE financial
>>>> disadvantage with respect to health insurance, and that became my
>>>> refrain.
>>>>
>>>> However, the more I asked questions and talked to UI employees,
>>>> the more I
>>>> heard that it's *not* just UI employees with families -- single
>>>> employees
>>>> are unhappy, too, particularly those towards the bottom of the
>>>> university-wide compensation spread. If you're above that level,
>>>> congrats
>>>> and I'm happy to assume you earn your salary just the same as the
>>>> cleaning
>>>> specialist who's earning $21,000 a year :-)
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how old you are, but allow me to point out that
>>>> living on Ramen
>>>> noodles and pancakes is an entirely different thing when you are
>>>> in your 20s
>>>> than when you are in your 40s . . . or older.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like Plan H is a really good fit for you, but if you've
>>>> kept up
>>>> with the health care debate, you surely understand that HSAs
>>>> really *aren't*
>>>> appropriate for a great many people, yet that turned out to be
>>>> the *only*
>>>> affordable option for a lot of UI employees. You may also know
>>>> that the
>>>> whole CDHC theory is hotly debated, and HSAs are perceived to be a
>>>> cornerstone of CDHC. I think for people who WANT to take the
>>>> risk with what
>>>> is modified catastrophic only coverage, that's their choice;
>>>> however, I
>>>> vehemently disagree with a large employer like UI pricing the
>>>> vast majority
>>>> of employees with families out of anything BUT a high deductible
>>>> HSA plan.
>>>> It's just completely immoral, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> But, let's get back to my main point, please: what on earth is
>>>> going on
>>>> that UI employees are at such a HUGE health insurance
>>>> disadvantage compared
>>>> to other state employees?! If the 25,000+ state employees --
>>>> including
>>>> those just 30 miles away at LCSC -- were all in the same boat,
>>>> that would be
>>>> one thing, but employees in the state pool are at a distinct
>>>> advantage when
>>>> it comes to health insurance. In addition to the real-life
>>>> difference this
>>>> makes to UI employees, it's also harmful when it comes to
>>>> recruiting faculty
>>>> and staff, which isn't good for the UI community.
>>>>
>>>> You also wrote:
>>>> "If you are putting money into the HSA, then you will have some
>>>> in the
>>>> account that can be used when trying to meet your higher
>>>> deductible. I
>>>> understand that the first year is a crap shoot - you may need to
>>>> pay $X when
>>>> you have yet put that much into the account."
>>>>
>>>> But, Paul, that's a big IF in your first sentence. Quite a few
>>>> of the
>>>> people I know who were financially forced into Plan H aren't able
>>>> to benefit
>>>> much -- if at all -- from the HSA because they just can't afford to
>>>> contribute -- or contribute much -- to an HSA. Rewind to my
>>>> example of a
>>>> single parent with two children with a gross pay of $40,000 and
>>>> tell me how
>>>> much you realistically think he or she could contribute to an
>>>> HSA. We know
>>>> there are more than a few UI employees who qualify for food
>>>> stamps, for
>>>> Pete's sake -- it's not difficult to understand how those in that
>>>> situation
>>>> just can't contribute to an HSA, is it?
>>>>
>>>> And, even for those able to make minimal contributions to an HSA,
>>>> they may
>>>> never get ahead. All it may take is your kid falling of his bike
>>>> & breaking
>>>> his arm, or your daughter getting hit by a softball & needing
>>>> stitches, or a
>>>> slip on the ice, or an asthma attack to wipe out the little
>>>> saved . . . and
>>>> a good chunk of you annual salary to boot.
>>>>
>>>> You also wrote:
>>>> "What are the differences in coverage between Plan A and Plan H?
>>>> I'm not
>>>> trying to claim that Plan H is better, I simply don't know."
>>>>
>>>> Ron sent you the link, so you can check that out, but I'll throw
>>>> out a
>>>> couple of examples for those who just want a quick glimpse. The
>>>> deductibles
>>>> are dramatically different with Plan A being a heck of a lot
>>>> better ($350
>>>> individual / $1050 family aggregate), and Plan B being even
>>>> better ($175
>>>> individual / $525 family aggregate), and Plan H sucking ($1150
>>>> single /
>>>> $2300 family). Of course, the employee premium is higher for
>>>> Plans A & B.
>>>>
>>>> But, there are other very real differences as well. For those
>>>> able to
>>>> afford Plan A (or Plan B) premiums, they can see a doctor if they
>>>> get sick
>>>> for a very reasonable *pre-deductible* co-pay. For those on Plan
>>>> H, you pay
>>>> EVERYTHING (except wellness/preventative care) *until* you meet the
>>>> deductible.
>>>>
>>>> For those able to afford Plan A, should you or a family member
>>>> need an
>>>> ambulance, it will only cost you a $50 *pre-deductible* co-pay.
>>>> For those
>>>> with Plan H, you'll pay the entire amount unless or until you've
>>>> met the
>>>> deductible, and then insurance will cover 70% of UCR costs.
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, the coverage levels are less for those with Plan
>>>> H even once
>>>> the deductible is met. For someone with Plan A or (B), you have
>>>> a $25 (or
>>>> $15) co-pay if you have to go to the QuickCare; that same visit
>>>> will cost
>>>> someone with Plan H about $41 IF they have met the deductible.
>>>> Generally
>>>> speaking, Plan A pays 80%, Plan B pays 90%, and Plan H pays 70%.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, the family out-of-pocket maximums are lower for those on
>>>> Plan H than
>>>> for those on the UI's Plan A.
>>>>
>>>> Paul, both Rose & I have tried to get stats for many of the
>>>> questions you're
>>>> asking. Previously, statistics were readily available; now, the
>>>> UI acts
>>>> like you are asking for top secret information when you ask.
>>>> Frankly, if
>>>> the UI wants to act secretive and suspicious -- and to tell
>>>> different
>>>> stories to different audiences -- I'm going think there's a
>>>> reason for the
>>>> complete lack of transparency until proven otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> You also wrote:
>>>> "It's my understanding that we haven't been on the State plan for
>>>> years, if
>>>> ever. What would we have paid if we had stayed with Regence?"
>>>>
>>>> According to the Benefits person I spoke with, the UI has never
>>>> been in the
>>>> state pool. My understanding is the question has arisen
>>>> periodically -- I
>>>> think someone has asked it at every Open Enrollment meeting I've
>>>> attended --
>>>> and the explanation has always been that it would be
>>>> disadvantageous to UI
>>>> employees because we are a healthier pool.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, that explanation hasn't held any water for at least the
>>>> last two
>>>> years yet it continues to be the explanation offered.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what the premiums would be had we stayed with
>>>> Regence because
>>>> the UI jumped ship for FY04, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> However, I can tell you that the City of Moscow has Regence as
>>>> their
>>>> carrier, and they are looking at a 4.5% premium increase. The City
>>>> apparently covers the cost for employees as well as 50% of the
>>>> cost for
>>>> dependents, if I correctly understood Mr. Riedner's comments in the
>>>> 9/28/2009 Administrative Committee meeting. Because employees
>>>> didn't get
>>>> raises, the City is proposing to absorb the 4.5% increase so that
>>>> employees
>>>> don't see their wages eroded, and I say KUDOS to the idea.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I don't know what City employees pay in premiums or
>>>> details of
>>>> the coverage, but I sure hope our hard-working City employees
>>>> have better
>>>> coverage than the two-thirds of hard-working UI employees stuck
>>>> with the
>>>> high deductible Plan H.
>>>>
>>>> Again, if all state employees were in the same rotten boat as UI
>>>> employees,
>>>> that would be one thing, but they aren't. State employees have two
>>>> infinitely more affordable health insurance options in addition
>>>> to an
>>>> affordable high deductible plan where one could CHOOSE to
>>>> individually open
>>>> an HSA, if I correctly understand the regulations (no guarantee
>>>> there!).
>>>>
>>>> If you -- or anyone else -- has read this far, thanks :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Saundra Lund
>>>> Moscow, ID
>>>>
>>>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
>>>> people to do
>>>> nothing.
>>>> ~ Edmund Burke
>>>>
>>>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009
>>>> through life plus
>>>> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or
>>>> reproduce outside
>>>> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>>>> author.*****
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:21 PM
>>>> To: Saundra Lund
>>>> Cc: 'Wayne Price'; 'Moscow Vision 2020'; 'Rosemary Rose Huskey'
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI
>>>>
>>>> Saundra,
>>>>
>>>> I had every confidence that you had crunched the numbers. I just
>>>> wanted
>>>> to know what plans and what options. More below.
>>>>
>>>> Saundra Lund wrote:
>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>> "Where does the $191 per pay period number come from? Which
>>>>> plan, what
>>>>> options?"
>>>>>
>>>> <lots of great information snipped for brevity>
>>>>> Paul, I'm truly glad the CHOICE you made to go with Plan H is
>>>>> working for
>>>>> you, but I would certainly hope you've not lost the humanity to
>>>>> understand
>>>>> that people who earn half what you make feel very differently
>>>>> about being
>>>>> financially forced into Plan H. Extend yourself, Paul, and talk
>>>>> to
>>>> someone
>>>>> at the UI whose gross pay is $25,000 per year, and ask them how
>>>>> easy it is
>>>>> for them to make ANY contribution to the HSA or to meet the $1150
>>>> individual
>>>>> / $2300 family deductible. Then, find a single parent (and
>>>>> there are more
>>>>> than a few) at UI whose gross pay is $40,000 per year, and ask
>>>>> that parent
>>>>> how Plan H is working for them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure why my ginormous and presumably unearned
>>>> salary has
>>>> become such a big issue. I was letting you know that there are
>>>> at least
>>>> a few situations where people are happily saving money on this
>>>> plan.
>>>> The amount I put away into the HSA was factored into my resulting
>>>> $3
>>>> health care payment.
>>>>
>>>> I started working at the U of I making minimum wage, so I know
>>>> something
>>>> about eating Top Ramen and pancakes to get by. Not real poverty
>>>> by any
>>>> means, but not the country club atmosphere you seem to believe I've
>>>> insulated myself with.
>>>>
>>>>> In short, it's NOT. Because they can't AFFORD real insurance
>>>>> like Plan A
>>>> or
>>>>> Plan B where you can see a doctor for an affordable pre-
>>>>> deductible co-pay,
>>>>> they can't AFFORD to see doctors for things like bronchitis or
>>>>> pneumonia
>>>> or
>>>>> ear aches or strep -- or headaches that may be a symptom of
>>>>> hypertension
>>>> --
>>>>> without becoming unable to afford to EAT or pay their rent or
>>>>> put gas in
>>>> the
>>>>> cars to get to work or pay child care so they can work. I know
>>>>> several UI
>>>>> employees who have had to stop taking medication for chronic
>>>>> health
>>>>> conditions because they can't AFFORD to pay the entire monthly
>>>>> cost of the
>>>>> medication until they meet the deductible :-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course the landscape changes if you have dependents, or if you
>>>> have
>>>> chronic ailments, or if you have other drains on your bank
>>>> account. I
>>>> agree with that.
>>>>
>>>>> I can also tell you, Paul, that even the single Plan H UI
>>>>> employees I've
>>>>> showed the costs to would much rather pay $30 per month for that
>>>>> PPO
>>>>> coverage or $37 per month for traditional coverage than to be
>>>>> stuck with
>>>>> Plan H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm unique then. I like plan H. I made it through the
>>>> first
>>>> year, so I now have enough in my HSA to cover my deductibles. I
>>>> like
>>>> the lower ceiling. I go to the doctor only when I have to
>>>> anyway, I'm
>>>> covered if something horrible happens, and I pay less than I do
>>>> for my
>>>> parking permit for it. I have an account that, gods willing, I
>>>> can use
>>>> as an extra retirement account someday. Or as a source of needed
>>>> cash
>>>> if I do have something tragic happen to me.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a damn shame that UI employees are getting totally SCREWED
>>>>> on health
>>>>> insurance while those in the state insurance pool continue to be
>>>>> offered
>>>>> real and affordable health insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, here's another little factoid the UI isn't talking about:
>>>>> when
>>>> people
>>>>> can't AFFORD to go to the doctor when they are sick, they are
>>>>> far less
>>>>> likely to take advantage of wellness/preventative care
>>>>> benefits. So, for
>>>>> all those UI employees -- and their families -- who were
>>>>> financially
>>>> FORCED
>>>>> into Plan H, the wellness/preventative care benefit most likely
>>>>> won't pay
>>>>> off over time by helping keep health care costs down as intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul, I don't have statistics for this year because the UI has
>>>>> become less
>>>>> and less transparent about the information over the last couple
>>>>> of years,
>>>>> but I can tell you that for CY08, something like 67% of
>>>>> employees went
>>>> with
>>>>> Plan H, 26% were able to afford Plan A, and only 7% could afford
>>>>> Plan B.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without taking this as an attack or anything, what does the Plan H
>>>> participant pay compared to the Plan A participant if they take
>>>> full
>>>> advantage of the HSA? Just to get the numbers. If you are putting
>>>> money into the HSA, then you will have some in the account that
>>>> can be
>>>> used when trying to meet your higher deductible. I understand
>>>> that the
>>>> first year is a crap shoot - you may need to pay $X when you have
>>>> yet
>>>> put that much into the account.
>>>>
>>>> What are the differences in coverage between Plan A and Plan H?
>>>> I'm not
>>>> trying to claim that Plan H is better, I simply don't know.
>>>>
>>>>> And, to show you just how completely out of touch UI
>>>>> administration is
>>>> with
>>>>> the financial realities for their employees, they thought the
>>>>> reason for
>>>> the
>>>>> "success" of Plan H was because they "actively marketed" it.
>>>>> <snort> How
>>>>> they can remain oblivious to the fact that Plan H is the ONLY
>>>>> coverage
>>>> many
>>>>> employees can afford is a mystery to me, particularly since
>>>>> employees
>>>>> certainly haven't been quiet about it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul also wrote:
>>>>> "I don't know if we can get these numbers, but it would be nice
>>>>> to know
>>>> what
>>>>> LCSC pays average per employee compared to the U of I. That
>>>>> might be
>>>>> something we can sink our teeth into."
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't think that would be helpful because they are
>>>>> fortunate to
>>>> be
>>>>> in the state pool. What you'd want to see is the average pay of
>>>>> those in
>>>>> the state pool compared to the average UI employee.
>>>>>
>>>>> In looking back through all the meeting minutes, it's a CRUEL
>>>>> JOKE that UI
>>>>> employees have been told at every turn it wouldn't be
>>>>> advantageous for the
>>>>> UI to participate in the state insurance pool because UI
>>>>> employees are a
>>>>> healthier pool and we'd see our costs go up were we to join the
>>>>> state
>>>> pool.
>>>>> In fact, when questioned in ***2007*** Lloyd Mues offered the same
>>>>> explanation yet again and added that the state pool rates
>>>>> wouldn't look as
>>>>> good come ***July 1, 2008*** as they then looked. Fortunately
>>>>> for all the
>>>>> state employees -- and unfortunately for UI employees -- Mues
>>>>> was wrong,
>>>>> wrong, wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> For any who are interested in seeing for themselves the details
>>>>> of the
>>>>> coverage those in the state pool are offered, check out:
>>>>> http://adm.idaho.gov/insurance/contracts.htm
>>>>> For FY10, check out:
>>>>>
>>>> http://adm.idaho.gov/insurance/grp/contracts/FY2010/GI_Handbook_Summary_FY20
>>>>> 10_final_CCD.pdf
>>>>> Current rates are on page 14.
>>>>>
>>>>> State pool rate increases positively pale in comparison to what
>>>>> my family
>>>>> has seen with the UI in recent years. Our family premiums
>>>>> increased 23%
>>>> for
>>>>> FY07 (7/1/2006 - 6/30/2007). We then had a WHOPPING 69% premium
>>>>> increase
>>>>> effective 7-1-2007, and we *would* have had another 70% premium
>>>>> increase
>>>>> just six months later effective 1-1-2008, but that's when we were
>>>>> financially forced into Plan H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's my understanding that we haven't been on the State plan for
>>>> years,
>>>> if ever. What would we have paid if we had stayed with Regence?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list