Comments on: Number of uninsured fell, but government dependency rose http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0074 from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:47:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Kitty Antonik Wakfer http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0074#comment-1815 Kitty Antonik Wakfer Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:21:19 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=74#comment-1815 I and husband Paul (ages 63 and 70, respectively) do not have health insurance by choice. However, we take a very active role in maintaining our excellent health - high nutrition calorie restriction with intermittent fasting, regular vigorous exercise, restful sleep, assortment of supplements, specific researched chemicals, regular in-home health parameter monitoring and a battery of lab tests every 12 to 18 months. We pay directly for those very infrequent physician office visits we have had reason to make since we were married in 2000 (mosly to only obtain "gatekeeper" services) and are prepared to use our savings if an unexpected incident occurs - like the ureteral stone I had 5 years ago. (Measures taken for prevention of repeat calculi have been quite successful - not even any UTI in the past 2 years, although I had 3-4 yearly in the previous 20 years.) We would like to have catastrophic health insurance with a large deductible ($25,000) just for the possibility of some disorder/injury that would be *extremely* expensive. But the highest deductible available, when looking online just for me (in Arizona) is $5000 and the lowest monthly premium for that is $228! That's $2736 per year! This is far more than we think is warranted by our excellent health and preventative measures. From what I have seen, the health insurance coverage choices are *very* limited for those who take active measures to (get and) remain healthy. And insurance company health policies that I have seen do not at all consider anything more than a person's gender, age, where s/he lives and whether or not s/he is currently a smoker. Actual current and recent health status is not even a part of premium determination - the fact of not being a smoker (length of time not asked) is not definitive of a person's overall health. (I haven't smoked in over 40 year - and Paul has never smoked - but I am viewed the same as someone who stopped recently.) Current major medical (euphemism for catastrophic coverage only) insurance policies - at least in Arizona - treats everyone of the same age, gender, current smoking status and in the same general location the same - which they definitely are not. I find it hard to believe that some insurance company would not offer the kind of catastrophic medical expense coverage that I would seriously consider - if there were not some government regulation, state or federal, against doing so. It appears that once again government regulation has caused certain choices to be unavailable and has thwarted desired voluntary exchanges. Lastly, in Fall 2007 I had to seek the services of an otolaryngologist outside of Casa Grande AZ, where I live, when the only one in that medium size town would not see me because I did not have insurance. It did not matter that I was willing and able to pay for the visit with cash in advance - I actually showed up at the office with a sizable amount of cash in hand. In comparison, the only urologist in that town has been extraordinarily acceptable of me and Paul as self-pay patients for years. For a more lengthy description of another of our experiences with a physician, actually a hospital employee but never advertised or known to us as such until after the first visit, see "Health Care Provision Responsibility and Social Preferencing - A Personal Example" - http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcareexample.html Kitty Antonik Wakfer Casa Grande Arizona I and husband Paul (ages 63 and 70, respectively) do not have health insurance by choice. However, we take a very active role in maintaining our excellent health – high nutrition calorie restriction with intermittent fasting, regular vigorous exercise, restful sleep, assortment of supplements, specific researched chemicals, regular in-home health parameter monitoring and a battery of lab tests every 12 to 18 months. We pay directly for those very infrequent physician office visits we have had reason to make since we were married in 2000 (mosly to only obtain “gatekeeper” services) and are prepared to use our savings if an unexpected incident occurs – like the ureteral stone I had 5 years ago. (Measures taken for prevention of repeat calculi have been quite successful – not even any UTI in the past 2 years, although I had 3-4 yearly in the previous 20 years.)

We would like to have catastrophic health insurance with a large deductible ($25,000) just for the possibility of some disorder/injury that would be *extremely* expensive. But the highest deductible available, when looking online just for me (in Arizona) is $5000 and the lowest monthly premium for that is $228! That’s $2736 per year! This is far more than we think is warranted by our excellent health and preventative measures. From what I have seen, the health insurance coverage choices are *very* limited for those who take active measures to (get and) remain healthy. And insurance company health policies that I have seen do not at all consider anything more than a person’s gender, age, where s/he lives and whether or not s/he is currently a smoker. Actual current and recent health status is not even a part of premium determination – the fact of not being a smoker (length of time not asked) is not definitive of a person’s overall health. (I haven’t smoked in over 40 year – and Paul has never smoked – but I am viewed the same as someone who stopped recently.) Current major medical (euphemism for catastrophic coverage only) insurance policies – at least in Arizona – treats everyone of the same age, gender, current smoking status and in the same general location the same – which they definitely are not.

I find it hard to believe that some insurance company would not offer the kind of catastrophic medical expense coverage that I would seriously consider – if there were not some government regulation, state or federal, against doing so. It appears that once again government regulation has caused certain choices to be unavailable and has thwarted desired voluntary exchanges.

Lastly, in Fall 2007 I had to seek the services of an otolaryngologist outside of Casa Grande AZ, where I live, when the only one in that medium size town would not see me because I did not have insurance. It did not matter that I was willing and able to pay for the visit with cash in advance – I actually showed up at the office with a sizable amount of cash in hand. In comparison, the only urologist in that town has been extraordinarily acceptable of me and Paul as self-pay patients for years. For a more lengthy description of another of our experiences with a physician, actually a hospital employee but never advertised or known to us as such until after the first visit, see “Health Care Provision Responsibility and Social Preferencing – A Personal Example” – http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcareexample.html

Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Casa Grande Arizona

]]>