Slashdot Log In
Health Insurance for the Self-Employed?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri Dec 01, 2006 05:58 AM
from the an-issue-that-deserves-another-look dept.
from the an-issue-that-deserves-another-look dept.
SharkJumper writes "Looks like this question has been asked before, but might be due for an update. I'm a self-employed programmer who is about to become a father. Previously, my family's insurance has come through my wife's employer, but she is eagerly looking forward to being a stay-at-home mom. We must look for that elusive low-cost insurance in order to enable her to do this. Losing her insurance is not a huge loss as, due to failed negotiations, the hospital in our city (3rd largest city in the state), along with most of the doctors that refer to it, is dumping the network (largest in the state) that our insurance uses. On the individual coverage plan front, my research shows story after story of deception, fraud, and general run-around or obfuscation by most of the major players and nearly all the minors. With all of the bad experiences out there, I've yet to see a good review of an insurance company. What does the Slashdot crowd use and recommend? Company and plan-type? PPO? HMO? HDHP + HSA (High Deductible Health Plan + Health Savings Account)?"
Related Stories
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Health Insurance for the Self-Employed 111 comments
A nameless submittor wanted to voice this very valid concern: "I'm a self-employed contract programmer whose COBRA benefits are going to run out early next year. I was wondering what experiences others of similar employ have had obtaining health and disability insurance? What is available? What about rates? Is the coverage any good? What do I need to look out for?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Health Insurance for the Self-Employed?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 462 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:For better health coverage? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 22 2006, @03:56PM)
While a humorous comment, it highlights what makes the American health care system so unique. We are so fiercely independent, that a good majority of Americans don't like having the government telling us what to do, and this includes how we take care of our body and our health. This system allows for many benefits as well as problems. The most visible problem is the ever-increasing cost of health care, and the number of people like yourselves who are falling through the cracks because good health insurance is only available through employers who can command group rates. On the flip side, because the state is not dictating how health care is conducting itself, American health care is a hot-bed of new procedures and techniques that push the limits of health care because people are willing to pay for an unproven technique even if it has even a small chance of success if the alternative is not acceptable. For example, the second son of a friend of mine was diagnose with Spina Bifida [wikipedia.org] and instead of accepting that his child would be born paralyzed, was able to find a surgeon who was willing to perform surgery on the child while he was still in the womb! [fetal-surgery.com] (notice that of the four hospitals in the world that perform this unique and complicated surgery, all of them are located in the United States)
As a graduate student, I am faced with paying for a cut-rate, we-don't-pay-for-anything-unless-you-get-hit-by-a- bus student plan, or a much more expensive individual plan. There are very few national health care providers, and you would be well suited to search for and find a regional health insurance company. In the mid-west, I have been leaning towards Anthem [anthem.com] as my insurance provider, and hope to have a plan from them to help me start off the new year.
You get what you pay for (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday July 22 2005, @05:16PM)
Now it's 2-3 weeks later. Often the X-Rays are lousy, not the right ones, etc. If they have a broken bone it means that I'll have to re-break it to set it straight. If they have a tumor, then that's just another 3 weeks that it has a chance to metastasize.
If an HMO patient has a broken bone, then I have to use heavy plaster casts, instead of light fiberglass, because what the insurance pays me means I'll actually lose money on the fiberglass cast.
HMO's are O.K. if you don't get sick - do yourself a favor and get a PPO.
Re:For better health coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For better health coverage? (Score:4, Informative)
It's true for the spina bifida surgery (I was tempted to disagree, but I re-checked).
However, this is because the operation is still in a trial phase. It still has to be proven that the intrauterine operation gives a better outcome than a postnatal operation. I guess that all other hospitals around the world are waiting for the outcome - they don't want to be the ones to have performed complex and risky procedures that later turned out to be no better (or worse) than the conventional, tested approach.
Re:For better health coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 22 2006, @03:56PM)
Actually I don't listen to talk radio, mostly because radio talk show hosts are there to entertain you and they do so by espousing their view on different subjects, without regard to the facts. In academia, what we learn is based on studies and fact, and exploration of ideas and questions about what we observe. While we may have opinions about why things are as they are, those opinions may drive us to study why we think what we think, and explore other options in coming up with a reasonable conclusion.
There are many factors that are contributing to the increasing cost of health care in the United States, however medicare and medicaid are not reasons why Joe Citizen is paying more for health insurance. As those are government programs, the taxpayer is paying for any fraud. If you are talking about Medicare Part D, and the federal government not being able to directly negotiate drug prices, of course they don't negotiate drug prices, that is the job of the health insurance companies who operate under the Part D rules, they directly negotiate with the drug companies so that they can offer a drug plan that is less expensive than the other Part D plans, so they can attract the seniors, disabled and the poor to their plan! The more they attract, the more clout they have, and the lower the price they can get from the drug companies. Medicare is only reimbursing the health insurance companies depending on how many people have signed up for their plan. For every person they have signed up for their plan, they get a set amount of money from the government. No more or no less than any other health insurance company.
Part D is a good plan that utilizes the skill-set of an established industry, and doesn't mandate government control over the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, government spending for this program has been much less than originally estimated. Because of Part D more senior citizens, disabled, and poor are able to receive prescription drugs for chronic problems. Also, Part D has been able to actually lower the cost of health care for this particular group of people (compare Part D plans to other prescription drug plans).
Depends on what you mean by a coherent national health system. Hilary Clinton proposed a coherent national health system in the early '90s but there was too much resistance to the idea. If you mean a nationalized system like Canada or the United Kingdom, the lower cost comes at a loss of growth in development of new procedures and techniques. Consider my earlier example, where if my friend had been in a country with a nationalized health care system, his son would have been born paralyzed, and the government would have had to pay for his care for his entire lifetime. Without investment in new techniques and procedures, he would not have had the opportunity to walk or care for himself. Surely a smaller investment up front is better than a lifetime of costs? However, developing those techniques and procedures can be very expensive, and it is very hard to justify those expenses in a nationalized health care system when the primary focus is on keeping costs low, and utilizing proven techniques and procedures rather than experimental ones.
While every business is in business to make money, most would take the 2% over cost that medicare and medicaid grant over the alternative; patients without the means to pay for their own health care who default on payments, or declare bankruptcy. There are a lot more stakeholders involved in the United States health care than just insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Small business associations (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.annoying.org/)
I don't know for sure if it was specifically a small business association, or that's what I just remember it as, or if it was a local or national thing, but you can try asking around. (or someone else might be able to follow up with some knowledge of these sorts of groups)
A quick look online suggests that the ASBA [asbaonline.org] has some sort of discount on health insurance
First things first (Score:3)
(http://eth1.org/)
Poor Americans, .. again (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe, glorious old lady that she is has long ago implemented the National healthcare to make sure that
A; Everyone has access to proper healthcare.
B; Everyone automatically pays into the healthcare fund so it can be maintained
C; Good quality in healthcare is guaranteed by state checkups.
In those days there were no "private" health insurance companies, but look what trusting in those has brought you? Deception, Fraud, and general run-around or obfuscation from most if not all of the private insurance companies.
IMHO, healthcare is not, and has never been something companies should be in charge of. A companies purpose is to make money. The state however, if it's run by others then the idiots running the American state, should be more interested in keeping it's taxpayers ALIVE and healthy so they can work and pay taxes next year.
Re:Poor Americans, .. again (Score:5, Interesting)
Another difference is doctors here make a fortune, just like lawyers. Whereas those in the UK can work 80 hours a week for a middle income. Medical professional are also broken down into an infinite number of specialists here, there's little need to muck around with general practitioners, if you do, you'll get referred to a specialist pretty quick.
There is also free medical for low income and freeloader types. Most places will not turn you away either. If you call up front, you'll be asked about insurance. Even when you receive huge bills, you can make small monthly payments to pay it off. Children without medical cover may be covered by the state, so if you have a young kid and a big bill, yet have no insurance, and if your income is low enough (which is less than something like $50-60k I've been told) the state will pick up the tab.
It's not all doom and gloom like you think it is. Yes, there's a huge amount of profiteering, a bill will be for different values depending on payment, and insurance companies waste a huge resource avoiding payment, you really have to be on the ball even with cover. The real issues are for the long term sick, rather than fixing up a damaged body part.
Change is needed now (Score:5, Insightful)
Many states have an expensive health insurance pool that has high deductible insurance that will only take care of you in catastrophic conditions. If you go for the low deductible, expect to find very high premiums and equally high copays.
With the high deductible plan you can start a health savings account (who has money to save these days?), but that may be your best option.
Most important, keep your coverage with your wife current as long as you can as you may get your prexisting conditions covered without a waiting period.
In my circumstance at least, I have found that health insurance companies have no reason to want to insure anyone that may be a liability down the road. I do not see a political solution to this, as congress is corrupt. The best they could do was pass a bill that made it hard for sick people who got burried by medical bills more difficult to declare bankruptcy. And another program that was essentially a handout to drug companies that foisted a compkicated hard to use drug plan onto seniors. That's all they have done. This last congress was the most do-nothing congress ever. It seems the only thing they had time for was to take bribes from abramoff and hit up underage pages for sex and try to cover up the trail later. The health care industry is not much better with their costs outpacing inflation 3 to 1 at least.
I know neocons are not going to like what I'm about to say, and how important that it is fighting alquaida over in Iraq blah blah blah, but the fact is with what we have spent on this war to knock over a tin horn dictator I bet we could have paid for everybody's current medical expenses in the US, let alone making it affordable.
If you're healthy and have job, you probably will not won't give what I have to say a second thought. But if your sick as I am and can't find coverage or a doctor, you know how bad it is. If your self employed doubly so. Even if you do have coverage, you have got to be noticing how your insurance premiums are getting more expensive and its covering less, your deductible is more, and prescriptions are through the roof.
But the greatest crime of the Iraq war is that it has taken attention completely away from the health care crisis. I have talked to my politicians to no avail. Gratefully though, a challenger for state office DID talk about it and it got him elected.
We had no business screwing around in Iraq (esp. with the WMD big lie) without taking care of our own at home first. It's that simple. If things aren't working for you, it's important to let your politicians and everyone around you know how you feel. Only this way will there be hope for change.
BTW, make sure that the high deductible health savings account pays for 100% above a certain point. 80%, and you still could (likely)lose your shirt if you get sick.
Blues (Score:3, Informative)
(http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
Re:Blues (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://baptiste.us/ | Last Journal: Monday April 01 2002, @11:27AM)
There are lots of reasons insurance is expensive. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.college-paintball.com/)
As long as we are unwilling to say "You know what, it's too expensive to keep you alive", a lot of people are going to die because they can't afford to subsidize the healthcare costs of the extremely sick and therefore can't get even basic healthcare.
We need insurance plans that cap maximum expense - so you can sign up for death if you catch something that's going to cost 3 million to fix so you can survive the far more likely chance you get a disease/injury that costs $40,000 without going bankrupt.
Couple of suggestions (Score:4, Insightful)
(it's even worse for a small company under 25 employees!)
If you're a member of the IEEE or any other "entrepreur" association you qualify for a group policy via them. That's usually a good deal. For example a quick search of "self-employed association" just showed as its first hit an association that offers health insurance. I have no connection and won't shill for them by including the URL.
If you live in CA I hear Kaiser is quite good though I've never used 'em myself.
Good luck. You'll find a lot of "well baby" visits will be needed in the first year or so. Well, at more than you need as an adult anyway. The insurance companies usually subsidise them because it's cheaper to catch something in the bud.
And finally, in all seriousness, consider moving to my home country, Australia. There's a preference for computer programmers under 40, and it's a great place to be or raise a kid. (though I live in California right now myself...)
Oh and have fun. One thing to be careful of / manage: I basically didn't work for the first couple of years after my kid was born and again when he was perhaps 4-6. That was really great. Try to find a way to balance the time with the family with making sure there's some regular income!
IMPORTANT (Score:5, Insightful)
I just got out of the Air Force and am now working as an independent contractor. Tricare does have a COBRA-type polkicy I can get but it's very expensive. I can't just get the coverage for my wife, I have to be on the policy, so I'm having to pay about $2200/3 months for it. At least it comes in 3 month chunks, so I won't have to carry it longer than I need it.
If there weren't that program available to me, I don't know what I'd do. In Georgia where I live there is a Medicade program for pregnant women, but I make too much money to qualify for that. If you make more than $1600/week with a family of 4 (they count the unborn) you make too much. My wife had to have a c-section last time and I saw the bill Tricare got. For everything throughout the pregnancy they paid out over $60k.
I have heard that if you can't get coverage and you talk to OB docs, they can usually work with you and sometimes you can end up paying less than if you had insurance. I have not looked in to that yet. Good luck!
Go for the high deductible (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://bmitch.net/)
For the record, the place I got in trouble was picking the cheaper plan and then getting a physical. Burried back in the fine print was a clause that they don't cover anything preventative, but that wasn't obvious when I was ordering the plan or looking through the main section of the booklet. Had I clicked a link to the provider's comparison of all their plans, it would have jumped out like a sore thumb. Personally I think it borders on criminal when a company doesn't make it obvious where you risk owing a lot of money and what coverage is missing that many others would frequently include.
And a final note, always get the price an uninsured person will be responsible for up front for everything! This is what you'll be stuck paying when the insurance company says they aren't responsible, and you should be able to afford it. My family's neighbor (a doctor), myself, and many others agree, the medical system in the US is broken. Insurance is complicated, costs are going up, and lawsuits are giving insane sums of money for just about anything. My biggest peeve is that you aren't told how much you owe until a month after the procedure is done. Admittedly this is a service and things may fluctuate when you find a problem, but every doctor uses charge codes and their office knows their fee for that code, and the insurance companies know what they have agreed for those codes. But no one will tell you those numbers until after you've had the service. Congress would do a lot for people by requiring every insurance provider to publish how much they cover and what the patent is responsible for on a standard list of charge codes, and make it available before signing up for that coverage.
IEEE (Score:4, Informative)
They have some good group deals for insurance setup just for cases like yours. They also have group life and a few other things that might be of interest.
Oh, and its a good organization to boot
How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://ekj.vestdata.no/)
You know, one of those where it's recognized that decent healthcare for everyone is a good thing.
It's quite silly, the way you do it in USA. It prevents people from acting rationally, to the detriment of all. (it's the same in *parts* of Europe, you guys aren't alone about it.)
For example, a friend of mine (living in the USA) is currently at home (watching his baby) while the mother works. He works a little evenings and earns a little extra for the family, but little enough that he was still health-insured trough his wife.
Then he got offered a larger position. He had to turn it down. It'd have put him above the limit where he'd need his own health-insurance, so in the end he'd have ended up working *more* and getting *less*, which is nonsense.
Everyone is a loser in this scenario:
Stupid. Very stupid.
It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more.
There's similar mechanisms in welfare-programs too, where you earn $100 more and get $150 less from welfare. The effects are similar. (it'd have been different if you'd earned $100 more and as a consequence gotten $50 less from welfare, that'd have been fine)
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Informative)
If you see everything as black and white ...
I can go to another insurer too. A different public one, or a private one. I can go without insurance if I really wanted to.
I can go to another doctor.
Me too ! I can go to any doctor in the whole country. And some of the neighboring countries, too.
State-run medical care doesn't exclude any of the things you mentioned. It all depends on the details of the implementation. You're at the mercy of what your government provides, including the infamous "waiting list".
You're just replacing one waiting list with another one (ordered by who'll pay the most).
Look into using an 'umbrella' company (Score:3, Informative)
What about COBRA? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://boredgeorge.com/)
After the 18 months of COBRA runs out, the insurance company is required to offer you a non-group policy that is not medically underwritten. I think they usually call this a HIPAA policy. This will probably be more expensive than the policy you get through COBRA, but you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
It's been a while since I've read the DOL publication on COBRA, so follow the link above to verify that none of the details have changed.
HDHP + HSA (and don't spend the HSA money) (Score:4, Informative)