Hi Rand,

It was my understanding that the State only allowed two companies to provide independent insurance back when I dropped mine: Blue Cross and Oxford. Mysteriously, their premiums were within $5 of each other. There are about half a dozen now and there are hundreds of dollars difference in premiums. Of course, none are remotely affordable, though the premiums have dropped a bit over the past six months (along with what they buy, no doubt). These are all recent developments... I wonder what inspired them... hmmm....

As far as a government health plan is concerned: I currently pay an obscene amount in rent for my 500sq foot Manhattan hovel. Still, current premiums would exceed that amount by about $700 per month. If a government plan could manage to cost the average American $700 per month more than their housing expense, it wouldn't last long. We can do something about a government plan. Change would be slow, inefficient and highly politicized, but possible. There's not a thing we can do about the ridiculous health care system the way it is. They've got us. They've got our employers. Talk about a tax, do you know what it would cost me to hire someone right now? Of course, under the current laws as long as I don't insure myself, I don't have to insure them either. But if I insured myself, I'd have to provide similar coverage for them. As formidable as my taxes are in this state, the burden of such coverage would be unthinkable.

Of course if the current data is to be believed, the average American is already paying more per month ($1200 for individual coverage) than many folks' house note. Its just not readily visible as their employer picks up a large chunk of the bill. Does it really make sense that health care should cost a family as much if not more than their dwelling? Should healthcare really be a family's largest monthly expense?

I worked for years as a professor here in the city and befriended students from all over the world. None of my Canadian, French, or English charges had any complaints about their coverage back home, but all were terrified of the way our system is run over here. I worked for a Frenchman for six years who moved here in the 50's. He lived part of the year in Paris, and while a devout patriot had nothing but venom towards our health care system. But then again as an employer, he was being forced to pay the lion's share of ridiculous premiums, so perhaps he was biased.

And NY insurers most definitely do block coverage for many individuals. I have two immediate friends who can't get health insurance. One has heart disease, the other MS. Both have been excluded as preexisting conditions. One of these gentleman is a single father like me, and is now using canes to get around. Fortunately for him, he is a Tax Lawyer and financially comfortable. He still can't get insurance though, at any price. The reason I held onto my insurance as long as I could was to avoid the 6 month period where insurance companies would be able to exclude me for preexisting conditions. My Doctor once again advised me on this matter, and agreed I would be better off avoiding treatment for anything unnecessary until I could get re insured . If the numbness that's been spreading through my hands for the past year turns out to be something more serious than carpal tunnel (even if it is just carpal tunnel!) and there is no reform, I would be unable to be insured for these conditions, for life. So not only can I not afford healthcare, I have to AVOID healthcare. Does this make sense to you? My father back home (who would have Rush Limbaugh's love child, were it biologically possible) keeps telling me to just go to the emergency room when I get sick, like all of the illegals. Emergency rooms don't provide free health care. They can't turn you away (though here in NYC they have been known to dump folks off at the nearest homeless shelter) but they will charge you. A lot. And if you don't pay them it will ruin your credit and possibly lead to bankruptcy. Do they still allow bankruptcy to wipe out medical bills? I know they made tax debt permanent. I'm certain the insurance industry is doing their best to make medical debt permanent as well.

As a group, New Yorkers are quite healthy. They are also quite young, which is why so many are probably willing to go without insurance. I come from the most conservative state in the country btw, so I am not what you'd call a raging liberal (I live in New York, but like most folks here, I'm a transplant). Back home, I would say at least 65% of adults over 30 are dangerously overweight. Not so here. A very body conscious group these New Yorkers. There are also not many illnesses that are endemic to NYC. There is a higher incidence of asthma among children and we've probably got substantially more HIV patients than most places in the country. But then many HIV patients are uninsured intentionally: they get much better treatment under medicare than they would through regular channels. These people choose to live just above the poverty line to access this "awful" government healthcare. I know this because I volunteer as a yoga teacher in the village where there are a number of HIV + participants. All this to say I can't imagine why NYC insurers would be going under due to all of the undesirables they're forced to cover. We've got relatively few elderly people (heck here I'm elderly!) and the illegals use the emergency rooms.

Still, following your logic; are you saying that the problem with New York's insurance regulations is that too many New Yorkers are getting coverage? That if the insurance industry here were allowed to discriminate based on a broad range of criteria, choosing only the most profitable customers, that my premiums would be more affordable? That this would bring New York back down to a 1 or a 2 like the rest of the country where presumably the insurance industry already has carte blanch when it comes to vetting its customers? What's supposed to happen to everybody else? How old are you Rand? Are you old enough to realize that all kinds of things are going to be going wrong with you real soon? Because they will. They're supposed to. That disease called aging gets us all.

Why don't we all have the right to decent health care in this country, that doesn't cost more than our homes?! Why can the other developed nations afford to care for their citizens but we, supposedly the wealthiest country of all cannot? Yes the malpractice issue is real. My best friend's mother is a retired anesthesiologist and we discussed this issue over brunch two weeks ago. She adamantly insisted that the problem is not the cost of malpractice insurance, but rather the overhead imposed on our system by the health insurance industry. The only industry that made her as angry as that, was the pharmaceutical industry. Them she can tolerate only because her retirement investments are in pharmaceutical stocks. Not for nothing, but I wonder how much luck malpractice lawyers would have going up against a single payer, government plan? Ever tried suing the IRS?

The real problem in my opinion is that we as a country are being forced to subsidize the bloated overhead imposed by a greedy, unethical insurance industry. Somethings got to change but the current divisive political climate makes me doubt it can. I worry about it every day. Twice a day when I'm sick.

The real problem in my opinion is that we as a country are being forced to subsidize the bloated overhead imposed by a greedy, unethical insurance industry. Somethings got to change but the current divisive political climate makes me doubt it can. I worry about it every day. Twice a day when I'm sick.[/quote]

Excellent post. Thank you. I have perceived for quite a while that the major dividing line between opinions on this issue is whether someone, or a oerson very close to them, has experienced a major illness, been unable to obtain insurance (due to cost or insurer exclusion), or worked in a field directly related to healthcare or insurance. Of course there are exceptions. One poster said he would be willing to die before he sought chemotherapy or some other treatment he couldn't pay for, and that he lives in chronic pain because he opted not to repair and rehabilitate an injury. I don't think anyone should have to make that choice in this country on financial and moral grounds. I am not willing to sacrifice my life or that of a family member to uphold a principle of self-reliance that isn't honored anywhere else in our system. If we can stockpile weapons, maintain military bases in countries not at war, subsidize every industry under the sun, pay for earmarks, bail out banks that pay million dollar bonuses and everything else, we can treat and hopefully heal our people.