RVer selecting health insurance

camperkilgore wrote:

TucsonJim wrote:

dahkota wrote:

camperkilgore wrote:
Very high deductibles would seem to dictate that one would be better off with no insurance until something happens.....then buy a policy. Since preexisting conditions will have to be covered. I think that is probably what most young people will do. May be something wrong with this reasoning, but it seems to be logical given the situation today. I am like most people, I have no idea what to do.

That would work, if you could wait until January 1 to get treatment. You can only sign up once per year (during open enrollment) for insurance effective beginning January 1. The only exception is if you loose your current insurance (a life changing event - being fired, spousal death, etc.).

So if you are diagnosed with a brain tumor, or fall on a slippery sidewalk and end up in a coma, or have a heart attack while shoveling snow, can you wait for treatment until your insurance kicks in?

Health insurance is like car insurance - just in case the worst happens. My total out of pocket max is $5500. The insurance company pays 100% after that. I can afford a $5500 hit if I have a major medical emergency. However, I cannot afford a $250,000 bill like a friend of mine recently racked up. Luckily, she had insurance that covered 97% of it.

I spent one day in the hospital, and had a six hour heart procedure. The one day cost for hospital, room, doctors, drugs, etc. was $115,000.00. My final cost was $750. I tried to buy insurance on the open market earlier this year and was refused time after time due to the pre-existing condition.

With the advent of the ACA, I can now buy insurance through the exchanges and have enough coverage that I can retire with peace of mind. Yes, it's still expensive, but at least I can get coverage now.

This makes me wonder that under Obamacare if a person has no insurance and suddenly has to go into the hospital........can that person get a relative to purchase a policy that day and have it cover the expenses incurred by the hospital stay?

Yes, that is why there is a penalty (sorry "TAX") for not having coverage. And it is why the premiums for people who carry coverage regardless is $1000, not $750. The insurance company has to build into the premiums the costs of the people who will jump in only when sick. Not really any different than the current system where the hospital rates were inflated to cover the costs of the uninsured they were required to treat. It is really a zero sum game, for everyone who gets something for nothing, someone pays more and gets nothing.