host

Peform a public service, here pc....direct us to one or more of the plans that you mentioned.....with deductibles that are in line with a $12k annual income, and with minimal restrictions on qualification for coverage, i.e. restrictions as to waiting periods with/without pre-existing conditions, prescription riders and dedcutibles, geographic or age related restrictions....etc.

Is it really "sound" advice to refer someone with $12k annual income to a $2400 annual medical insurance payment that would predictably inculde unaffordable decutibles and prescription costs. What, in your POV, would Pan be insuring himself <b>against</b> by paying 20 percent of his income for this "coverage"? Would he receive adequate medical attention without this coverage? <b>Yes.</b>. Would deductibles and prescription costs and loss of wages during a serious illness, most likely put him in the exact same financial circumstances as if he had no insurance? <b>No. He would most likely find himself in worse circumstances, because he sacrificed so much to pay $200 monthly, for insurance that ultimately made no difference in his post medical treatment life, anyway</b>.

Everyone who demands it, receives medical attention, and deductibles exist to discourage the poor from seeking care, if they are foolish enough to be paying for coverage, out of pocket. That is the dirty lil secret that advocates of the status quo, do not want folks who are duped into paying for ultimately unaffordable coverage. Maybe it is a hidden blessing that the majority of Wal-Mart employees make too little to even consider paying for their company's inadequate offering. If you have no assets, you don't need to pay for insurance that only partially protects you against loss of....<b>assets</b>.

I think that you'll find that these plans waste the money of those who are restricted to life on Wal-Mart wages, as that company's own plan offerings are to it's own workers. Your advice, in my experience, is uninformed, BS. Insurance coverage is priced for people who can execute a cost/benefit analysis of what they are protecting (of their own assets and credit status) vs. what they risk losing if they are unisured. Pan will receive no benefit in doing other than ignoring the bill collectors if he ends up left to his own current ability to pay. His credit status will be wrecked, even with a "payment plan", he will not be sued because he will not be viewed as worth the litigation and collection costs, and, after seven years, unfavorable info related to this debt will disappear from his credit report, vs. ten or more years if he foolishly opts for unnecessary bankruptcy "protection".

Our current system will provide care for Pan, with or without him paying $200+ per month, as you suggest. Ironically, he will have no expense and at least equal care if he is uninsured. The issues here are "peace of mind" issues, and....compared to life or death medical crisis, they are a superficial, BS distraction. The "hit" to his credit status is already a given, and a "payment plan" or bankruptcy filing, or the hardhsip of paying for insurance that he can't afford, with deductibles and other limits, and prescription costs that he cannot afford, are all window dressing that seem adequate viewed from your window, powerclown, or from the Bentonville, AK executive office window of a Wal-Mart officer, but they are impractical, BS concepts that are symptoms of being too insulated and out of touch with real, low income, life.

My wife and I are fully insured, and a sudden medical crisis still sucks a bunch. There is no incentive for anyone without major home equity ($50k or more) or other major assets to protect, to pay appreciable costs for out of pocket health insurance coverage, today. We are all one illness away from financila devastation. The "payment plan" or other effort to instill a sense of repayment obligation in the psyche of the low asset citizen is propaganda, intended to help the well to do avoid a "back door" tax. The system is broken, and it will get worse until diplomacy and domestic priorities overcome corporatism draped with the flag of militarism, and the 32,000 lobbyists on "K" Street.