Medical Bills Underlie 60% of U.S. Bankruptcies June 26, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health insurance , add a comment
We continue to advocate our plan as having real, substantive, financially prudent and politically feasible grounds.
Go to http://realhealthreform.wordpress.com/the-plan/details-on-the-plan/ to read about this in more detail.
The idea of medical bankruptcy occurring to insured families is morally repugnant. The fact is, that as is pointed out in this study, that the reason for these bankruptcies was primarily related to insurance companies dropping coverage once a subscriber became ill. A practice which goes on daily in this nation and is a scandal. We have, in the most strong terms, advocated that health insurance should not be denied based on pre-existing conditions, previous illnesses or surgery. Also, coverage should never be terminated for any reason in the private sector other than failure to pay premiums.
Please read these excerpts from “details of the plan”.
(9) As a regulated utility, the prices set should be wholly market based and not risk stratified for individuals or select groups
Basically, this is no different than offering any other product for sale. The price is not based on WHO is doing the buying, but based on the value of the product being offered as set by the overall buyers in the marketplace. By offering coverage to ALL individuals, the risk is shared and a proper premium structure, along with surcharges if needed, can be arrived at. The current system allows for some of this. However, all to often the result is denial of coverage from the get go or limitations on coverage, such as pre-existing condition exclusions.
(10) Adoption of item 9 means pre-coverage physicals, pre-existing condition exemptions and the like will no longer be necessary – the premium is set and if I can afford it I buy it. I cannot be denied coverage for non-financial reasons. Companies will have to compete on efficiency of their systems and overall quality of their services.
As an outgrowth of item 9, this is perhaps among the most important of all tenants of this proposal. The major obstacles to health insurance access are limitations imposed by insurers on who they will cover and financial resources. The former can be EASILY remedied by adoption of national standards prohibiting discrimination in the purchase of health insurance. The latter can be dealt with through the current programs in place (as discussed above in item 4) as well as adjustments in the minimum wage and tax credits as needed.
(11) The base package of services required to be offered is pre set and supplements can be offered. Minimum basic policy defined (like auto insurance) with individual deciding on increased benefits. However, the base must be very broad to make sure the pricing factors in overall gross population risks, as opposed to sub group risks. Minimum basic policy defined (like auto insurance) with individual deciding on increased benefits.
What should be in the base package? First, all aspects of a major medical policy should be included. Second, emergent care. Third, preventative services (vaccinations, screenings, etc.). Deductibles can be varied to adjust price, as they are now, however, there should be limits on how high deductibles can be set for primary policies.
(12) Fine of $100,000 to any insurance company that denies writing the policy (basic) regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, genetic assessment, pre-conditions, etc. Policies are not cancelable except by death or lack of financial qualification of coverage under item (1) above.
This site does not like onerous enforcement tools. Again, however, insurers need to know that there are penalties which will be applied if they discriminate against policy seekers for ANY reason other than inability to afford premiums. Individuals must be able to purchase coverage regardless of their health status which can and will vary from time to time.
. . . obi jo and jomaxx
Medical bills are behind more than 60% of U.S. personal bankruptcies,
Researchers reported that healthcare reform is on the wrong track. More than 75% of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year, the report reads.
Over 60% of All US Bankruptcies Attributable to Medical Problems – http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJMMedicalBankruptcyJun09FINAL2.pdf
Health Insurance: An Individual Responsibility June 23, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health insurance, health reform , add a comment
All persons must have health insurance from the private sector or government sponsored plans
Many have objected to this as a violation of personal choice and freedom. However, I would suggest that it is a dereliction of civic responsibility (if such a thing still exists in America) to force others (fellow citizens, doctors, hospitals, insurers, government - i.e. taxpayers) to pick up the tab for you when you become very sick or injured (as you WILL at some point in this life). By mandating coverage with REAL penalties, just as we supposedly do for auto insurance, we put personal responsibility back in the equation. It has been far too long since that was the case as the government in particular, along with big labor and big business to varying degrees, have sought to remove responsibility from the individual and to displace it to some other entity. Some view this an unworkable due to the natural tendency of some to avoid personal, civic or moral obligations. No doubt there will be persons who refuse to obtain coverage – they then will have to suffer the financial consequences that come with such a decision. Our goal should be to extend the opportunity to obtain coverage to all Americans without restriction. Our plan will allow that happen. So called “universal care” in the end, inevitabley, impose restrictions on the responsible to provide a safety net to the irresponsible. At some point, American ideals of self-reliance and personal responsibility must be brought into the equation. . . obi jo
The Individual Mandate — An Affordable and Fair Approach to Achieving Universal Coverage
Some of the most prominent shortcomings of the U.S. health insurance market are rooted in the fact that the system is a voluntary one. Outside the state of Massachusetts, which recently instituted broad-based health care reform, no one under the age of 65 years is required to obtain health insurance coverage of any kind. Voluntary insurance markets have led to a system centered on segmenting health risk instead of one whose primary mission is ensuring affordable access to necessary and efficiently provided high-quality medical services. Health insurers engage in many practices that make it difficult for people with health problems to obtain and maintain their coverage; they do so for the express purpose of protecting themselves from the potentially enormous financial consequences of adverse selection. If we required that every person obtain at least a minimum package of health insurance benefits — that is, issued a so-called individual mandate — we would eliminate adverse selection, and these barriers would become unnecessary and, in fact, indefensible.
The Individual Mandate — An Affordable and Fair Approach to Achieving Universal Coverage – http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0904729
All persons must have health insurance from the private sector or government sponsored plans – http://realhealthreform.wordpress.com/the-plan/details-on-the-plan/
Individual Mandates for Health Insurance: Slippery Slope to National Health Care – http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6243
President to AMA: Health Reform . . . Sort Of June 19, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health insurance, health reform , 2comments
President Obama addressed the American Medical Association this past week. He laid out his vision for health reform. Many in the audience applauded his general statements of reform. But when it came to specifics, there were skeptics. The President seems to believe that health reform can be accomplished without major tort / malpractice reform. He seems to believe that health reform can only be accomplished if the federal government offers an option for insurance. He seems to believe that costs can be contained if only doctors would practice medicine based on judgment, not defense.
Unfortunately, real health reform, may be slipping away as the President fails to provide the much needed courage of leadership on the difficult choices. Let’s examine just a few of these choices.
TORT / MALPRACTICE REFORM
Without a meaningful attempt to reign in the trial lawyers lobby, cost cutting will not occur. As we have pointed out in a previous post (Medicine’s Most Expensive Technology: The Doctor’s Pen June 10, 2009), physicians control much of the costs of the system via the tests, medicines and procedures they order. The vast majority of “excess” that occurs in these areas is due to concern about “covering your bases” in case a lawsuit occurs. The government has focused on physician ownership, when in fact, that is a small, perhaps negligible part of the issue. The real nemesis here is the trial lawyers lobby. The President, a lawyer, seems unwilling to address this issue head on in a serious way. States that have malpractice caps have seen moderation in rates. Caps on damages in these states almost always apply only to PUNITIVE awards, NOT to medical expenses. Recall the definition of punitive: inflicting or intended as punishment. The very nature of this implies that physicians and other health care providers intentionally seek to harm patients. The number of cases of gross negligence, when compared to the overall number of malpractice claims is minimal. The vast majority of suits are filed for “bad outcome” (generally complications) and to a lesser extent for “wrongful death” (meaning the doctor caused the death needlessly through action or inaction). In almost all of these cases, no claim can be made for willful malice, negligence or intent to injure, only error – and in most cases not error, just that things did not go the way all hoped for.
FEDERAL INSURANCE OPTION
This one is actually easy. Anyone know of any health insurer offering PRIMARY health coverage to individuals who are of Medicare age? Well, if you are working and have group coverage through an employer you might, but the vast majority of Medicare eligible citizens will find NO primary option to standard Medicare – a government health insurance program (well sort of, since there is some adjustment of premiums based on income, it is also a form of health insurance welfare). As for Medicaid, the same is true. The fact is that if the government offers a tax payer financed option t0 compete on the open market, you will, over a relatively short time, have no private health insurance options available for primary coverage. To be sure, supplements will abound, just as they do under Medicare, but in essence, there will only ONE health insurance plan and that will be the government option. Which means . . . all citizens will have to have the government option for their primary coverage, since the private market will offer only supplements to those already covered by the government plan. I know, I know . . . the President said this is not his intention, that this will not happen . . . folks, wake up . . . Mr. Obama knows full well this IS what will happen (and that is the meaning of IS). He talks softly and reassuringly on this issue, but the outcome is already well known. Once again, just look at the example of Medicare.
His comments about guidelines and such, lead one to believe that he views “medical judgment” as a matter of following written codes of practice/conduct (i.e. cookbook medicine) and that if doctors will only do so then malpractice issues will fade away. This is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst, as he knows full well that exercising true medical judgment requires freedom from frivolous legal actions and the freedom to make choices for individual patients, not blindly follow an outline based on meta analysis of published studies with expert opinions added in. This site is well versed in modern medical guidelines and algorithms. They are helpful and continuing to update them is both challenging and useful. But they are NOT a substitute for sound, medical judgment when caring for the unique ills of an individual patient. They are a tool, not a panacea. Cost cutting efforts by doctors will only have broad acceptance when medical malpractice abuse is eliminated.
In the end the road to Real Health Reform is not as complicated, expensive or disruptive as the President and many around him would have us belivee. Common sense, with a dose of true market oversight and meaninful regulation is all that is required to address most of what is wrong (see Details on “the plan” @ http://realhealthreform.wordpress.com/the-plan/details-on-the-plan) . . . obi jo and jomaxx
In his remarks, he noted that for the vast majority of Americans, physicians “are the health care system” and are therefore an integral part of any reform discussions. He also noted that while he does not support caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, he does support reform of the system so that doctors are not forced to practice defensive medicine and can go back to treating their patients in the manner in which they feel is best, without having to look over their shoulders. He also noted that his intention is to allow physicians to stop spending their time acting as administrators and accountants and allow them to instead be physicians.
Obama takes healthcare campaign to doctors – http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/06/16/obama_takes_healthcare_campaign_to_ama/
Cost Concerns as Obama Pushes Health Issue – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/policy/16obama.html?_r=1&ref=us
Obama opens to applause at AMA – http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1623150,obama-chicago-health-care-reform-ama-061509.article
Obama strengthens pitch for health care at AMA – http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-14-health-care-reform-tax_N.htm
Obama calls cost of healthcare a threat to economy – http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-ama16-2009jun16,0,2626159.story
Obama pitches health care reform to MDs – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/obama-pitches-health-care-proposal-to-doctors/?feat=home_headlines-
Obama pushes for healthcare reform – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c5583f24-59cc-11de-b687-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Senate Mulls Over Health-Bill Details – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124506633511614937.html
Obama Tells AMA Current Health System Not Working – http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aX9aTOF6pQKg
Despite differences, Obama and medical community vow reform – http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/15/despite-differences-obama-and-medical-community-vow-reform/
Obama tells AMA U.S. health-care costs are a ‘ticking time bomb’ – http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-biz-obama-ama-meeting-june15,0,5236331.story
Obama presses doctors to back health care overhaul – http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_doctors;_ylt=AgYroJQmkU1FiizWex6dY2Rp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJubzR0ZjFuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjE2L3VzX29iYW1hX2RvY3RvcnMEcG9zAzEyBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA29iYW1hcHJlc3Nlcw–
Obama’s counterattack on healthcare – http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-counterattack-on-healthcare-2009-06-15.html
Will Doctors Buy ObamaCare? – http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/obamacare-ama-congress-business-healthcare-obamacare.html
Obama’s Doctor Knocks ObamaCare – http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/obama-doctor-knocks-obamacare-business-healthcare-obamas-doctor.html
Medicine's Most Expensive Technology: The Doctor's Pen June 10, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health insurance , add a comment
The article below raises serious questions. Questions related to expectations of patients of their physicians and hospitals and the health system as a whole. Questions about the expectations of physicians about their economic status, both in terms of finances but also legal exposure for care. Questions about the disparities in payments for services between one carrier and another. Questions about the true costs of medical services. Finally, questions about how we are going to create incentives that reward physicians for quality care, while reducing their legal risks and maintaining legitimate expectations about economic success.
These are tough questions. For while many Americans feel doctors are overpaid, few want to go to a doctor who is perceived as not financially successful. For while many Americans may resent a large home or car owned by their physician, they wonder about the physician who lives modestly – is he/she really any good? For while many Americans feel doctors are very wealthy, in point of fact, most physicians live well, but are NOT wealthy. There is a world of difference. One requires major cash reserves, the other major cash flow. Most physicians can qualify to some degree on the cash flow, but most do not qualify on the cash reserve side of the equation. Why? Because most physicians do not actually begin practice until they are in their early to mid 30′s. Also, most leave medical school and residency in major debt, often well over $200,000 or more in debt. So they open their working career with a house note but no house, so to speak.
In the end, we must find a way to remove excessive risk from the practice of medicine allowing doctors to again use judgment. Otherwise, the natural tendency for a multiplicity of reasons will be to reach for the most expensive of all medical instruments: the physicians pen. The doctor’s pen wields more economic power than any other tool. With it medications, tests, imaging studies, procedures of all types and surgery can be unleashed from the medical / surgical armamentarium. Wise use of this instrument is not only necessary for good patient health and outcomes, but it turns out, may be one of the major keys to reduce spiraling health care costs. In the end doctors are human, and they respond to the same incentives that any human would. Common sense can solve much of this, that is if there is enough of it left in our political leaders . . . jomaxx
The Cost Conundrum – What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country, but it’s a border town, and a thriving foreign-trade zone has kept the unemployment rate below ten per cent. McAllen calls itself the Square Dance Capital of the World. “Lonesome Dove” was set around here. McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.
Politicians and Real Change June 6, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health reform, politics , 2comments
So you want Real Health Reform? You better also be thinking about some political reform. Listed below is a commentary on Harry Truman. Truman was a machine politician, but at least he knew the truth about himself and his profession. When one looks at the list of the top 10 current longest serving Senators and Representatives, one can ask only a single question . . . don’t these folks have ANYTHING else to do? Apparently not. Being in office for so long has so many perks, benefits, as well as power levers that these folks cannot stand the thought of actually having to live a life under some of the arcane and insane laws that they call euphemistically: legislation. It is time that we began to realize that the only way to make meaningful changes is to force this privileged elite to live a life in the real world of America, under the same laws, rules and structures that they love to put in place, but also love to exempt themselves from. The idea is called term-limits. It is time Congress faced the same rules as the President, most governors, state and local officials.
We have called for simple, basic actions which would achieve meaningful reform of health care delivery almost immediately. But entrenched interests, most particular the heath insurance lobby, have much of Congress on the line (financially that is). So we find that neither they, nor sadly the President, is able to muster the courage to act NOW, and get some of the most basic items taken care of. Items such as: open market sales of health insurance policies; total subscriber base rating, not sub-group rating; elimination of any exclusions on coverage save for failure to pay (in which case the citizen can apply for Medicaid). These are simple, uncomplicated actions which could be made to occur now. Why do we need a major health “overhaul” to accomplish even this little – no doubt because entrenched interests, along with entrenched politicians have other ideas about how money should be funneled . . . obi jo
Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia (1959-present)
Ted Kennedy (D) Massachusetts (1962-present)
Daniel Inouye (D) Hawaii (1963-present)
Joe Biden (D) Delaware (1973-2009) Now Vice-President
Richard Lugar (R) Indiana (1977-present)
Orrin Hatch (R) Utah (1977-present)
Max Baucus (D) Montana (1978-present)
Thad Cochran (R) Mississippi (1978-present)
Carl Levin (D) Michigan (1979-present)
Chris Dodd (D) Connecticut (1981-present)
John Dingell (D) Michigan (1955-present)
John Conyers (D) Michigan (1965-present)
Dave Obey (D) Wisconsin (1969-present)
Charles Rangel (D) New York (1971-present)
Bill Young (R) Florida (1971-present)
Pete Stark (D) California (1973-present)
Don Young (R) Alaska (1973-present)
John Murtha (D) Pennsylvania (1974-present)
George Miller (D) California (1975-present)
James Oberstar (D) Minnesota (1975-present)
What happened to Harry Truman after the presidency–very interesting!
Harry Truman, from Missouri , was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation’s history as any of the other 42 Presidents. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
Historians have written that the only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri . On top of that, his wife inherited the house from her Mother. When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an ‘allowance’ and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves.. There were no Secret Service agents following them. When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, ‘You don’t want me.. You want the office of the President, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.’ Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, ‘I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.’ He never owned his own home and as president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. Harry Truman was correct when he observed, ‘My choices early in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference’
Harry S. Truman – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress – http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG994.cfm
Seniority in the United States Senate – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate
List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congressmen_by_longevity_of_service
Tax Code Influences Health Care Reform June 5, 2009Posted by Obi Jo in : health insurance, Tax Policy , add a comment
A response to a recent post of ours regarding HSA’s led to this topic. The response, from Hootsbuddy, was well said. Medical deductions on income tax returns have increasingly become of little value – and if you can really take advantage of them, you are likely too sick to really care. With schedule A deductions set at 7.5% of AGI (adjusted gross income) a person having $100,000 of AGI would need over $7,500 of uncompensated medical expenses in a single year to even reach the threshold of deductibility. If you have standard health insurance, say an 80/20 policy, you would have had to have had $37,500 in actual allowed medical expenses (insurance premiums included), meaning that billed charges likely would be in excess of $60,000-$70,000 for that year. Even with medical costs high, that is a lot of sickness you would rather not have.
So what reforms in tax code are needed to assist in getting us to Real Health Reform. Here are a few suggestions.
(1) Mandate that ALL citizens file a return and pay a “minimum” tax for the privilege of living in this great nation. Even $10 would be fine. Continuing to remove persons all together from the tax rolls is political demagoguery, demeans the value of all citizens contributing to the nation and adds to the ability of illegal immigrants and others to “hide” within the country.
(2) Change the schedule A medical deductions by first allowing any payments personally made for health insurance coverage to be deducted dollar for dollar. For additional medical expenses, adjust the percentage of AGI to zero (preferred) or not more than 1% to allow more filers to take advantage of this deduction.
(3) Simplify the tax code over all. We are all wasting excessive amounts of time and money on filling out forms, figuring out tax language and/or paying accountants. Taxes should be a simple matter and the tax code should be simple. Just a few rates (if not just a flat tax). The rates should be low and social engineering via the tax code should be minimized or eliminated. All this wasted time is highly counter productive.
(4) Once and for all, set down standard rules for health care coverage so that insurers cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, deny coverage to patients who are ill or who have been ill or had surgery, deny coverage based on a persons age or work status, and eliminate sub-group rating to drive premiums up on small businesses. In other words, set rates and sell to the public, no questions asked.
Real Health Reform will require many other reforms as well. Tax reform is one that is often overlooked in regard to the health equation. That should no longer be the case . . . obi jo
Topic 502 – Medical and Dental Expenses – http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc502.html
Do You Need to File a Federal Income Tax Return? – http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96623,00.html
Who Pays Income Tax – http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Who Doesn’t Pay Taxes – http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=155
Taxpayer Rights – http://www.irs.gov/advocate/article/0,,id=98206,00.html
Articles recently published claim that high deductible health plans and HSA’s are potentially bad for your health and that they only benefit middle and upper income individuals. Could there be truth to this fact? Possibly. But more than likely NOT. They cite incentives for persons to not receive care under these formats. However, they offer no real proof of negative outcomes other than the fact that those surveyed said they did not seek care for minor ailments. Isn’t this this kind of patient based responsibility we have been asking for in trying to curb overutilzation of services? Doesn’t this put the patient back into the responsibility equation? Does this not ask for patients to exercise common sense about their ills, aches and pains? And since when is it a crime for a plan to be of benefit to middle and upper income individuals?
The bottom line is this . . . the real culprit in all of this, which is described by the writers, but somehow overlooked, is the insurance companies and their rules on COVERAGE. They continue to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions – they continue to deny insurance coverage to so called high risk individuals – they continue to deny coverage based on THEIR definition of the word family – they continue to drop insureds who “overutilize” services (in other words have the temerity to actually get sick) – they continue to rate small groups and others to maximize premium retention and minimize benefit payout.
Please, lets focus on the real issues and not utopian, idealistic solutions to our health care problems. Denying working families of some means, in other words the middle-class and others, of benefiting from common sense use of health services is not the answer. Forcing health insurers to return to their core business, which is overall risk sharing among the total population insured is much more of a solution along with elimination of their practices to limit and deny coverage . . . obi jo
When Insurance Is Bad for Your Health
Some health insurance plans are structured in a way that actually discourages patients from seeking medical care, writes Walecia Konrad in the latest Patient Money column. The investment firm Fidelity recently surveyed employees at various companies who had opted for a high-deductible health plan linked to a health savings account. About half of those workers said they or a family member had chosen not to seek medical care for minor ailments as many as four times in the past year to avoid paying the out-of-pocket expenses . . .
The Many Hidden Costs of High-Deductible Health Insurance
Is your medical insurance bad for your health? If you have a high-deductible plan, the answer may be yes. High-deductible health plans are essentially insurance policies that charge lower monthly premiums than traditional plans because the consumer is responsible for paying the first $1,000 to $5,000 or more in medical bills before the insurance kicks in. The plans, sometimes called catastrophic insurance, are often used in conjunction with a health savings account . . .
When Insurance Is Bad for Your Health – http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/when-insurance-is-bad-for-your-health
Tara Parker Pope – http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/author/tara-parker-pope
The Many Hidden Costs of High-Deductible Health Insurance – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/health/30patient.html?_r=1
Families USA – http://www.familiesusa.org
Fidelity Investments – www.fidelity.com