PDA

View Full Version : Lucasfilm Faces New Accusation of Pregnancy Discrimination


IgorGon
11-06-2012, 09:21 PM
You can read this sad new at:

Vfx Soldier (http://vfxsoldier.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/lucasfilm-employee-terminated-after-tending-to-pregnant-wife/#more-3017)

The hollywood reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lucasfilm-faces-new-pregnancy-discrimination-386863)

shame :sad:

DutchDimension
11-06-2012, 10:57 PM
Utterly shameful behaviour!

sentry66
11-06-2012, 11:01 PM
hopefully obamacare can make these things a non-issue in the future

RobertoOrtiz
11-06-2012, 11:36 PM
Unless the US has recently anexed Singapore, and someone forgot to send the memo, I dont see how that is applicable.
The company might be American, but this happened in the Lucasfilm Singapore office.

ThePriest
11-07-2012, 12:01 AM
I've worked with Luis, he's a talented guy.
Crazy story, but not uncommon in any industry to see abuse regarding pregnancy.

leigh
11-07-2012, 12:51 AM
The story is pretty appalling. Luis and I used to work at the same studio and he always seemed like a decent chap, so it sucks to hear of his terrible misfortune.

But at the same time, I'm hesitant to raise a pitchfork until hearing the other side of the story. It may well be a case of a huge misunderstanding.

duke
11-07-2012, 12:51 PM
It may well be a case of a huge misunderstanding.

Particularly in such a large organization. Hopefully we get some form of follow up.

WyattHarris
11-07-2012, 03:55 PM
I'm reading this article going, "Yep, been there" right up to the terminated part. Dealing with complications during pregnancy is enough stress. I hope it works out for him.

leif3d
11-07-2012, 05:55 PM
But at the same time, I'm hesitant to raise a pitchfork until hearing the other side of the story. It may well be a case of a huge misunderstanding.

What can lucasarts remotely say to justify even 1% of such acts.

-The fact that they provide NO pregnancy coverage in their health insurance is a huge problem already. Wouldn't this be a problem for any employee at some part of their lives? How can they think such low standards are ok?

-The fact that they terminated him right when he left the country to tend for his wife without any warning or notice. How are they going to explain that?

Even if you assume all the rest is an exaggeration (which we can also assume it's not), you can't take away those two facts.

The only other option would be that Luis is just posting complete lies about something that never happened in one of the biggest companies in the world. Yeah, that's a lot more likely...

Kai01W
11-07-2012, 06:01 PM
For what it is worth, apparently other people had similar experiences before. This is only second hand knowledge so I take it with a huge piece of salt but it is a little sad that these type of rumors exist.

-k

DimeS
11-07-2012, 06:11 PM
Good to see his story getting some attention (Hollywood Reporter etc.). Hopefully a public shaming will force companies to realize that saving a few bucks on things like health care isn't worth getting your name dragged through the mud. Eventually bad press like that will be felt in the bottom line as well.
Good luck Luis! And congratulations on the baby too...

leigh
11-07-2012, 07:08 PM
-The fact that they provide NO pregnancy coverage in their health insurance is a huge problem already. Wouldn't this be a problem for any employee at some part of their lives? How can they think such low standards are ok?

The fact is that most health insurance policies don't cover maternity care as standard. Look this up, it's a well documented aspect of health insurance. I feel a lot of people are overlooking this, which is why I said this could be chalked up to a misunderstanding; that is, an assumption on Luis' part that he'd be covered. And that's an easy mistake to make, and indeed in this case has had devastating financial consequences.

-The fact that they terminated him right when he left the country to tend for his wife without any warning or notice. How are they going to explain that?

For me, this is the more pertinent issue in the story. But even so, we have not heard one side of it. Please understand, I am not taking Lucasfilm's side here, but I do think that people are being a little too quick to raise their pitchforks and torches here when we have only heard one side of this story. Yes, it's really shitty to get fired with no explanation and to have your pay withheld - it's inexcusable behaviour from a personal perspective but at the same time, it appears that they were within their legal right to do so. If anything, instead of having a go at Lucasfilm here, people should be having a go at employment laws that allow people to be terminated at an apparent whim.

Anyone who has worked in the visual effects field, with its fixed term contract hiring policies, has probably encountered early termination at some point, and it sucks. It really does. But instead of getting angry at individual studios, we should be getting angry at the laws which facilitate this type of employment practice.

JWRodegher
11-07-2012, 07:28 PM
While I mostly agree with you, leigh, I have little to no respect for those who will use the law like this. I understand they can legally terminate a contract, but the fact that it is not illegal doesn't make it any less morally inexcusable. Just because they can (legally) fire you with no reason, is specially f*cked up they do it to avoid assisting a person in a pretty complicated and special situation like this. I'm not defending the legal side though, I think there's a bunch of rules and laws that only protect corporations and those in the "power" side of business and that sucks. But then, there has to be a person in particular executing this actions and that's what makes me sick. Can you imagine a mother/father holding a human resources position deciding to terminate a contract because someone went abroad trying to take care of an employee's sick wife? That's inexcusable.

I do agree with hearing both sides of the story though, but still, I would not be surprised if every detail in this story is actually true.

WyattHarris
11-07-2012, 07:39 PM
The fact is that most health insurance policies don't cover maternity care as standard. Look this up, it's a well documented aspect of health insurance.I'll have to question you here. Are you speaking internationally? I've only experienced the US side but maternity was always covered, that's for 4 kids in 2 different decades.

leif3d
11-07-2012, 07:47 PM
The fact is that most health insurance policies don't cover maternity care as standard. Look this up, it's a well documented aspect of health insurance.

It might be common for individually purchased health insurance. In fact, hospitalizations in general are usually not covered in most insurance plans, but it's inexcusable that such a profitable company takes so little pride and care of the workers that make them hundreds of millions.
These kinds of practices will only hurt more experienced and/or family oriented workers, favoring people in their early 20's. This has more consequences than just health insurance.

The fact is that most
For me, this is the more pertinent issue in the story. But even so, we have not heard one side of it. Please understand, I am not taking Lucasfilm's side here, but I do think that people are being a little too quick to raise their pitchforks and torches here when we have only heard one side of this story. Yes, it's really shitty to get fired with no explanation and to have your pay withheld - it's inexcusable behaviour from a personal perspective but at the same time, it appears that they were within their legal right to do so. If anything, instead of having a go at Lucasfilm here, people should be having a go at employment laws that allow people to be terminated at an apparent whim.

Anyone who has worked in the visual effects field, with its fixed term contract hiring policies, has probably encountered early termination at some point, and it sucks. It really does. But instead of getting angry at individual studios, we should be getting angry at the laws which facilitate this type of employment practice.
I'm not really mad about early termination, that's a common practice. I'm more mad about early termination when your wife is having a complicated pregnancy that may affect her and your future child's life. They have to be real heartless to pull off such a stunt.

leif3d
11-07-2012, 07:53 PM
I'll have to question you here. Are you speaking internationally? I've only experienced the US side but maternity was always covered, that's for 4 kids in 2 different decades.

It's common for corporations to cover you and your familiy including maternity, but if you buy private insurance on your own, say blur cross or united for example, you'll find most of their insurance plans don't even cover hospitalizations and when they do, you're talking about $1000 for a family of 3 including waiting times for maternity usage, etc...I don't even want to know how much it would cost if you had a pre existing condition like this case.
At least now with obama care they can't deny you insurance, which apparently in Singapore they can.

leigh
11-07-2012, 08:21 PM
I'll have to question you here. Are you speaking internationally? I've only experienced the US side but maternity was always covered, that's for 4 kids in 2 different decades.

But the US is different to many other developed countries in that most citizens still rely on private health insurance due to the lack of a national healthcare system (of course this is due to change but it hasn't yet). Because of this, there's a lot of competition in the health insurance business and this forces providers to offer broader coverage in order to stay competitive.

Singapore, on the other hand, provides government-subsidised healthcare to its citizens, so far fewer of them rely on private healthcare. Foreign workers however do rely on it as they're not entitled to the national healthcare. In countries like this, private insurance tends to be more modularised, so people can pick and choose the healthcare they need. A quick google search showed a number of discussions on expat forums saying that maternity care is not commonly included in company-provided cover, which is exactly what I'd expect in this context.

In my own personal opinion, if I was an employer in a country like that, running a company which has mostly male staff who are largely there on relatively short fixed term contracts, I'd probably leave maternity cover out too, as it's not something that I'd imagine would be very common amongst employees.

These kinds of practices will only hurt more experienced and/or family oriented workers, favoring people in their early 20's. This has more consequences than just health insurance.

Again, look at the context here. This is a satellite company on the opposite end of the world from where most of their imported staff come from. It's safe to assume that many, if not most of your imports are going to be young, possibly single people. How many people with families do you know that'd pack everything up to take a two year contract on the other side of the world? Their choice of insurance coverage caters to the exact kind of people you'd expect to take them up on their offer of employment in the first place.

WyattHarris
11-07-2012, 08:44 PM
But the US is different to many other developed countries...

Singapore, on the other hand...
That's what I wanted to know, thanks.

kgaulin
11-07-2012, 10:26 PM
This is horrible and truly unacceptable behavior. I hope things can work out for Mr. Pages.

Bad form Lucasfilm....

luisRiera
11-07-2012, 10:45 PM
It's common for corporations to cover you and your familiy including maternity, but if you buy private insurance on your own, say blur cross or united for example, you'll find most of their insurance plans don't even cover hospitalizations and when they do, you're talking about $1000 for a family of 3 including waiting times for maternity usage, etc...I don't even want to know how much it would cost if you had a pre existing condition like this case.
At least now with obama care they can't deny you insurance, which apparently in Singapore they can.

As far as I know USA dont have a decent health system (because US citizens think of socialism as some kind of evil cult but thats another different topic). In my country dental plan is included in your insurance and you have unlimited coverage in almost everything except cancer. Even if I didnt had insurance, the goverment has a free health care system wich will also cover you almost anything (long wait time though), and I am from a 3rd world country.

Now Singapore is another story, while I feel bad for him, he should have asked the kind of coverage they will receive (he must have all the documents of the insurance company about that). He hardly have a case against Disney if the coverage isnt documented, and obviously US laws dont apply in Singapore.

leuey
11-08-2012, 03:08 AM
Combine this story with the billions Lucas just walked away with and it simply looks awful. It's a bit of a painful reminder to make sure you know what your insurance covers before you accept a job (or get pregnant) - but the fact that she had to go back to Russia to get health care (I'm not sure what country Luis is a citizen of, it doesn't say) and he got the boot via email with no explanation while he was there with her is just f*cking cold.

If he is a US citizen then I'm pretty embarrassed (as a fellow citizen) that coming back here wasn't a viable option.

-G

Njen
11-08-2012, 03:41 AM
A number of months back, I was interviewing with ILM in Singapore. My wife was also expecting a child at that time too, and if I worked there, it would have turned out that we would have had our child there.

Knowing this, I specifically questioned the areas of medical coverage in regards to pregnancy and birth, and was informed that I would be completely covered by the company, and (now I don't have the emails in front of me, so at the moment, this is coming from memory) up to $5000 of expenses.

(FYI, I never did end up there.)

leigh
11-08-2012, 03:45 AM
Combine this story with the billions Lucas just walked away with and it simply looks awful.

He gave all $4bn to charity. I'm no fan of the guy, but let's stick to the facts.

leuey
11-08-2012, 04:40 AM
Wow. He did, just googled it...good for him. Ok...forget that part : )

-G

Artbot
11-08-2012, 05:03 AM
He gave all $4bn to charity. I'm no fan of the guy, but let's stick to the facts.

Yes, let's. We don't know how much he's "giving to charity." The charities he has mentioned were both foundations started by...George Lucas. I'm not saying this is wrong or a bad thing (yet), but it's a bit unusual.

And not to defend him at all, but these kinds of cases happen at nearly all companies. It does not make it right or okay, it just is. When I was there, we would always hear about someone who had a lawsuit against the company for one reason or another. It happens. And without knowing all the facts, there's no way to make a judgement on this particular case.

Dimis
11-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Regardless of how noble Lucas' donation seems, let's not forget that lots of humanitarian aid foundations, and not only, are simple facades for much less noble enterprises. Let's not hurry to congratulate the man when the news are still this fresh.

Concerning the actual subject of this thread, I highly doubt that "public shaming" of companies that use personnel in this manner will make the CEOs reconsider such decisions. Their audience will probably never be informed of matters like these, and even the few who might hear about it will eventually forget it by next week.
And will it affect the artists looking for work? Hardly, when you consider that in the eyes of the upcoming artists, names such as Disney and Dreamworks represent the very pinnacle of the career they chose to follow (or at least that's what most people imagine).

In the end, we're pretty much playing by their rules, and we simply can't afford what it takes to make things better. Blue thoughts, I know, but is there any actual sign of improvement? Just a rhetorical question.

leigh
11-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Yes, let's. We don't know how much he's "giving to charity." The charities he has mentioned were both foundations started by...George Lucas. I'm not saying this is wrong or a bad thing (yet), but it's a bit unusual.
.

Apologies, I was unaware that the charity was his own foundation; the article I read didn't specify which charity it was. In this case, it kinda seems like a way to avoid tax.

Panupat
11-08-2012, 03:15 PM
As a result, he has amassed about U.S. $8,000 in self-paid medical expenses. His wife spent a portion of the pregnancy comparison shopping for the least expensive medical care.
My god. He should have fly to Thailand. It's right next to Singapore and our medical care is really good, really cheap. It's a favourite place to get health care among Japanese.

Artbot
11-08-2012, 05:50 PM
Apologies, I was unaware that the charity was his own foundation; the article I read didn't specify which charity it was. In this case, it kinda seems like a way to avoid tax.

Those foundations, no matter who started them, might do great things with that money - I hope they do. But I think the person who posted in the other Lucas thread with the tax-avoidance info was much closer to the mark than those who think he's making some self-less humanitarian gesture.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything nefarious going on. I'm not sure what advantage there would be in to giving to your own charity. It's not like he needs more personal wealth. Maybe it's just a control thing, who knows. But with these amounts of money, I tend to think that these moves are made mostly for financial reasons and not personal ones - call me a cynic!

I'd also point out that GLEF does give to outside groups, notably PBS and NPR. Who knows, with the way things are always on-again, off-again with gov't funding of PBS, maybe he'll end up entirely bankrolling them, too.

WyattHarris
11-08-2012, 07:57 PM
As far as I know USA dont have a decent health system (because US citizens think of socialism as some kind of evil cult but thats another different topic).
Uh no, the US has a fantastic health care system. I can get service whenever I call for anything usually within an hour or two. I don't need it much but my kids do all the time for specialized care.

leigh
11-08-2012, 08:00 PM
Uh no, the US has a fantastic health care system. I can get service whenever I call for anything usually within an hour or two. I don't need it much but my kids do all the time for specialized care.

LuisRiera was talking about a national health care system, not a private one.

gandhics
11-08-2012, 08:30 PM
Uh no, the US has a fantastic health care system. I can get service whenever I call for anything usually within an hour or two. I don't need it much but my kids do all the time for specialized care.

If you have tons of money, it is "fantastic".
Service is good but not great. I usually need to wait 2-3 week to see a doctor.
It's like paying for the price of Porche to get BMW.

Oh.. and drug price is crazy.
The same drug I can buy at $20 in Korea is $100 here.
The funny thing is that the drug is made in US.

mister3d
11-08-2012, 08:46 PM
Haha, in Ukraine AAA foreign companies provide a medical care, which consists of 150$ dental treatment.

evolucian
11-08-2012, 09:03 PM
Haha, in Ukraine AAA foreign companies provide a medical care, which consists of 150$ dental treatment.

considering 1 tooth implant is over $3000 here in Toronto, i have friends flying back to east europe and for $2000 they do all their teeth. The funnier part is the dentists i have had over here have older technology than the ones in the crappier countries as it were due to the fact that here i can afford "normal" service, while with less money, but over there, you're in the higher end.

Its all relevant to the area. $150 for dentist there is probably like $1500 here. They give you a a wash twice a year, a few xrays, boom gone.

WyattHarris
11-08-2012, 10:30 PM
If you have tons of money, it is "fantastic".
Wait, was that directed at me? Please describe this "tons of money" you speak of. :D

redbellpeppers
11-08-2012, 11:26 PM
Wait, was that directed at me? Please describe this "tons of money" you speak of. :D

I'd like to know that as well.

leif3d
11-09-2012, 12:26 AM
Wait, was that directed at me? Please describe this "tons of money" you speak of. :D
I'd like to know that as well.

He said you need tons of money to have good health insurance. He's not wrong.
US insurance IS expensive. How expensive you say? THE most expensive...
Look here:

http://www.thehappymd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/average-life-expectancy-cost-of-healthcare-world-rankings-infographic.png

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f99eae56bb3f7a805000002-960/chart.png

So relative to the world, yes, you DO need a ton of money.

Locutus
11-09-2012, 05:46 PM
If you have tons of money, it is "fantastic".
Service is good but not great. I usually need to wait 2-3 week to see a doctor.
It's like paying for the price of Porche to get BMW.

Oh.. and drug price is crazy.
The same drug I can buy at $20 in Korea is $100 here.
The funny thing is that the drug is made in US.

I don't have tons of money and yet I get great service and care with very little wait time. In fact, this week I needed to see an opthamologist about a relatively serious eye condition that I deal with and got an appointment to see him within two days of calling his office.
I don't ever remember having to wait more than a few days to see any of my doctors.

Artbot
11-09-2012, 06:22 PM
I don't have tons of money and yet I get great service and care with very little wait time. In fact, this week I needed to see an opthamologist about a relatively serious eye condition that I deal with and got an appointment to see him within two days of calling his office.
I don't ever remember having to wait more than a few days to see any of my doctors.

Do you look at what your monthly healthcare deduction from your paycheck is? Do you check online to see the amount your company paid to the health care provider for the services? It's likely the costs are bigger than you realize. These are the "hidden" costs that are killing healthcare (and many business' ability to operate) in the US.

Locutus
11-09-2012, 06:34 PM
Do you look at what your monthly healthcare deduction from your paycheck is? Do you check online to see the amount your company paid to the health care provider for the services? It's likely the costs are bigger than you realize. These are the "hidden" costs that are killing healthcare (and many business' ability to operate) in the US.
Of course I'm aware of the deductions from my paycheck, but what the heck does that have to do with having tons of money? I'm not rich. :curious:

leuey
11-09-2012, 08:34 PM
Most people in the US get their healthcare from their job - if you don't have a job or are self employed (especially with a family) healthcare is very expensive here. I own my own company - healthcare for myself, my wife and 2 kids is almost $2.5K per month. That's close to $30K per year (not including all the money that will be paid in co-pays and deductibles). Considering that the median US income for a family in 2011 was about $50K try reconciling that with paying $30K for your own insurance. Yes - you can get lower rates with tradeoffs to co-pays and deductibles...just pray you don't have a pre-existing condition or you are f*ed. Probably the biggest road block to people starting their own company is health insurance (which is a *real* risk...not a "I have 20 million bucks but am putting 1 million in a hedge fund with a high percentage of massive returns' risk.... :rolleyes: ....sorry, off topic).

So yeah - healthcare in the US is very good if you can afford it or are employed with a good plan.

-Greg

Artbot
11-09-2012, 08:43 PM
Of course I'm aware of the deductions from my paycheck, but what the heck does that have to do with having tons of money? I'm not rich. :curious:

But the costs are still there, they are just not all shouldered on you. It still costs "tons of money" no matter where that money comes from. Depending on where you work and how good their insurance coverage is, the employee generally pays a lot of the premium (plus co-pays, oop expenses, drugs or services that aren't covered, etc.).

(And well said, Greg. That's puts a point on it, for sure.)

Locutus
11-09-2012, 08:56 PM
But the costs are still there, they are just not all shouldered on you. It still costs "tons of money" no matter where that money comes from. Depending on where you work and how good their insurance coverage is, the employee generally pays a lot of the premium (plus co-pays, oop expenses, drugs or services that aren't covered, etc.).

(And well said, Greg. That's puts a point on it, for sure.)
You didn't say anything about "tons of money no matter where that money comes from" You implied that one has to be rich to have good insurance.
The whole point of having insurance is so that one doesn't have to shoulder all of the cost so your comments aren't making any sense. :curious:

Now, if what you mean is that health care costs are high and you have to be rich to handle those costs without insurance, then maybe you have a point.

Artbot
11-09-2012, 09:07 PM
Now, if what you mean is that health care costs are high and you have to be rich to handle those costs without insurance, then maybe you have a point.

Have you ever actually paid for full family health insurance out of your own pocket (not through an employer)? It sort of depends on what your definition of "rich" is, doesn't it?

DSW
11-09-2012, 09:11 PM
But the costs are still there, they are just not all shouldered on you. It still costs "tons of money" no matter where that money comes from. Depending on where you work and how good their insurance coverage is, the employee generally pays a lot of the premium (plus co-pays, oop expenses, drugs or services that aren't covered, etc.).

(And well said, Greg. That's puts a point on it, for sure.)

Completely agree.

If you work for a decent-sized company and are LUCKY enough thay they provide decent insurance - great. I worked for a relatively large company and my health benefits were taken care of by the company. When they folded, I worked for a VERY small company that didn't have health insurance at all. I was (relatively) young (30's) and didn't have any kids. My wife was covered where she worked. Had anything catastrophic happened to me, I would have shouldered ALL of the (expensive) bills. Now I'm self-employed and spend about $500/month in premiums. That's LOW. Of course our trade-off is we have a HIGH deductible and no dental. If we had kids we'd be screwed. Hopefully with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) things will get better - though that will probably take quite a bit of time.

The American health system is GREAT - but unless you have a decent job and are covered through THEM, it can cost you two arms and two legs. ObamaCare is a step in the right direction, but there is still MUCH to do here.

gandhics
11-09-2012, 09:29 PM
Wait, was that directed at me? Please describe this "tons of money" you speak of. :D

Lets see...

My bill for Eye exam for glass was $350(no actual glass, just prescription).
Emergency room was $750(we did not get any treatment, just visit).
Dental crown was $1200 - $1600.
One of my prescription was $450 for a oinment.
When we have my first kid, total bill was $16,000(natural delivery).

My co-worker's baby was in ICU for a few month and had a surgery.
Total bill was..... a million.

mje11even
11-09-2012, 09:33 PM
Since you bring up small business and Obamacare, I will add in my 2 cents:

The place where I worked up until last year was a small business (25 employees) that paid 100% of my health insurance premiums. I will note that this was a software company in the aerospace industry, not the entertainment industry. The premiums kept going up by large amounts 20%, 50%, etc, each year, so the company adjusted the plans a bit to save some money. Co-pays went from $20 to $30, small changes like that. When Obamacare passed, it turned out that our plan qualified as a "Cadillac Plan" and if my company continued to provide that plan they would miss out on tax deductions and would eventually have to pay extra taxes on these plans. So they decided to switch to a high-deductible plan. It seems that now most employers are offering this type of plan, which provides 100% coverage for preventive stuff, but if emergencies or major health issues arise you have to cover the first $3000, or more depending on the insurance you have. So far things have been okay for me, but I miss the peace of mind that my old "Cadillac Plan" provided. It is things like this that make me wonder if Obamacare will "reduce" costs not by making things more affordable through advancements or efficiencies, but by encouraging people not to go to the doctor or use prescriptions because it comes straight out of pocket until they hit the high deductible which is more money than most have on hand.

Locutus
11-09-2012, 10:12 PM
Have you ever actually paid for full family health insurance out of your own pocket (not through an employer)? It sort of depends on what your definition of "rich" is, doesn't it?
Dude, what are you talking about? :curious:
Are you referring to buying insurance independent of an employer OR are talking about paying for health care costs without insurance? Because I've done both.

Please re-read my last post as I'm trying to understand what Gandhics meant by their "tons of money" comment.

So yes......I've had to pay for insurance independent of an employer AND pay for health care without MANY times in the past, but that has nothing to do with your original comment about one needing "tons of money" to have good insurance.

I merely stated that you don't have to have "tons of money" to have good insurance. I don't have "tons of money".

DSW
11-09-2012, 10:44 PM
So yes......I've had to pay for insurance independent of an employer AND pay for health care without MANY times in the past, but that has nothing to do with your original comment about one needing "tons of money" to have good insurance.

I merely stated that you don't have to have "tons of money" to have good insurance. I don't have "tons of money".

You NEED tons of money to have good quality insurance - if - you buy that insurance yourself. Period. If you are employed and they have a decent system that takes care of most things, then no, you DON'T have to have a ton of money - but then that's due to your employer who most likely gets a group rate which lowers HIS cost and allows them to offer health insurance.

Locutus
11-10-2012, 04:01 PM
You NEED tons of money to have good quality insurance - if - you buy that insurance yourself. Period. If you are employed and they have a decent system that takes care of most things, then no, you DON'T have to have a ton of money - but then that's due to your employer who most likely gets a group rate which lowers HIS cost and allows them to offer health insurance.
Well, you're pretty much stating the obvious here. Anyone who has insurance through an employer, through an independent insurer, or has had to pay medical costs without insurance already knows this. :rolleyes:

I fully aware of how employers acquire insurance for their employees and the different rates available through the plans they offer. Again, anyone with insurance from their employers would know this. I'm also aware of insurance plans that can be purchased independent of an employer that don't require tons of money.
My original comment was that one does not need to have "tons of money" to have good insurance, with low wait times when setting up appointments.

Maybe Gandhics meant to say you need tons of money to pay for health care WITHOUT insurance.........to which I would agree wholeheartedly. :shrug: "

leif3d
11-10-2012, 04:27 PM
Well, you're pretty much stating the obvious here. Anyone who has insurance through an employer, through an independent insurer, or has had to pay medical costs without insurance already knows this. :rolleyes:

I fully aware of how employers acquire insurance for their employees and the different rates available through the plans they offer. Again, anyone with insurance from their employers would know this. I'm also aware of insurance plans that can be purchased independent of an employer that don't require tons of money.
My original comment was that one does not need to have "tons of money" to have good insurance, with low wait times when setting up appointments.

Maybe Gandhics meant to say you need tons of money to pay for health care WITHOUT insurance.........to which I would agree wholeheartedly. :shrug: "

I guess you didn't read my post in the previous page where it shows that the US has the most expensive insurance in the world by a long shot.
I don't know how people can make the point that insurance is cheap in this country.

Locutus
11-10-2012, 05:58 PM
I guess you didn't read my post in the previous page where it shows that the US has the most expensive insurance in the world by a long shot.
I don't know how people can make the point that insurance is cheap in this country.
Soooo, another person who didn't READ my initial post.

Yeah dude, I read your post. You simply added "relative to the world" to the statement that the OP made. His statement didn't make a comparison to the rest of the world. :shrug:

I said, one doesn't need to tons of money to have good insurance. I DIDN'T SAY insurance in the U.S. was cheap. Nor did I say insurance in the U.S. was cheap compared to the rest of the world, but I wasn't making that claim. I also get the not all U.S. employers are offering plans that would be considered cheap, but I wasn't making that claim either.

Would I like insurance to cheaper? Of course I would, but that's not going to change until measures are taken to reduce the cost of health care. Until then, I find a plan that works for me and my family......which I have.
Many times.
In fact there hasn't been a time when I've been dissatisfied with my insurance with any of my past employers. I'm not rich, I don't have tons of money........I'm pretty sure most of you make more money than I do................but I have insurance that I'm very pleased with.

Maybe I'm the ONLY guy here who is happy with their insurance and has no complaints with service. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe I'm smart, or maybe it's because I live in one of the most economically sound states in the US. I don't know, but there's nothing I can do about that.

The OP made a general statement, I answered back with another general statement. I really don't see what is so confusing about that. :rolleyes:
I know A LOT of other people who would say the same thing, so it isn't just me.

Is it so hard to believe that someone living in the U.S., who doesn't have tons of money, can actually have insurance they are pleased with? :hmm:

chadtheartist
11-10-2012, 06:27 PM
You don't need a "ton of money" in the US to get good insurance. Just be prepared to fork over a large chunk of your money to get it. It may take some leg work but IMO it's worth it to fully understand your options and not just take insurance companies plans at face value. There is a ton of options that you may or may not want. I've found that if you look deep enough into insurance plans, you can find some really surprising things as far as cost goes. Honestly that's why I think most people get insurance through an employer, rather than go on their own. It's very confusing to figure it all out on your own.

Even living in Massachusetts, which is what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is based on, it's not cheap to have "good" insurance. Believe me, I've checked just about every insurance company here in Mass., as I was one of the unfortunate people to be a part of the 38 Studios collapse. When 38 Studios went down, we had zero insurance, no cobra due to the circumstances of 38 going under, and my wife and I had to have medical coverage due to some medical issues we were dealing with. Thankfully we were able to get insurance through a different company, and were able to keep from having a gap in coverage so it worked out okay for us in that regard. However, we do have to pay over $1k a month in premiums, on top of a $2k deductible all the while I am currently unemployed (if anyone is hiring character artist (http://chadhamlet.blogspot.com/) please let me know).

I spent a long, long time on the phone/web with insurance companies and I am completely convinced they "want" you to have a hard time understanding their plans. There are so many plans and so many different options it gets very confusing to figure out what is what. My wife and I needed pretty specific things from an insurance plan, sadly none of the "cheaper" plans had those things we needed. It's truly amazing how complicated this whole thing is.

It's the first time in my life when I truly understood how powerful having insurance through your employer is. Having to pay insurance out of pocket is extremely difficult, especially when you're on a limited income such as myself. If I ever get another job in the industry, I'm definitely going to make it a priority that I completely understand the insurance plan, top to bottom. This thread is a great reason to argue that point.

leif3d
11-10-2012, 07:07 PM
Soooo, another person who didn't READ my initial post.
It doesn't help to start ones statement with such sarcasm. Passive aggressiveness is pointless.

Yeah dude, I read your post. You simply added "relative to the world" to the statement that the OP made. His statement didn't make a comparison to the rest of the world. :shrug:
When you talk about a country, you make comparisons to other countries. It's logical and pretty common. Sometimes it helps appreciate things, sometimes it helps criticize things.

Is it so hard to believe that someone living in the U.S., who doesn't have tons of money, can actually have insurance they are pleased with? :hmm:
The facts are against you, YES, the facts show that IT IS very hard.
It's usually best to accompany ones experiences with statistics that show reality and facts. It helps understand the country you live in.
I have fantastic health insurance through my company, but that doesn't mean I'm the norm.

The health care reform is supposed to change a lot of these issues, but for now these are the sad facts:

http://sickothemovie.com/_media/SiCKO_sickofactoids.pdf

DSW
11-10-2012, 09:36 PM
My original comment was that one does not need to have "tons of money" to have good insurance, with low wait times when setting up appointments.You're right... you have to have EITHER tons of money OR be LUCKY enough to obtain a good job that has decent health coverage. It is not easy to do either - and many have crap health coverage because they weren't lucky OR wealthy. That's why so many Americans don't have ANY health coverage - which is why the ACA is a serious step in the right direction.

chadtheartist
11-10-2012, 09:57 PM
You're right... you have to have EITHER tons of money OR be LUCKY enough to obtain a good job that has decent health coverage. It is not easy to do either - and many have crap health coverage because they weren't lucky OR wealthy. That's why so many Americans don't have ANY health coverage - which is why the ACA is a serious step in the right direction.

I think time will tell if ACA is a step in the right direction. If they truly have modeled it after Massachusetts healthcare, then insurance premiums will go up. I live in Mass so I'm pretty aware of how ACA will affect us, if it's modeled after Mass Healthcare like it's been said. I wonder if you have read my previous post?

You do not have to be rich in order to afford a good insurance plan. I do not have "tons of money" and I have pretty good insurance, which I pay for out of pocket, all while unemployed. There are cheaper insurance options than what I pay available, while not the exact same coverage, it's still really good. Maybe it's completely different in other states in the US?

DSW
11-10-2012, 10:52 PM
I think time will tell if ACA is a step in the right direction. If they truly have modeled it after Massachusetts healthcare, then insurance premiums will go up. I live in Mass so I'm pretty aware of how ACA will affect us, if it's modeled after Mass Healthcare like it's been said. I wonder if you have read my previous post?
Unfortunately a HUGE factor is the fact that there is no Public Option. This would have helped a great deal to keep costs down, but unfortunately very few fought for it. Single payer (like Medicare) would have been even better, but even that needs to be improved.
You do not have to be rich in order to afford a good insurance plan. I do not have "tons of money" and I have pretty good insurance, which I pay for out of pocket, all while unemployed. There are cheaper insurance options than what I pay available, while not the exact same coverage, it's still really good. Maybe it's completely different in other states in the US?
Yes, it does vary state to state. Not to mention the older you are, the more it costs. I'm over 50 as is my wife - to get decent coverage would cost a LOT of money, and we don't even have any pre-existing conditions. Of course there are many insurance companies "out there" that can insure you for little cost - the problem is, when it comes time to pay the doctors/hospitals, they dislike paying out. I have a brother-in-law who thought he had a GREAT plan - until they really needed it, and then he wasted so much time fighting them. It still has yet to be resolved - more than five years later.

It is NOT easy in this country (USA) to get good health coverage unless you have a really good job OR "tons of money." Hopefully very few here would need great coverage, but to get a good plan from a reputable company... it AIN'T easy (or cheap.)

Obamacare is a STEP in the right direction - perhaps if both parties can actually work TOGETHER, they can improve upon it an make it work better than what is in Mass. Time will tell, though I have little faith that working together is possible until a major disaster strikes - a la hurricane Sandy.

CGTalk Moderation
11-10-2012, 10:52 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.