Why Doesn’t Tara Subkoff Have Health Insurance?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
celebs
6:00AM, Tuesday July 14th 2009
Last week it was announced that Tara Subkoff, designer for the edgy, high-end brand Imitation of Christ, was diagnosed with a brain tumor and would be undergoing brain surgery. If she doesn’t get the surgery—which will require a year of recovery, during which she won’t be able to work—within two years, the tumor will be fatal. As a result, her friends—who include big time stars like “The Royal Tenenbaums” director Wes Anderson and actress Chloe Sevigny—are throwing her a silent auction art benefit (they’re asking for donations) tomorrow night in New York City to raise money to pay for the costly procedure.
Because Subkoff, it seems, does not have health insurance. My second response—after the initial, “Oh man, that’s sad”—was, “Umm, why the f**k not?”
Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured. Many are not covered by their employers—if they are not among the over 14 million who are unemployed—and are unable to afford the cost themselves. Others can afford some type of insurance, but don’t bother to apply for it, likely because the cost can seem like a waste if you don’t go to the doctor often. The cost of health insurance ranges, depending on whether you opt for across the board coverage, catastrophic coverage, or somewhere in between—and what individual insurance companies cover varies as well. The options are confusing, the costs are staggering, and it often seems like even when you do have insurance, the insurance companies will do just about anything they can to NOT pay for your medical bills. That said, if you can find a way to afford it, any coverage is better than no coverage, at least until our government decides to join the rest of the first world and provides universal health care.
Subkoff’s diagnosis is frightening. At only 36-years-old, she’s in for a rough ride and she’s lucky to have such supportive friends. But why on earth didn’t she have health insurance? She’s a successful fashion designer. Imitation of Christ was a high-end, niche brand that won her accolades and coverage in the best fashion mags. Her collaboration with mass market shoe purveyor Easy Spirit was extremely successful and made her some serious coin. She also an actress that has been in over a dozen movies. Plus, she hails from a wealthy suburb in Connecticut and is considered a “hipster socialite.” I mention all of this because Subkoff hardly represents the average American woman without insurance. Subkoff could afford to pay for her own insurance—and hopefully the people who worked for her company—but for some reason she didn’t.
Chances are, Subkoff is like a lot of thirtysomething professional women—she was, until her recent diagnosis, healthy. I’ve read she practiced yoga and pictures indicate that she had a fit physique. Did she not have insurance because she didn’t think she would need it for anything major? That paying out of pocket for the occasional doctor visit was a more reasonable expense than forking over a hefty monthly insurance premium she wouldn’t really “use”? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I hope Subkoff discusses it when she’s feeling up to it. Frankly, her story, which is making headlines on many sites targeted at women her age (like The Frisky) could be a very real reminder of why everyone who can afford insurance, should have it. Especially if they don’t have wealthy, connected artist friends who are able to throw them a fancy pants benefit auction when disaster strikes.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Perceptible
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 06:45 am: [report]
I own a small, 2-person business so I pay out of pocket for my own health insurance. It’s more than $1200 a month but I have 2 kids and am not married so I didn’t feel like I had a choice. I would definitely save money paying for our few yearly dr visits since we rarely get sick. Honestly, though, if I didn’t have kids, I might opt to not have insurance because I’m a 30-something woman who practices a healthy lifestyle. Not saying that’s the smart thing to do, but I can see how she might think that way. But this is just another example of how important it is to have at least catastrophic coverage. At least until the government comes up with a better plan.
sadie
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 06:48 am: [report]
While we don’t know her circumstances, I think you’d be surprised at who can’t afford health insurance. I know people who make 100s of thousands a year that don’t have health insurance because they are self-employed and have “pre-existing conditions” that make them uninsurable.
Kiki T
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 06:51 am: [report]
Scary…I didn’t have insurance for ages and you don’t think about it being young….but damn, isn’t there a European friend she can marry to get affordable medical care?
bbpickles
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 07:35 am: [report]
I am uninsured and unemployed. I am a full time student and could afford to pay for some sort of insurance, but the coverage I can afford wouldn’t come close to covering a brain tumor. I am young and healthy and feel like paying a monthly premium for something that wouldn’t cover major medical procedures is pointless.
I am going to get a physical next week, the cost is $61.75, I would have paid more than that per month just to cover that cost…..
When I can afford decent insurance I will gladly pay for it, but until then I will pay out of pocket for my annual screenings. It’s VERY scary, but that’s how it is for millions of Americans.
tattooed_redhead
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 07:39 am: [report]
And this is why Tommy Douglas is one of my heros - he introduced national health care to Canada! And he’s Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather, but that’s just a bonus.
GreenAura
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 08:00 am: [report]
Anyone seen “Sicko”? Its a Michael Moore doc, and yes he is a little far left even for my liberal taste, but it was so scary (and enlightening) to see how many people go without proper medical care in this country. And many of the examined stories had medical insurance. Umm, could the conservatives explain to me again why national health care is a bad thing?? Shouldn’t the health of all citizens be a priority? So very sad.
powplz
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 08:20 am: [report]
My bf has the same (assumed) mindset - I’m healthy, if I absolutely need to go to the doctor for something (broken bone, etc), I’d rather pay it out of pocket.
I originally thought I would be able to get him on my insurance at work with the domestic partners benefits, but we couldn’t check all the boxes of financial tangles that ‘proved a committment’ according to the b1tch who runs our benefits, and the cost was so high we wouldn’t have bothered adding him even if the red tape wasn’t miles long.
Given that he frequently does potentially dangerous things, I was able to twist his arm with the “if you *can* afford it, there’s no reason not to have it” argument until he finally looked for - and found - a plan for a little under $100/month with like, a $5k deductible. At least now I don’t have to worry about cancer (which runs in his family) or any other major injury/illness automatically bankrupting him should something happen. So glad to have even my crappy but full coverage at work.
caroline.roberts
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 09:33 am: [report]
Chiming in with Sadie. The “pre-existing conditions” rules are the reason that many people who are self-employed don’t get health-care coverage and take the out-of-pocket route. Even if your pre-existing condition is managed and you’ve been following doctor’s orders to the letter, the insurance company can still jack up the rates.
For that reason, even if universal health care or a public option doesn’t go through (though, for the record, I hope it does), insurance companies must be stopped from seeing those with pre-existing conditions as cash cows.
Who knows why Subkoff didn’t get health care coverage, but it seems to be a big problem for artists and designers. There often seem to be benefits for artists who don’t have health care but wound up in an accident.
Lynn
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]
Yep, pre-existing conditions are a bitch. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to be self-employed, as much as I would like to. I have a lot of medical problems - they aren’t even that serious (they aren’t life-threatening, and I’m managing them relatively inexpensively) and I can’t get a health care provider to cover me individually - for any cost. I just thank god that I have a job.
nire32
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 12:14 pm: [report]
people… if you don’t have insurance, get it!!! Last summer when I wasn’t working, I got short term (less than 6 months) health insurance for about $35/month with a $2500 deductible.
granted, it wasn’t going to help me out very much in terms of saving money getting a regular check-ups, but if I had been hit by a bus or broken my leg or developed a brain tumor…. well, i’d rather be safe and have some sort of coverage than nothing - just read the fine print on the policy and know what you’re getting!!
sadie
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 12:25 pm: [report]
What @Lynn says is IMO at the heart of what’s wrong with health care in the US. I get so mad when I hear politicians talking about requiring citizens to get health insurance. Until they force the insurance companies to take ALL customers and not charge sky-high prices for people with health problems, they need to STFU. Yes I want everyone to have coverage but the fix to the current system is not just telling everyone they have to go get some. Making it affordable for everyone regardless of their condition is the issue.
fallonthecity
wrote on July 14 2009 @ 04:59 pm: [report]
@GreenAura: In theory, socialized/universal health care is a great idea. But I honestly think it would just become another crappy, substandard, bloated government program that sucks up taxes like nobody’s business while remaining understaffed, underfunded, and perpetually backlogged. I mean, if you can name one nation-wide federal program that operates (even moderately) efficiently, I might reconsider my stance. But in my head, socialized health care plays out like the education system: a whole bunch of crap-tastic public institutions (with a few noted exceptions, usually in wealthy neighborhoods) that are understaffed and underfunded, subject to stupid wide-sweeping mandates like No Child Left Behind, chock full of poor and middle class children who are given, usually, an at-best mediocre education for [mostly] free. Meanwhile, the wealthy can afford to send their children to much superior private institutions where they will usually receive a very good education, but at a much higher cost… So, what good is it to socialize medicine, when it will probably still leave the poor and lower middle class with crappy medical care, while the rich will still be the ones to get the quality, timely, efficient health care because they can afford to. Same problem (poor people have no/have crappy health care options while the rich get excellent care), higher tax rate.
This is absolutely not to say that the government can’t help us out. Obama said something when he was campaigning about offering an option of an insurance plan that you would be able to buy through the federal government—that’s an excellent idea, and a much better way to spend our tax dollars, IMO. They could write and re-write and scrutinize and pass a useful bill (for once) that regulates insurance companies so that they *have* to offer some plans to anyone who wants to buy them, and restrict the amount that they could raise rates and why. There are a ton of things they could do to help us, but I am absolutely not convinced that socializing our health care is the answer.
And, I guess it’s worth clarifying that I consider myself more a libertarian than a conservative. Who knows why the Rush Limbaugh types think what they think? But, hope to have at least partially answered your question.
Coral
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 06:28 am: [report]
Well I live in Massachusetts which has a terrible law. They force you to have health insurance. And it might have seemed like a good idea at first, but if you can’t afford it, you really can’t afford it. And they will fine you severely if you continue not to have health insurance. Both my parents are self-employed (I am 18 so I live with them) and they make over $100,000, but we live in a wealthy town that sucks up a lot of money. And still we can’t get insurance all the time—sometimes I have it, sometimes I don’t. And it all comes back to me having a pre-existing condition that no insurance company really wants to deal with. With Massachusetts forcing people to have insurance, prescription prices are up, surgeries are up, and other costs because the doctors want to make their money. And although I have insurance now, many people in Massachusetts still do not and they should not be forced to pay the hefty fees associated with it.
GreenAura
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]
@ fallonthecity: Thank you for your response. I always try to view everything from both sides before making any final decisions. Your stance is very valid and makes me want to do more research before I commit to a side. I am going to be joining the medical community next year once I complete my schooling, and knowing which side I am on is important to me. I may feel completely differently once I am actually working in the field, so we will see!
mountain_laurel1183
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 09:15 am: [report]
Of course, another side to it is that when the government and tax dollars are the ones paying for health care, they tend to focus more on preventative care which saves tons of money with no worries about substandard care. If people could afford preventative checkups and maintenance, we would save tons on ER trips and hospital stays. Think, too, about it this way: healthy food is more expensive than cheap, processed food. Healthcare sucks up I think 17% of our GDP?? Somewhere around there. If we weren’t so busy drowning in debt or insurance payments, we could afford to eat healthier and be healthier. A good chunk of our health problems are preventable.
Not that this view is perfect or without holes, but it is another way of looking at it. The system is already bloated and horrible. It would be hard for it to be worse just because the government intervened. IF we followed models of gov healthcare from other countries, the entire system would be more efficient, accessible, and better. That is a big “if”, however, and a bit idealistic.
Coral
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]
@mountainlaurel: Yes, it’s true that many health problems are preventable but the ones that are not are the ones that cost the most and tend not to be covered by insurance. I eat very healthy and exercise all the time but I know I am not the only plagued by medical conditions that are not exactly preventable.
powplz
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 09:28 am: [report]
@Coral - true, but the idea is that if costs come down/people in general are healthier overall, those preventable things (like type2 diabetes, for just one example) will be less prevalent, which frees up resources to address more people with health concerns that aren’t exactly preventable.
Coral
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 09:49 am: [report]
@joyy: I completely agree. But at the same time, medical conditions not covered by insurance have a sense of urgency because of seriousness, rarity, etc.
On the other hand, my dad is self employed a psychologist and he has many clients that use health insurance, especially medicaid and medicare. And the health insurance companies make it really hard for anyone to make money from them/get benefits. They are all just money-making machines and I would almost rather pay out of pocket out of spite.
powplz
wrote on July 15 2009 @ 09:57 am: [report]
@Coral - that’s where healthcare *reform* comes in. It’s not just about setting up a system where the government runs/pays for things instead - the goal is to change the current system that shortchanges basically everyone but insurance company shareholders who profit/get rich off of everyone needing healthcare, be it for routine check ups or debilitating illness.