|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Looking at healthcare..... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1499799039 Message started by raydawg on 07/11/17 at 11:50:39 |
|
Title: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/11/17 at 11:50:39 I might need to get my wife some if I retire, so i have been looking into it. What a scam, all the plans require so much more out of pocket cost to kick in, WTF? Anybody got any leads for me? Seems you can be poor, and win, have any assets, etc, sorry chump, you pay. Please constructive input only. All the talking points, etc, please DO NOT reply, thank you. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/11/17 at 12:16:02 72617964617767000 wrote:
Yep - insurance is much more complicated than people think (spoken like our "great" leader... sorry, no more snark.) Are you going through the ACA site for your state? If you're retiring, wouldn't that allow you to get more benefits (reduced rates) via ACA? Can medicare play a part? You've been paying in all these years, hit up every government avenue you can to get more info/support. In my state (IL), the exchanges are set up pretty well. Every year at open enrollment, I go through the exercise of getting an estimate based on my income. What's offered through ACA is a few dollars more per month than what I pay through my company. That being said, the plan I select has all the comparable deductibles and caps that my work plan has - however, wellness checks through the ACA have no co-pay/visit, whereas my current plan has a $15/visit. Not really a big deal. So much for my experience. Yours will obviously vary. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/11/17 at 12:48:46 I have no issues with myself, it's covering my wife for a few years until she can get into the system. I have checked all the state recommendations sites, etc, and in my circumstances, as far as I can tell, not much. I would like a HSA, and then purchase a catastrophic issuance where it kicks in when you reach a certain threshold. I could put thousands in a year, if it was tax free.... Right now it's only employer based and they get credit I believe. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by verslagen1 on 07/12/17 at 08:32:00 be careful with those HSA's, some are per year and don't carry over. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/14/17 at 13:06:22 Any luck? |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/14/17 at 17:14:46 475956575A475C41330 wrote:
Nothing yet, I could take a leave of absence from work, not sure how far out they would let me e tend it.... 6 months, maybe, a year would be great. I would have to retire at the end of it, and I would earn I income, but I would only have to pay my 140 bucks a month for my current healthcare package. It would help NOT having any income, as we get heavy on taxes now. Also saw where Cruz was suggesting a pre tax purchase HSA program. That would work. The one my wife has now is accumulating, does not end at years end, but grows. It doesn't generate any interest tho on unused balances... That's ok, if it offsets cost |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 07:40:29 Well, given the failure of the latest bill in the house - I'll address the elephant in the room on this particular thread... I'm honestly not sure where you stand on medicare for all, but if that were instituted, you wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Your wife would be covered at a bare minimum and your stress would be less. How can any of the cons on this board look at your situation and say to themselves "yeah, we need to do less for people - especially those who are older" - because that's exactly what this current cluster-f of a bill is saying. I hate to tell you ray - but if they pull ACA completely - you're screwed. I hope you know that and are ready to pay through the proverbial butt-hole for insurance. I'm not saying ACA is perfect. But what the loonies on the right are proposing is literally a death sentence to many. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/18/17 at 09:07:48 What use to work before all of this? Seems too many folks are trying to get rich off of medicine perhaps. Why does it cost so much money to become a doctor? Seems we could treat medicine like we do other social services perhaps. Why can't we have a system like pretty much everything else is in this country....... One that provides basic services, not breast implants, etc, but basic coverage and ER care. Then private coverage at a cost for those who want it, AND, can afford it? Seems trying to address the issue with one size fits all under the banner of fairness, isn't going to work. Give those on the "bottom" a chance, however, to better themselves through school, etc, IF.....they will only apply themselves. I am not talking those who have a real illness, limitation, but of a person who can't work because they weigh 400 pounds and do NOTHING about it but collect welfare and get fatter. I do NOT, know how many, or much, fits under that umbrella, but it should be obvious, AND, a start. Smokers, druggies, etc, should NOT get supplemental income, or medical care UNLESS, they participate in programs to really FIX them and to stop the cycle of dependency. To continue to enable folks who just don't "pull the wagon" is wrong, plain and simple. Not to mention it takes the focus off of real repair and needs. Lets promote things that pay our society dividends and befits, for a change, what have we got to lose..... This demagoguery of "tuff love" is only using them to advance yourself, at a great harm to our nation. Why not buy medicines from another source, if ours are too much? It really doesn't seem like it should be that hard to design a system, well, unless you are trying to protect your campaign donors. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 09:11:19 I do NOT, know how many, or much, fits under that umbrella, but it should be obvious, AND, a start. Unless you're using a Beach umbrella, you can't even get all of a 400 pounder under an umbrella. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 09:26:40 62716974716777100 wrote:
Very true - medicare for all is totally viable. But you know who hates that - insurance companies. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/18/17 at 10:22:05 Couple questions, how much you figger it would cost to get a single payer? What kind of out of pocket are we looking at.....NOTHING is free, unless you drop out and become a parasite. What about malpractice? I am too pay for your sex change, why? |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 10:31:59 Make it free and people will be in the emergency room for a bandaid. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 10:40:21 5E4D55484D5B4B2C0 wrote:
No, I don't think so - unless it was somehow "medically necessary". Right now, in some states It can be considered that... I don't agree. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 10:49:25 What mechanism creates the wealth that pays for it? Daddy can't tax junior's allowance and pay the bills. With America working from deficits in trade and going deeper and deeper into debt, just exactly how will it be paid for? It's not like we are Libya and the income from oil will make our lives easier. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 14:05:46 The expansion of the "new technologies" and the wealth they generate. The ever rising costs of medical treatment is in part due to the complexities of billing, coding, documentation etc. 50 yrs ago there was a MD, a Nurse and office person in most practices. I counted 1 MD and 7 ancillary staff at the podiatrist I went to see yesterday. (ps- gout isn't worth having). In office xray, medical history taker and inputer, nurse to review, MD to look at foot after reviewing x-ray etc etc. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 14:15:57 As always, trying to shift the costs from business to the individual, from the FEDERAL gvt onto the STATE, and they on to the cities and towns, or back onto the feds. Medical insurance is really just a tax in non tax clothing; the wealthy understand this and thus the call for tax credits for medical insurance premiums (which only help the wealthy because they alone can make the payments of the rolls Royce medical plans.) Watch your local paper, every week a judgment against someone in Bancruptcy court in favor of a local hospital, MD or Medical group. Do they ever collect hardly, so they pass the loss onto us thru increased billing and accounting efforts to reduce earnings by the uncollected (reasonable I think). You and I pay, and if we don't, the MD's go to areas where there are plenty of well heeled patients, leaving Appalachia and the Plains uncovered. Rural deep south, any Doctors left???? |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/18/17 at 14:31:17 61475C4545545D350 wrote:
Great points - great questions! |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Serowbot on 07/18/17 at 14:42:01 4F5056514C4B7A4A7A42505C17250 wrote:
Gee,.. how could we possibly afford to pay 1/3 to 1/5 what we do now?... Is that what you're asking?... Seriously?... PS... to avoid people coming in for a band-aid or cough syrup,.. just make a small copay,.. $10 or $20 per visit... Indigent poor could be exempt... |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by raydawg on 07/18/17 at 14:45:54 Trippah...... The fix is then? I pointed out once about having working clinics spread out all across our land. Where you teach and heal, at the same time. Students with proven aptitude get free schooling, boarding, etc, but upon degree, have to spend so much time giving back, teaching, etc. Once that is satisfied, they are free to go wherever they want. Why can't something like that work? |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 16:13:22 283E29342C39342F5B0 wrote:
Gee,.. how could we possibly afford to pay 1/3 to 1/5 what we do now?... Is that what you're asking?... Seriously?... PS... to avoid people coming in for a band-aid or cough syrup,.. just make a small copay,.. $10 or $20 per visit... Indigent poor could be exempt...[/quote] Somebody has to pay the Doctor, receptionist, nurse, lab tech, the light Bill, It's not magic. The houses, cars, cost of living, for everyone who is employed by the clinic have to be paid. Take your smug attitude and look at reality. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Serowbot on 07/18/17 at 16:31:20 It's already a reality in most civilized nations... Believe it or not, they have hospitals, doctors nurses offices, receptionists,.. cars, homes, boats, and lives... Better and longer that us... How is it possible?... look at 100 examples... All for 1/3 or less than we pay... No more questions of how... We don't have to reinvent the wheel here... we can copy... It's been done... Just cover everyone with Medicare... then cut costs with bargaining power, 100% insured, no HMO middleman, good preventive care. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/17 at 16:39:22 It was okay in Libya, We are deeply in debt, as a nation. But, let's dig it deeper. SOMEBODY gotta Pay the bills. Just like it's supposed to just be okay to Jack minimum wage, just because someone else is doing it, doesn't mean we can. Those Other Great Places, how many military bases and wars are they supporting? I think you're seeing a great solution to a serious social problem, but did you Really see how poorly Bamicare was gonna work out? No, you supported it. If you supported Nafta and the war on Libya, you've had clues about just how savvy you really are. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 19:34:14 JOG - what is all this about a smug attitude? The President has decided to just let Obamacare fail. Why will it fail? Because Congress has, at his request, stopped the mandatory payments to the program. As you know, a lot of healthy people have to pony up to bear the costs for one really sick person. If you don't require everyone to have car insurance, then when you have an accident you have to go to court and sue, and hope the hitter has the funds to pay you, the hitee. Was it on this board that someone's wife was hit by a Drunk driver, whose assets were all in his wife's name, leaving our rider with squat and $2 million in health debt. Clearly he will not be able to pay such a cost, so who loses out. The Dr. takes a loss, the Hospital takes a loss; but they will have to either close up shop or pass the costs onto someone, the tax payers of the US, his state or community, that is who. I did notice that 3 out of 6 tv adds on ABC news tonight were for medications. hmm, do they get the advert time free? So who pays for it, why the people who take the meds they advertise; and ultimately everyone in that patient's insurance pool. Already, the marketplace has made some adjustments. The urgent care centers now act as triage for the sick, allowing the more expensive emergency rooms to deal with the true emergencies. The primary cares see their patients for long term medical management of their lives rather than when they have the sore throat. The costs of medicine has skyrocketed. It may be time to open a discussion on nationalizing pharma co's. With so few pharma co's in the business, there is little competitive market pressure . ;) |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 19:46:05 Rawdawg - what you are suggesting is what has been tried as a teaching hospital network was developed. Much of the care is provided by "students" with review by the highly trained and more expensive experts. Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester is in that mode where primary care physicians are trained at lowered expense to the individuals in return for which the work a bit in the Commonwealth when training is over. Also, the US Military has been doing this for decades. Young would be Drs are subsidized thru med school, in return the docs provide medical care in the uniform services. Both the ENT's I worked for the last 10 years of my working life served in Nam at the time I did as a humble enlisted slave. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 19:50:42 Serowbot, I think you have stated the obvious and probable outcome. But in those lands that have it going, they either have oil funding (JOG's favorite) or high taxes @45-65 %. Interestingly, most of the citizens in those countries reportedly are more satisfied and comfortable in their lives, not worrying about if they will be taken care of when ill or old. These are comfort levels the US sacrifices in order for low taxes. And yes, I do NOT know the provenance of these reports, maybe faux news. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Eegore on 07/18/17 at 20:02:46 2F3C24393C2A3A5D0 wrote:
They do that already. They work ok but without some legal reform that protects these people from 70 million dollar lawsuits for an infected hangnail then we will see fewer and fewer as time goes on. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by Trippah on 07/18/17 at 20:05:02 Rawdawg -(and Eegore Hi!) the other serious issue is that most of the professional law makers (Senators and Congressmen) are lawyers. While they will tell you that the law suits and settlements weed out the bad Drs; they don't tell you the incredible expensive burden it puts on a physician and/or hospital. There needs to be some acceptance that physicians and surgeons are humans, and will make mistakes - even mortal ones. Tort reform must take place, limiting awards to 20 years pay at most (lets say $1 million) and medical costs which would be paid directly to the medical facility and staff providing the palliative or rehabilitative care.. This is an incredibly complex issue, as just as there is a code of silence for those in blue; there is one for Drs. Making decisions based on statistical studies of outcomes, for example, would slowly force physicians away from taking risks for a patient (alterative surgical proceedures, new treatments etc) which would stifle the growth of knowledge. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by T And T Garage on 07/19/17 at 05:31:12 Trippah - FTW |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by MnSpring on 07/19/17 at 14:34:00 Mentor Programs, DO work. When the Mentored, are paying attention, and the Mentoring, are doing the same. I don’t believe they will work, when, ‘Mandated’, and under the control of, ANY, government. (Based on my, ‘Observed Reality’, of something working. Then when a, ‘overseer’, said, you MUST do this, it all went to hell) |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by WebsterMark on 07/19/17 at 17:44:57 Ann Coulter - July 19, 2017 - HOW DELTA AIRLINES WRECKED AMERICAN HEALTH CARE July 19, 2017 I think I've found the core problem with health care in America. And guess what? It involves Delta Airlines! A few weeks ago, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was going on and on about a "single insurance provider" that pays for 49 percent of all births, as well as full health care costs of almost 40 percent of all children in the United States. This single "insurer," Maddow said, was the biggest "health insurance provider in the country by a mile." Maddow was talking about Medicaid, which, of course, is not "insurance" but "welfare." When we're allowed to call things whatever we want in order to win an argument, there is a total breakdown in democratic politics, fair commerce and social interaction. Thus, for example, until we get our terms straight, Americans will be forced to keep paying through the nose whenever they try to buy actual health insurance -- because they aren't buying health insurance; they're paying for other people's welfare. Washington will never be able to make it legal to sell real health insurance -- because, if they try, the welfare recipients will mob congressional offices claiming that Republicans are murdering them. There is no truth in any discussion of Obamacare. Currently, the most persistent lie is the claim that -- according to scoring by the CBO! -- 22 million Americans would "lose" their health insurance under the Senate health care bill. Turn on the TV right now and you'll hear someone saying this. "A new (CBO) budget score said 22 million more Americans would lose health coverage under this plan ..." -- Poppy Harlow, CNN, June 27, 2017 "A score from the Congressional Budget Office ... said the Republican bill to kill Obamacare would kick 22 million Americans off their health insurance." -- Rachel Maddow, June 27, 2017 "The clock is ticking on the Senate health care bill as the CBO estimates 22 million people will lose their insurance." -- Chris Hayes, June 26, 2017 HELLO? REPUBLICANS? ANY OF YOU GUYS WANT TO REBUT THAT? IT'S PRETTY EASY TO DO! The actual CBO report says nothing of the sort. People citing the "22 million" figure didn't read past the CBO's headline-grabbing paragraph at the top of the "Summary" page. In fact, the CBO merely estimates that -- in the year 2026 -- 22 million Americans who otherwise would have been forced by the Obamacare penalty to buy health insurance will choose not to buy insurance once the penalty is gone. By "people thrown off their health insurance," liberals mean: "people who voluntarily decide not to have health insurance." (More accurately, "people who choose not to prove to the government that they have health insurance.") To use the word "lose" here is absurd. It would be like saying that Nixon ending the draft meant that 50,000 American men would "lose" their military service. The poor lads would be forced to volunteer. Last year, I chose to end my New York Times subscription. I wasn't "thrown off" the Times' subscriber list. In full possession of the facts, I made an informed decision that I no longer wanted to receive the Times -- just as 22 million Americans (the CBO guesses) will make an informed decision in the year 2026 not to have health insurance, if given that option. Redefining words like "insurance" and "lose" to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean makes human conversation impossible. We can still grunt, howl and shiver when it's cold, but we will no longer have the ability to communicate slightly more complex thoughts to one another. The only solution is for the rest of us to impose a broken windows policy on the truth, demanding it in every walk of life. If liars continually get away with it, their lies will only become more preposterous and more enraging. Illegal aliens are not "undocumented immigrants." They're not "immigrants" at all. Immigrants wait in line and jump through hoops to be here. They are invited, by us, to come. Illegals cut to the head of the line whenever the mood strikes them, without waiting for an invitation. When you have a "reserved seat" on Delta, it means you expect to be given that seat and not have your ticket snatched from your hand, then moved to a worse seat -- only to get abused on social media by an imperious corporation for talking about it on Twitter. (Idea for new Delta motto: "If you like your seat, you can keep your seat!") This is why the "Seinfeld" exchange with a car rental company struck such a chord. It was about the infuriating result when words like "reservation" have no meaning: Jerry: I don't understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation? Rental car agent: Yes, we do. Unfortunately, we ran out of cars. Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation. Rental car agent: I know why we have reservations. Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation. And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them. If we're going to have any kind of civil society, we need to insist that words mean what they say. "Health insurance": A group of people pooling their money every month, in the event that one of them ends up with an expensive medical problem. "Wall": Wall. "Republican": Does not raise taxes, propose amnesty or appoint David Hackett Souter to the Supreme Court. "Seat 3A": The seat you were promised. Unless the rest of us demand truth, the liars will be emboldened, their lies will snowball and nothing will ever work. COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500 |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/19/17 at 18:04:29 3B242225383F0E3E0E36242863510 wrote:
Twenty bucks from each patient won't begin to pay the mortgage on the property, insurance,wages for the staff, light bill, etc. I'm not listing every common business expense. Someone has to Pay.. Where does that Final Payer Get the money? |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by WebsterMark on 07/20/17 at 04:57:05 My reason for posting the ever popular guest columnist here at the Tall Table; Ann Coulter; was because of the lines below. I had heard that 22 million will lose coverage, in fact, I'm sure I read it on here, likely Sew repeated it. But is Ann correct in what she writes below? If so, why are we even discussing it? -------------------------------------------------------- There is no truth in any discussion of Obamacare. Currently, the most persistent lie is the claim that -- according to scoring by the CBO! -- 22 million Americans would "lose" their health insurance under the Senate health care bill. Turn on the TV right now and you'll hear someone saying this. "A new (CBO) budget score said 22 million more Americans would lose health coverage under this plan ..." -- Poppy Harlow, CNN, June 27, 2017 "A score from the Congressional Budget Office ... said the Republican bill to kill Obamacare would kick 22 million Americans off their health insurance." -- Rachel Maddow, June 27, 2017 "The clock is ticking on the Senate health care bill as the CBO estimates 22 million people will lose their insurance." -- Chris Hayes, June 26, 2017 HELLO? REPUBLICANS? ANY OF YOU GUYS WANT TO REBUT THAT? IT'S PRETTY EASY TO DO! The actual CBO report says nothing of the sort. People citing the "22 million" figure didn't read past the CBO's headline-grabbing paragraph at the top of the "Summary" page. In fact, the CBO merely estimates that -- in the year 2026 -- 22 million Americans who otherwise would have been forced by the Obamacare penalty to buy health insurance will choose not to buy insurance once the penalty is gone. By "people thrown off their health insurance," liberals mean: "people who voluntarily decide not to have health insurance." (More accurately, "people who choose not to prove to the government that they have health insurance.") |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/20/17 at 06:42:20 293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:
Twenty bucks from each patient won't begin to pay the mortgage on the property, insurance,wages for the staff, light bill, etc. I'm not listing every common business expense. Someone has to Pay.. Where does that Final Payer Get the money? [/quote] Bot, the shrug and How is it hard to afford to pay twenty bucks?? Got shot down by, again, my pinning down the obvious. So, once again, explain the Mechanism that creates the fountain of money that pays the wages and bills where I go pay twenty bucks for the diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia. It's gotta come from somewhere. |
|
Title: Re: Looking at healthcare..... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/20/17 at 09:00:30 Go on, say it. The government will have to tax the people to pay for their care. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |