# Health Care - we gotta fix this shit...



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
Doctors and hospitals are performing unneeded procedures and prescribing unneeded drugs for profit.
I'm all about profit - but not profit over deceit.
And not profit over the well-being of American citizens.
I always thought the federal government was fundamental for our national defense, and national defense only.
Not any more.
Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.
Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
Everybody has health care.
I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.


----------



## chops_ (Nov 7, 2018)

"I'm a conservative.
But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed."

I am also a conservative, too...but healthcare doesn't have to be as bad as you may think.
I belong to this and I am glad that I did.

Medi-Share | Christian Care Ministry


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


Oh perfect! The government can do oversight!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 7, 2018)

Outlaw health insurance and repeal medicare (pharma and provider windfall meal tickets).  Problem solved.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


Make your idea an opt in, People that want the nanny state they can have it. People that want nothing to do with it Automatically excluded


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 7, 2018)

My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

I took my wife to the emergency room. A couple with no insurance waiting next to us was asked for 0 dollars.
We have a so-called Cadillac insurance plan through my employer.
I was required to pay 100 dollars for the visit.


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 7, 2018)

I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare. 

One of the things I do have a problem with having government regulated healthcare is I don't want them telling me what can be treated or not....although Dr's & Insurance already do that to some degree. I am thinking of the case of the little boy in England that they refused care because of his condition that even a US Dr said he'd do it, but they wouldn't let the boy come for treatment and soon died.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.


I am almost 50, I will never see a penny from any socialist entitlement programs I have paid in all my adult life... I want to cut bait and get the fuck out of that shit I don’t want to pay anymore into the shit...


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> ....
> Have a single payer system. Tack on 5% on our paychecks and have the government have oversight.
> Everybody has health care.



You are a liberal darling. Sorry to dissapoint.

Medicare-Medicaid is *already* 4.35% and you want to cover everyone for 5%? If we add them up, then we are in the ballpark at around 10%


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


There is a reason why progressives like socialized healthcare… It benefits only them


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

Older people need health care.
I'm not talking about over 65.
I'm talking about over 45.
And young people need catastrophic health care. Cancer, car accident, etc. One way or another. This has to be fixed.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


Not a lib.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> Older people need health care.
> I'm not talking about over 65.
> I'm talking about over 45.
> And young people need catastrophic health care. Cancer, car accident, etc. One way or another. This has to be fixed.


Only if the programs are voluntary, Millions of Americans want no socialized health care whatsoever


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



You want government run healthcare because you don't think free market can solve this issue --right?

That's a (very) liberal position.

Don't be ashamed SmokeALib


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


Only cover the people that want to be covered...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


No one should be forced into socialize medicine


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

Rustic said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > Older people need health care.
> ...


I understand that. There are no easy answers to this problem. I don't necessarily want socialized health care, but we're all paying for it anyway. We need oversight, and we need it bad.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


I also don't believe the private sector can run our military or national defense. So that makes me a liberal? I don't think so.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


You fix it with an opt in, Forcing conservatives into socialized healthcare is a living hell for them


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Nov 7, 2018)

You cannot have both open borders and universal health care.

UHC works where the majority is healthy.  The old and chronically ill are killed off.  Medical malpractice lawsuits are banned.

Now you can have a successful single payer plan.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 7, 2018)

Once people are required to pay for medical costs out of their own pockets, they will not opt for some unnecessary shit, and will refuse to pay some of the ridiculous bills providers and pharma want to charge.   If no one can afford expensive care, prices MUST come down.

Outlaw health insurance.  It has done nothing but widen the gaps and run up the cost of care/pharma.


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



No, but single payer support absolutely makes you pretty liberal. You are to the left of half the lefties on this.


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



but the free market plan hasn't been working for the consumer/patient. It only works for those involved in the health care system such as Pharma, Dr's, investors, etc.to get richer.  I won't even go so far as to include insurance companies since they have to pay for it all.


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 7, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> You cannot have both open borders and universal health care.



Well thats good because we don't have open borders - DUH?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> No, but single payer support absolutely makes you pretty liberal. You are to the left of half the lefties on this.


It's leftist, not liberal.  Liberal does not support government control of anything if possible.  Liberals hate statism and authoritarianism.  For too long, the term "liberal" has been misused.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Call me what you want. It's gotta be fixed.


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 7, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



Well I'm not as liberal as SmokeAlib and belive America CAN do it better than other countries, in our own way.

If Republicans would stop trying to sabotage Obamacare because it happens to be passed by Obama and instead work constructively with Democrats we can fix this (and much more).


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Obamacare is hardly the answer. Have you ever logged onto their website and checked their rates, for shits and giggles?
I have.
Bronze plan, family of 5, income 75k.
10k deductible.
2500/month.
WTF?


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Obamacare was a lie, most would rather pay the fines than the inflated costs of the insurance. It was a fail from the beginning......but hey it sure looked good on his resume huh? 

Again...…...the free market approach really isn't working for the consumer, it's only making the medical field rich at your expense....yeah, just keep paying for that


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot have both open borders and universal health care.
> ...


Yes we do, they are wide open and we have no southern border. 
Show much, it costs us billions of dollars every year. You have to be a fucking moron to not believe we are awash with illegal aliens
Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


The problem with Obamacare is it initially forced everyone into the shit... And it was/is seen to be a failure because mitt Romney invented it


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...



and let me guess....that 10k deductible is a yearly thing? I couldn't imagine what the maximum out of pocket cost would be....


----------



## Rustic (Nov 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...


My bookkeeper looked, the bronze plan for her and her family was 9k deductible and 3200 a month


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

Rustic said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


That's freakin rediculous. Who can afford that?


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...


Well, it was seen to be a failure because nobody could afford it.


----------



## trebleclef (Nov 7, 2018)

My plan was 3684.00/mo for 3 people. With a 7,000.00 deductible. What a deal. Should have just paid the fine.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 7, 2018)

trebleclef said:


> My plan was 3684.00/mo for 3 people. With a 7,000.00 deductible. What a deal. Should have just paid the fine.


And this, my friends, is why Obamacare is a joke.


----------



## captkaos (Nov 7, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



Why stop at 10% why not 30% then we can have really good coverage. And everybody will live by the Govt's rules and get the coverage and care the Govt feels is appropriate based on your political affiliation or Social status. And everyone will love each other and bear the burden of the rest of the Collective. Great Idea ehhhhhh!


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...



See major problem is that you consistently DONT KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Obamacare specifically limits out of pocket healthcare cost to no more than 10% of income.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.
> ...



There is an easy solution to your problem...move!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Nov 8, 2018)

chops_ said:


> "I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed."
> 
> I am also a conservative, too...but healthcare doesn't have to be as bad as you may think.
> ...


People are too stupid to seek solutions on their own. They want the government to take care of them like they're babies in diapers. 
I can't believe other so called conservatives would give him anything but smiley faces.

WHAT THE FUCK YOU HYPOCRITES???


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Hard to tell since you want the government to wipe your ass for you.

Go find a medical co-op and stop demanding others pay for your shit.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



This is one of the major problems with our country, a person can hold 100 conservative view points but if they dare go off the reservation for even a single issue they are branded with the dreaded "liberal" label and are forever known as that.  

Sorry to disappoint, but the world is not that black and white, nothing is that simple in life.  The problem is that you lack the basic intelligence to understand such things.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



It will happen, sooner rather than later.  Trump has always supported a universal healthcare system and he will start to push for one before he is done.   And once the idea comes from Trump, all these people bashing you will think it is the best idea ever and will support it do their dying breath.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

Grampa Murked U said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



This kind of funny coming from the guy that has started a dozen threads wanting the government to force the mean internet companies to be nice to you!


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



Nothing wrong with being liberal. You make it sound like I accused him of being a Nazi.

Believing that single payer is the way to go certainly tilts you way left.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> Have a single payer system.


We already have an excellent system in place, one that combines a strong government foundation for all with dynamic, innovative free market competition:

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system.  With some tweaks (and yes, probably an increased tax), it could easily be scaled to all.

If conservatives don't get their heads out of their asses and start learning how this system works, we WILL end of up with true Single Payer.  Guaranteed.
.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Na, I just don’t need socialist entitlement programs


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Which one's specifically?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


But still the collective wants to force people into a fucked up socialist entitlement  programs that wants nothing to do with them.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


Funny...


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



It will happen, and all the Trump sheep will become the biggest supporters of single payer


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > Have a single payer system.
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


All of them that could be classified under the nanny state


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


Lol
Forced socialized medicine, George Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind… People don’t know what is best for them… Soylent Green


----------



## Golfing Gator (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



quit dancing and list a few


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Golfing Gator said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


 OK, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, welfare... Just to name a few


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



Conservative?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


 everyone has a right to their opinion, obviously...
But joining the collective in socialized medicine is certainly not the answer.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

WillowTree said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



Problem solved! Government isn't motivated by GREED! 

Just lust for power.  Hmmm...


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Good luck on that.

Here it comes, then.
.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



And YET you either out of ignorance or whatever IGNORE what causes nearly $1 trillion a year in wasted health care expenses.
I've put this up several times and people either have such a short attention span that they don't comprehend the realities that health care providers fear lawsuits.
As a result these providers order duplicate tests, referrals to other specialists...all to be on the "safe" side that they won't be sued!
$1 Trillion wasted.
The average physician spends over 10 percent of his or her career consumed in defense of an open malpractice claim. For the average neurosurgeon, that number is 25%—that’s a quarter of a career dealing with the intense emotional stress of defending your reputation and livelihood.
U.S. Doctors Spend Too Much Time Getting Sued


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare.



Everyone needs food and housing too. Should government control access to those as well?


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> Call me what you want. It's gotta be fixed.



But you're OP say it's gotta be taken over by government. That's not the same thing.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Unfortunately, the collective always fucks over the individual


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.
> ...



To support your point so do the Trustees of SS/Medicare!
Trustees Reports

A SUMMARY OF THE 2018 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

Page 1..
Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 42 percent of Federal program expenditures in fiscal year 2017.

Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s 
due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and 
lower-birth-rate generations entering employment
The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year’s report.

The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund (Part A hospital)  will be depleted in 2026, three years earlier than projected in last year’s report
At that time dedicated revenues will be sufficient to pay 91 percent of HI costs.
Now I'm shouting:  Do you idiots know that without doing anything... that in 2026...8 years from now
if you are under Medicare and again nothing happens...and you go to the hospital... Medicare will pay not only right now just 80% (because you idiots don't seem to know that the individual right now pays the other 20%!!)
but in 2026 that 80% will be 72% paid by Medicare AND YOU will pay 28% !
So without doing anything... YOU when under Medicare after age 65 will be paying 8% more... Or
something will happen!


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Go find a medical co-op and stop demanding others pay for your shit.



You're missing the point. What they're after isn't the _freedom_ to do health care the way they want. What they're after is the _power_ to force YOU to do health care the way THEY want.


----------



## Aldo Raine (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



 RINO!


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Thats because your mind is hoped up on rightwing hysterics.

Out here in the real world a lot of developed democracies have single payer healthcare systems (see Canada, Great Britain etc.) and they have ZERO interest in pursuing the American model.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


Which is perfectly fine with me, but no one should be forced into socialize medicine.
Millions of conservative would benefit in no way from socialized medicine, In fact it would make their lives a living hell


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



....Single Payer, by definition is a system where government pays for everyone's healthcare, financed by INVOLANTARY taxation.

So when you say "perfectly fine with me" but then follow it up with, "but no one should be forced into it" you aren't making any sense.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


It should be an opt in, that’s easy.
Sign up for the shit if you want it automatically Excluded if you don’t want it


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Doesn't work - people elect to not participate in the system untill they get older and sicker or simply because they are totally irresponsible and when shit hits the fan...what? we are supposed to just let them die or get deformed because they can't afford the care?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


See that’s unacceptable, you can’t force people into shit that They do not want, cannot afford, and will never benefit from.


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare.
> ...



agreed, but at the cost to consumers for quality healthcare, that food & housing is limited even more. No government should NOT be controlling access to anything actually. IDK, whatever......but I do know the healthcare systems we've had so far, don't work either. There has to be some kind of middle ground or solution to this mess so that everyone can get good quality care without it putting them in debt. 

1. Dr's should be able to treat the patient and the problem....NOT just push the people thru with  a RX for some drug that makes you sicker than when you started.

2. Some type of regulation to companies, such as Mylan with Epi-pens, from price gouging the consumers.....just because they can

3. the FDA to be open to other methods that are being done in other countries.....but they don't approve them here.  


the list goes on because of how far reaching the problems are...….and the consumers are paying for it thru the nose and in some cases with their lives


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



REPEAL AND REPLACE!

X70

Then nothing.


If that doesn't work for you, who did you vote for?


----------



## Crixus (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...




Or, make it illegal to jack the cost of drugs from $60 to$1,000 over night. Also, make it illegal for money to change hands between polititions and drug companies. And the last part, how about teaching Americans to have a job and work as well as being proactive IN THEIR own health care instead of making me pay for it. I’m a full blown COPD. My one inhailer cost $260 a month and the rescue went from $35 a month before the fovrenment “fixed healthcare” to $375. Why should you have to pay my medical bills  after I smoker for 25 years? Government has zero business in health care. They know it to. That’s why they made it so they don’t have to go on token negro care.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 8, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Outlaw health insurance and repeal medicare (pharma and provider windfall meal tickets).  Problem solved.


Brilliant.

So when 95% of providers close up shop, who does health care in your glorious world?


Psst... .  
Meal tickets create affordable care.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Nov 8, 2018)

Crixus said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



Get a clue, loser.

My pristine health pays for your COPD.

Where do you imagine my premiums go if I have no claims?


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...



Didn't run your subsidy, did you?

Just using a Panama City zip code for the hell of it and without knowing what your zip and ages of you, your wife and children, used 50 for you and your wife and put you kids in their teens this is the estimated subsidy you'd receive for $75,000.

*You are likely eligible for financial help*
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 255% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace. An estimate of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help in 2019 are provided below. To find out your actual amount of financial help and to get coverage, you must go to Healthcare.gov or your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace.

Estimated financial help:
$1,576 per month ($18,907 per year)
as a premium tax credit. This covers 75% of the monthly costs.
Your cost for a silver plan:
$532 per month ($6,383 per year)
in premiums (which equals 8.51% of your household income).
The most you have to pay for a silver plan:
8.51% of income for the second-lowest cost silver plan
Without financial help, your silver plan would cost:
$2,107 per month ($25,289 per year)


Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



No 9 grand deductible with any obamacare plan. Max for 2019 is $7900.


----------



## XponentialChaos (Nov 8, 2018)

How is that Republican healthcare plan coming along?

Repeal and replace, right?  Ryan care?  You guys have had, what, 8 years to come up with a better plan and you've done absolutely nothing.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


Obamacare will work it has to be tinkered with forever and it needs quite a bit of tinkering right now...


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 8, 2018)

XponentialChaos said:


> How is that Republican healthcare plan coming along?
> 
> Repeal and replace, right?  Ryan care?  You guys have had, what, 8 years to come up with a better plan and you've done absolutely nothing.



Neither Ryan or McConnell were ever serious about repeal. Ryan knew he was retiring long before he announced it and McConnell represents a state with many republican's enjoying those subsidies and pre x conditions. Trump just led his base on to get elected. They all blew smoke up their base asses.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


But you're right single-payer is the best way to go, but the AMA and the GOP would have to be dragged kicking and screaming, Republicans will never go for it.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



But Trump was all for single payer years ago.


----------



## XponentialChaos (Nov 8, 2018)

"I want something done about healthcare.  That's why I vote Republican."

lol


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> > How is that Republican healthcare plan coming along?
> ...


Thank God for John McCain, without him they would have already repealed it...


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > XponentialChaos said:
> ...



I watched that and have thought the republican's going in and out of the room to talk with him actually had to have a scapegoat to vote it down and since he was dying convinced him to vote it down.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Another conspiracy? Of course LOL. I think he finally got pushed to the right side by his own mortality...


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


The problem is healthcare costs so ridiculous prices... We need to regulate insurers and hospitals big health and big Pharma. And get more competition in the exchanges and I have nothing against National exchanges... However, 75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month after subsidies. Republicans believe a whole lot of garbage about Obamacare as well as everything else....


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


That’s what she told me... unaffordable


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 8, 2018)

chops_ said:


> "I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed."
> 
> I am also a conservative, too...but healthcare doesn't have to be as bad as you may think.
> ...


Someone did this but something went awry. If this is well managed it should work.


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Costs may vary depending on location


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You mean statism like this?

Analysis | U.S. military budget inches closer to $1 trillion mark, as concerns over federal deficit grow


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Na, Military/police/fire are an necessary...


----------



## chops_ (Nov 8, 2018)

RodISHI said:


> Someone did this but something went awry. If this is well managed it should work.



So far it works...its like a community that comes together to help pay each other's medical bills. I return the favor for those who are in need. There are great people..and we keep in touch as well.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 8, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


*In regard to drug prices, the US is footing the bill for drug company research, development, and most of drug company profits.  We pay $300 for a drug the rest of the world pays $50.  If you buy your more expense drugs abroad, you are well aware of the huge difference in price.

The drug companies lead people to believe that they are getting purer and higher quality drugs if purchased in the US.  This is complete nonsense.  The drugs are exactly the same.  In fact, most of them are manufactured by the same company and the only difference is the packaging.     *


----------



## Rustic (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Keep Obamacare to yourselves... The rest of us want nothing to do with it


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Necessary...STATISM? I knew you were a statist at heart.

And since when is healthcare not necessary?


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



You going to keep parroting the same fucking meme in all your posts?


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Truth hurts?


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



no, the repetetive stupid hurts.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You can say that again!


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

antontoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Anyway Obamacare is no longer mandatory, and in fact Obama did not want it to be mandatory when he started Congress changed that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



All the mandates are still there. Even the individual mandate is still law - the Republicans have just turned the penalty down to zero. It can easily be turned back up. With a few token exceptions, the rest of ACA is untouched.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 8, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...





dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


So it is no longer mandatory and the hell with that anyway. Obama didn't want it to be mandatory. Congress changed it. So Tinker with it, fix it instead of just.... Republicans! It is only a framework to be tinkered with forever, just like in other countries.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> It is only a framework to be tinkered with forever, just like in other countries.



Sadly, that's a good bet. Once government gets its tentacles into something it never lets go.


----------



## Snouter (Nov 8, 2018)

It is so sad American taxpaying citizens have to pay for medical treatment in addition to monthly insurance, but illegal aliens and democrat "urban citizens" pay nothing, ever.  So guess who has more offspring, the primary medical expense beside expenses as a result of poor decisions, though most offspring today look like poor decisions?  In other words, the medical system in the USA is a form of genocide for Whitey.


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

Snouter said:


> It is so sad American taxpaying citizens have to pay for medical treatment in addition to monthly insurance, but illegal aliens and democrat "urban citizens" pay nothing, ever.  So guess who has more offspring, the primary medical expense beside expenses as a result of poor decisions, though most offspring today look like poor decisions?  In other words, the medical system in the USA is a form of genocide for Whitey.



Alex Jones?


----------



## Snouter (Nov 8, 2018)

dblack said:


> Alex Jones?



I am sensing you feel I stated something that was inaccurate?  Such as?


----------



## dblack (Nov 8, 2018)

Snouter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Alex Jones?
> ...



Ir sounds familiar. Don't tell me.... is it the plot to Omega Man? Or am I thinking Soylent Green.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



Every county in the U.S. has different prices I was disputing the deductible.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



We don't care do what you want.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


The fact remains Obamacare is unaffordable for most people...


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Some one thought this was funny, but you are correct.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Then quit trying to get us to pay for other peoples shit...
Fuck the collective


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I'm not trying to make you pay for anything I for the most part just stating facts.  Yes, it is very expensive for some and not so for other's. You and other's are throwing out these huge deductibles that just aren't so. I for one (selfish reason) would like to go back to under writing days, but do see the need for coverage of the uninsured.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


Complex issue.  But you are correct. A 'for profit' healthcare system doesn't work.

How do people that are retired have 5% taken from their paychecks?  Do self employed people pay 10%?  Medicare fraud is perpetrated by providers, not patients.

Start with a public option, when anyone can purchase Medicare plans to rival private insurance.  It will help Medicare, and it will be a great option for younger/healthier people who don't use doctors/meds at the same rate as others.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Simple solution, make Obamacare an opt in The people that want it they can sign up for it the rest are automatically exempt


----------



## JustAnotherNut (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



IDK......is it possible the deductible is variable as well?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


As long as, in no way insurance/coverage is mandated.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...


Because it is


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...


75% of those on the exchanges pay less than $100 a month... Be a dope and a dupe then...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Lol
Na, not really


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...



It is variable but none for one individual is more than $7900 for 2019 and it was a little less this year.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


She said for her and her family


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...



You see that is the problem she went to healthcare.gov or whatever exchange you have and saw x number/xnumber, individual deductible/family deductible. She should have called an agent to explain and not rely on the federal or local exchange to explain. The people at the federal exchange has quite often given out wrong information. Over the past 5 years I can't even count anymore the people that have screwed themselves by going direct without and agents help.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Well, every part of it is unaffordable for her.
That’s why these socialist entitlement programs do not work for progressives


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 9, 2018)

What works in other advanced democracies won't work in America because we're terminally unique.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 9, 2018)

In the aftermath of WWII, European nations enacted national healthcare programs because wars - fought on their soil - taught them they were all in it together.

In the US, at the time, not everyone could drink out of the same water fountain.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 9, 2018)

Nationalism - as advocated by D. Trump - is supposed to indicate a sense of national consciousness, while maintaining a contradictory every-man-for-himself approach to survival.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative....
> Everybody has health care.
> I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.


Long story short, the country is going to go bankrupt if the system isn't COMPLETELY overhauled.  From the skimming and waste, to corrupt doctors and pharma companies, insurance rackets, runaway costs on insurance, claims adjusters making your premiums a form of armed robbery....it all has to end.  YESTERDAY.

There isn't one person on these boards or in Congress who doesn't personally know someone who has been screwed, bankrupted or even killed by the total disgrace that our country calls "healthcare".   And if you're  dumb enough to belong to the epitome of these scams (HMOs), have fun getting "bottom-lined" as you age after paying through the nose.  They'll kill you.  It makes the stockholders happy...


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.

So liberals (and SmokeALib) are saying that healthcare is a necessity. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it?


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> Nationalism - as advocated by D. Trump - is supposed to indicate a sense of national consciousness, while maintaining a contradictory every-man-for-himself approach to survival.



So it may seem, but we know it isn't true.  The Trumpy advocates a kind of nationalism displacing the notion of a national consciousness with his own - at best with White male - consciousness, while indicating that voting for him ensures the otherwise completely worthless government will grant to all with that White male consciousness a helping hand, just as it was in the olden times.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.
> 
> So liberals (and SmokeALib) are saying that healthcare is a necessity. Doesn’t seem too unreasonable, does it?



It's not unreasonable as a proposition. But expecting to enact it with a simple majority vote in Congress _is_ unreasonable. Such radical change to society requires real consensus, it requires more than slim majority support. It requires amending the Constitution. If we try to force such a change without that consensus, we'll just create more problems than we solve.


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > But you admit there are nescessities where it’s ok to get you to pay for other people’s shit, like military for example.
> ...



I agree a large majority coming together to create a stable health care system covering all would be immensely helpful, but doing it by a slim parliamentary majority is not in itself unreasonable.  A Constitutional Amendment is certainly not a requirement, as the Constitution isn't supposed to mandate policy aims.  All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation.  Now that this "consensus" is growing, the Goobers find it hard to repeal the law.  Yes, progress is obviously not a straight line, and it's even more difficult since the ACA had to deal with, and tried to preserve, a deeply dysfunctional health care system to begin with.

So, yes, it's hard, but in the end there won't be strike through the Gordian Knot any time soon, and all there is is the arc of history bending toward justice, toward the reasonable, and the hard work of moving that darned boulder up the hill to get it done.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...




5% would not even come close to paying for "free" medical care for 330,000,000 people (plus 20 million illegals).   Try 50% like the wonderful Scandinavian countries that everyone raves about.  and even then it would end up being like the VA,  long waits for crappy treatment.

I do agree that big pharma is raping us on drug prices, that needs to stop.  the insurance company/hospital game also needs to stop, when you get a bill from a hospital for 250K and the insurance company pays 80K and everyone is happy, there is something going on that needs to be stopped.  I understand that its a tax game whereby the hospitals claim a loss for tax purposes while actually making millions in profits.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...




wrong ACA failed because it was based on taxing the shit out of young people to pay for medicine for old people. 

IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10.   Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized.  We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic.   It worked for generations.


----------



## LaDexter (Nov 9, 2018)

To fix health care, we must push government out and bring back MARKET FORCES to reduce prices...

When we allowed the government to SOCIALIZE SENIOR DRUGS, they sold us out by paying the drug makers a retail price and everyone who voted to sell us out got tons of drug company $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to do so....


The more government is involved with health care, the more health care will resemble the public schools


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.



> All told, the ACA didn't suffer because there was something wrong with it, but because there was a mouth-breathing propaganda campaign to frighten the rubes aiming at destroying the legislation.  Now that this "consensus" is growing ...



It suffered because it was foisted on the nation without consensus. I don't know whether support is "growing" or not, but it's still not there. At best it has slim majority support (though even that is debatable). And that's simply not enough. Pushing such fundamental change on the nation when half us don't want it isn't viable. It only invites reprisal and repeal, and turns a critical function of society into a political football.


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.



I think you are vastly, vastly overstating your case.

Offering a public option, negotiating drug and provider prices from the position of a large-scale customer, in effect, Medicare for all, would be a decent option resulting in nothing one could describe as "a radical expansion to the power of the federal government".  It plainly isn't.

Moreover, your assessment of "amending the Constitution" as the path toward ensuring "everyone is ok with" whatever the Amendment says, is faulty, as a cursory research into the ongoing acrimony about the post Civil War Amendments should tell you in next to no time.  It isn't, and it won't be.  Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation.  All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation.  All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.



That's just lazy, and it will cost us. Trying to push through such significant change without doing the work of building genuine consensus will undermine our politics even further. Every election will be a rehash of the debate, with all the fear-mongering and bitter divisiveness turned up to eleven.


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting for an amended Constitution does, however, guarantee that nothing whatsoever will get done for at least a generation.  All the while people are suffering and dying from lack of coverage.
> ...



Yes, change comes at a cost, not least because the forces profiting from the status quo, and aligned against change, will cause a ruckus.  That same thing applies to Constitutional change.  Democracy is messy, and overcoming fundamentalist opposition, as a GOP-gone-bonkers represents, is messier still.

However, no change also comes at a cost, and I don't see you take it into account.

I, for one, take a lively, if messy, democracy aiming for fairness, and occasionally succeeding, over stalled development while waiting for a consensus that is, and will likely remain, out of reach for many, many years.

I guess, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, eh?


----------



## RealDave (Nov 9, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Outlaw health insurance and repeal medicare (pharma and provider windfall meal tickets).  Problem solved.


Wow, your ignorance has no bounds.  Make healthcare available for only the wealthy.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> However, no change also comes at a cost, and I don't see you take it into account.



Exactly. That's why we need to pursue more modest changes that can garner solid support, and stop grandstanding for radical change that will only be ripped out with the next administration. That kind of thrashing hurts more than it helps.


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 9, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Lol 

Do you not understand that insurance policy that simply covers routine treatments and sub-$10 prescriptions would cost alsmot nothing and be *USEFUL TO NO ONE?

*


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO the only real fix is to go back to what we had 50 years, you paid your doctor out of your pocket for routine treatment and most prescriptions cost less than $10.   Insurance only kicked in if you were hospitalized.  We did not expect insurance, or medicare, or Medicaid to pay for routine stuff, and the poor got treatment at the ER or a free clinic.   It worked for generations.
> ...



I think you misunderstood the post. Redfish is saying that those things should be paid for out-of-pocket, and not via insurance. Insurance should only be for unforeseen calamities, not routine expenses.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




actually that is exactly what obozocare was trying to do,  except that there are no prescriptions under $10.  

I understand that you are mentally challenged but you kind of made my point.   when insurance did not cover routine visits and cheap prescription, the premiums were small, and it only paid when you had a major illness requiring hospitalization.  Now, we want insurance to cover everything.  That, my little friend, is the problem.  there aint no free lunch.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Nationalizing health care is not a mere 'policy aim'. It would represent a radical expansion to the power of the federal government. It's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is supposed constrain. We can't afford to make such a change without real consensus. That's what the process of amending the Constitution is all about. It ensures everyone is ok with fundamentally altering the powers of the federal government.
> ...




if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it.  Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The question I have, especially for Democrats, is this: Why do you want Donald Trump (or Congress, or Federal bureaucrats, or any kind of central authority) in control of your health care? Making health care a political concern drags it into the morass of our bitterly divided partisan nonsense. Let's skip that.


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

Redfish said:


> if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it.  Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?



Not at all an expansion of power, Redfish; it would just be Medicare covering more people than they already do. You don't talk about a huge expansion of government power in case Washington buys a new aircraft carrier group, along with the personnel to operate it, do you?

And no, there would not be a huge new bureaucracy; you may wish to compare Medicare's bureaucratic overhead to any insurance corp's.

And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats.  You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?

But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway.  Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > if the government "managed" all healthcare for all americans it would be a huge increase of govt power and would require a new huge beauocracy to administer it.  Do you really want you medical decisions made by some ignorant GS7 in a basement cubicle in DC?
> ...




medicare for all would be the VA for all.   Careful what you ask for, you might get it.  Ask any Brit or Canadian how they like their "free" medical care.   Ask them how they like waiting 6 months for a routine procedure.  Ask them why they come to the US for treatment if they have a serious illness.

your naivety is amazing.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats.  You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?



I want to make those decisions myself, with my family as my back up. We _might _choose to enlist an insurance company in that equation, but it's up to us. No one - short of ACA and overreaching regulation - forces us to delegate these decisions to anyone else. We can hire and fire insurance companies whenever we like. But what you're talking forces everyone to submit to the will of whatever idiots happen to be in charge of government at the time. Short of waiting around until the next fucked up election, there's no way to "fire" the government.



> But thanks for relaying the Insurance Corp's propaganda message anyway.  Not that we haven't heard it all before, but still...



You're the one carrying water for the insurance lobby. Or were you under the impression that they aren't involved in Medicare? You realize that's all piped through private, for-profit, insurance companies, right? They're eager to have everyone forced into their pens, and you're helping them.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Just a clarification.  The only part of Obamacare that is not mandatory is carrying health insurance.  The requirements on the insurance and healthcare providers are the same.  Trump administration has weakened the law in some places such as temporary coverage, however the law remains mostly unchanged.*


----------



## Olde Europe (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats.  You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?
> ...



Oh, for heaven's sake.

Your private insurance corp governs you, and they will not even inform you in which way.  Public insurance is subject to public scrutiny.  Of course, you can "fire" one public insurance corp, and "hire" another one.  Same shit, different name.  I will not, to the end of my life, understand the blind trust in private enterprise, all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, not the least of which is that the U.S. private system provides a mediocre product at twice the cost, compared to all other developed nations, and it doesn't even cover everyone.  And still, they're screaming, "Keep your filthy hands off my Medicare!"

Okay, that last bit was uncalled-for.  Apologies.  But still...


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Your private insurance corp governs you ...


No. They don't. They can't have me arrested if I don't want to buy what they're selling. The government can. That's a profound difference. You can't just pretend it isn't real.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Guess what, silly doops, ACA is going nowhere. Four more red States voted for Medicaid expansion, and the Democrats one the house and will never pass repeal. So Tinker with it, fix what you want, but give it up. The high cost of premiums when it started was simply recognizing the actual costs of healthcare after the GOP Let It Go Wild for decades. Now premiums are coming down, despite total GOP sabotage. The GOP is a disgrace and never would pass anything to cut profits for their cronies in big house and big Pharma...


----------



## Flopper (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, some "medical decisions", if you want to call it that, are being made by some bureaucrats.  You would rather these decisions be made by someone who has but one aim, that is, to profit from you?[/quot
> ...


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Your private insurance corp governs you ...
> ...


ACA is no longer mandatory and you can be as stupid and paranoid as you want, super duper. So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


We're discussing the proposal to nationalize health insurance. Try to follow along.


> So shut the hell up and let the informed adults Tinker with it as they will forever, just like in every other modern country...


Uh, how's about you go fuck your ignorant self?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Military/police/fire are an necessary, All of the socialist entitlement programs are not An necessary.
Me and millions just like me want no part of socialize medicine


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Guess what, silly doops, ACA is going nowhere. Four more red States voted for Medicaid expansion, and the Democrats one the house and will never pass repeal. So Tinker with it, fix what you want, but give it up. The high cost of premiums when it started was simply recognizing the actual costs of healthcare after the GOP Let It Go Wild for decades. Now premiums are coming down, despite total GOP sabotage. The GOP is a disgrace and never would pass anything to cut profits for their cronies in big house and big Pharma...


That is why any type of socialized medicine should be an opt in, Automatically excluding those that do opt in...


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


ACA is as good as we're going to do... At least until Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate... We canTinker ACA enough that it will be just about as good as nationalizing it.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Make it an “opt in” and the country will support it...


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Before you jump into a thread and make an idiot of yourself, try reading the OP. We're not discussing ACA. We're talking about the suggestion that we should adopt single payer, not ACA.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


However, Republicans will block it forever. There are many major issues that the country supports and the GOP blocks, because they are totally bought off by big Health big Pharma Big Oil NRA slash gun manufacturers, big everything, duh, super duper.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Just trying to bring you back to reality.... Carry on.


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



But that won't bring prices down.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


transparent competition and further regulation and tinkering will bring down prices. It takes time.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



Welcome to the Democrat Party you traitor!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I took my wife to the emergency room. A couple with no insurance waiting next to us was asked for 0 dollars.
> We have a so-called Cadillac insurance plan through my employer.
> I was required to pay 100 dollars for the visit.



That 100 dollars you paid was to cover that other couple with no insurance, dumbass!


----------



## AntonToo (Nov 9, 2018)

Redfish said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No moron, Obamacare was certainly not trying to do that, in fact it was doing the EXACT OPPOSITE, by requiring comprehensive coverage, not meaningless insurance that bailed on people when they needed it most.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 9, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



You do realize that Medicare has both deductibles and coinsurance. Plus the premiums would have to be much, much higher for women to make it work, and you know we can't have that!

.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 9, 2018)

dblack said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Single Payer has a lot of advantages but getting there would be difficult if not impossible without a phased approached.  

The easiest and most painless way to get to single payer is to simply extend the Medicare minimum age requirement.  For example, we could extend the minimum age in 5 year increments every 5 years.  In 50 years, everyone over 20 would be on single payer.  The final step would be to pickup the children and remainder of the population.  With the exception of supplemental insurance, Medicare would replace essential all private insurance, Medicaid, and most VA healthcare.  This plan would give the insurance companies, the government and the healthcare industry time to make changes in the business model.

With Single Payer, everyone is covered.  It doesn’t matter if you are rich or you are poor. In a single payer system, health care is a right instead of being treated as a privilege.

Rates are the same. Patients don’t need to worry about a doctors deciding to charge them $320 per hour for a visit because their health insurance allows for that maximum. There aren’t different rates for people who are insured vs. those who are uninsured either. Rate consistency allows medical providers to know exactly what they’ll receive and patients know they will receive the care they need.

Cost go down in single payer system.  Serious diseases can be caught earlier.  Economies of scale reduce costs.  Healthcare billing and claim processing is simplified.  Insurance costs are eliminated. Administrative overhead (also known as “transaction costs”) consumes one-third of current health spending in the U.S. which can be all but eliminated. 

Today Healthcare providers compete by eliminating completion through mergers, acquisitions, and formation of networks. Making cost comparison is more often than not impossible under our current system.  If you ask almost any healthcare provider what your cost will be for a costly procedure you are most likely going here it all depends.  In many cases, hospitals will refuse to provide you with costs figures.

Contrary to popular belief, single payer provides more opportunity for competition than our current healthcare system.  In a single payer system, providers compete based on quality of service provided and features they offer that the competition does not offer.  *


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




You need to 'splain this better Lucy!  It makes no sense as written.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 9, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



You seem so fucking liberal!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Nov 9, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare.
> 
> One of the things I do have a problem with having government regulated healthcare is I don't want them telling me what can be treated or not....although Dr's & Insurance already do that to some degree. I am thinking of the case of the little boy in England that they refused care because of his condition that even a US Dr said he'd do it, but they wouldn't let the boy come for treatment and soon died.



Maybe you should trust the Hippocratic oath.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


In other words, it all about control


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Lol
First of all you need to remove the socialist cock out of your mouth...
Who pays for all this shit? Why must the healthy pay for the unhealthy?
As with any government run program fraud will always be rampant...
What about Choice? Why force people that want nothing to do with socialist entitlement programs into them? especially when they can’t afford them and will not benefit them.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No it is all about serving the public good. how are we the only developed country without Healthcare daycare paid  parental leave living wage cheap college and training ID card to end illegal immigration and work, good vacations and infrastructure? Or taxing the rich more than the rest? Answer the scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you...


----------



## Flopper (Nov 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well.  There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost.  The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it.  I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement.  We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost.  As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.*


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Me and millions just like me want nothing to do with what you speak of there.
I have no right to healthcare, but I do have a right to earn my healthcare.
Who pays for the shit that you speak of… The well is dry


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


As long as it’s an opt in for those that want it, And an automatic exemption for those that don’t.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


It is no longer mandatory so give it up for Christ's sake. You can now be as stupid and paranoid as you like no worries.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


And you get to go bankrupt and lose everything if one of your daughters gets cancer for example. Enjoy


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If Medicare Part B stayed the same, it would still cost over $540 for a family of 4.  That still isn't cheap and there is no way to remain solvent with those low premiums.  Add in the mandatory deductibles and coinsurance and all you have is ObamaCare 2.0.


----------



## dblack (Nov 9, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *Creating a new single payer system makes no sense when we have one that works quite well.  There is no reason why Medicare won't work for the entire nation. Medicare is currently paying for about 27% of the nations healthcare cost.  The problem I see with single payer is transitioning to it.  I'm proposing a slow migration over a number years, gradually decreasing the age requirement.  We are already insuring those with the highest healthcare cost.  As we add more people we will be adding people with less healthcare problems.*



In related news: Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Oh insurance was going toward catastrophic high-deductible insurance... The real problem is health care costs so much period..... Takes time. And more competition and regulation.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


*That might be truth if the family of 4 are seniors, age 65+ but the typical family of 4 would have 2 adults age 31 and 26 with 2 children under age 16.  There healthcare cost would be well below that seniors as would be their premium.*


----------



## Rustic (Nov 9, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Shit happens


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 10, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Oh come on! That's so idiotic! Do you have any clue about how regular insurance rates are calculated?

You must have some idea that the costs will be more than $6000 a year offset by those premiums!  If it could work like that, insurance companies would offer it!


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


All insurance has deductibles and coinsurance.  The difference with Medicare, is that the admin. fees are a fraction of those in the private insurance sector.

Right now, Medicare has the highest risk demographic.  When you add low risk customers to the pool, it brings costs down considerably.  What's the worst that can happen?  It's never been tried before.  If nobody wants the product, then Medicare will continue as it does now.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I took my wife to the emergency room. A couple with no insurance waiting next to us was asked for 0 dollars.
> We have a so-called Cadillac insurance plan through my employer.
> I was required to pay 100 dollars for the visit.


That's a bargain.  Good thing you had insurance.  What's your share of the premium?


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



Hell, it ought to be. If we move to "Medicare for All" the insurance companies will no longer have to appeal to customers to make a profit, they'll just have to lobby government, and they're pretty good at that. That should represent a significant savings. Should. But whadya bet they pocket most of it as windfall? Why not, they'll have a captive customer base.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Sure it can.  It just costs 1000 times more than a govt. run defense.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The money you're paying now for VA, Medicaid, Tricare. It shifts from these programs and everyone under one roof.  No different than now.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



More than likely the government would make a bigger push than they already do to encourage Medicare Advantage plans and let the insurance companies basically take it over.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Well I'm not as liberal as SmokeAlib and belive America CAN do it better than other countries, in our own way.
> 
> If Republicans would stop trying to sabotage Obamacare because it happens to be passed by Obama and instead work constructively with Democrats we can fix this (and much more).


Did you see trump on the campaign trail last week?  He actually warned those in attendance that Dems would kill Obamacare if they took control.

Priceless.

You are correct.  What always gets lost in this discussion, is that ACA was a foundation meant to be built upon.  In exchange for expensive protections written into the law, insurance companies were given guarantees by the Fed. govt. in the event of catastrophic claim numbers.

A risk corridor program that has been protecting Medicare for decades, along with a cost sharing plan that would help insurers with losses, with money from insurers with gains.

Both were de funded by House Republicans for political purposes.  We can only guess what premiums would be if such tactics weren't employed.  trump took further steps to kill the law, all while claiming 'I won't be blamed'.

I think the voters commented about fault on election day.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



Maybe. But they don't need it. They make plenty of money from straight Medicare.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



First of all my expertise is having worked with Medicare for over 20 years I KNOW how Medicare works!

A) You have NO idea about ADMINISTRATION FEES.  Medicare agency processes NOT ONE claim of  1 billion claims paid and that's why admin fees are a fraction!
B) Medicare signs a contract with Medicare Administrative Contractors that process the claims.  Again they absorb the "cost"!
C) Medicare also signs contracts with Medicare Advantage companies paying an average of $800/month and the MAs take care of everything and BETTER
     then Medicare.

Now Medicare will be DEPLETED not my words but the Trustees!

Trustees Reports

*A SUMMARY OF THE 2018 ANNUAL REPORTS*
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

Page 1..
Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 42 percent of Federal program expenditures in fiscal year 2017.

Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s 
due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and 
lower-birth-rate generations entering employment
The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year’s report.

The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund (Part A hospital)  *will be depleted in 2026,* three years earlier than projected in last year’s report
At that time dedicated revenues will be sufficient to pay 91 percent of HI costs.

Now I'm shouting:  Do you idiots know that without doing anything... that in 2026...8 years from now
if you are under Medicare and again nothing happens...and you go to the hospital... Medicare will pay not only right now just 80% (because you idiots don't seem to know that the individual right now pays the other 20%!!)

but in 2026 that 80% will be 72% paid by Medicare AND YOU will pay 28% !
So without doing anything... YOU when under Medicare after age 65 will be paying 8% more... Or
something will happen!

Again the solution is NOT adding less than 5 million people into the system which IS what you idiots keep saying should be done!


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Insurance companies would be removed from the equation, save for those who want to pay for private insurance as a backup plan, or a primary plan.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Do you think auto insurance would go down, if they didn't have to pay for medical coverage for accidents?


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



No


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Make it an opt in, For the people that want to participate. It does not require everyone to participate...
That way Those that do not want to participate are automatically excluded from enrollment


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Insurance companies would be removed from the equation, save for those who want to pay for private insurance as a backup plan, or a primary plan.



Uh, no. That's not how Medicare works. They just farm it out to private insurance companies who have lobbied government for the favor.

Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Make it an opt in, For the people that want to participate. It does not require everyone to participate...
> Those that do not want to participate or automatically excluded from enrollment



They're never going to do this. The entire point is control.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Make it an opt in, For the people that want to participate. It does not require everyone to participate...
> ...


Unfortunately this is true, Any type of socialize medicine is all about control of the individual by the collective


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Ok, Ok, Ok you can opt out. We get it you want nothing to do with health insurance in any form or fashion. I do believe the board would go along and let you sit out, no one cares about you.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Ok, Ok, Ok you can opt out. We get it you want nothing to do with health insurance in any form or fashion. I do believe the board would go along and let you sit out, no one cares about you.



I don't think they would. Again, this isn't about compassion.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies would be removed from the equation, save for those who want to pay for private insurance as a backup plan, or a primary plan.
> ...



Here's more info if you're interested: 

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



Yes, I knew that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I was responding to Howard Roark - who had claimed that "Insurance companies would be removed from the equation." If Medicare for All is what we're going for, they'll be right in middle of things. And, as long as they keep their lobbyists well paid, shoveling in the profits.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Oh, sorry. I sort of skimmed over his post.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> [
> 
> First of all my expertise is having worked with Medicare for over 20 years I KNOW how Medicare works!


 Great.  Then you should know that I'm right.



> A) You have NO idea about ADMINISTRATION FEES.  Medicare agency processes NOT ONE claim of  1 billion claims paid and that's why admin fees are a fraction!
> B) Medicare signs a contract with Medicare Administrative Contractors that process the claims.  Again they absorb the "cost"!


  'Absorb'?  You mean the costs for administration just disappear from the books?  I don't believe that.

Sure...Medicare funding is lumped into FICA, so 'Medicare' doesn't have to 'pay' for collections/management of it's funding. 




> Now Medicare will be DEPLETED not my words but the Trustees!
> 
> Trustees Reports
> 
> ...


All the more reason for a public option.  Add a low risk demographic to the pool, and much of the problem changes.  As well, as simple increase to FICA liability is the obvious answer.  ~$116,000 is too small, especially given the shifting life expectancy that wasn't present last century.





> Now I'm shouting:  Do you idiots know that without doing anything... that in 2026...8 years from now


I don't know anyone who is saying 'do nothing'.  Public Option is a good first step, coupled with increased FICA liability.



> Again the solution is NOT adding less than 5 million people into the system which IS what you idiots keep saying should be done!


You're just shouting for the sake of shouting.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


No, an opt out means nothing. 
People need to opt in to programs like socialize medicine, that way no one is automatically enrolled in the shit


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies would be removed from the equation, save for those who want to pay for private insurance as a backup plan, or a primary plan.
> ...


Not true.  You're citing supplemental insurance coverage.  As I mentioned in the post you quoted


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



No, it's true. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything. It's a common misconception. 

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Let me rephrase:
Do you think is SHOULD go down?  Liability is the biggest cost w/respect to auto insurance


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 10, 2018)

WillowTree said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


Rather than your boss having oversight or the insurance companies making for profit decisions?

Ask old people how they like Medicare


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I'm working on an "OPT OUT" badge for you to wear on your lapel. As soon as I'm finished I will mail it to you.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...



No he's not quoting supplemental coverage it's Medicare claims. Most insurance companies handle their own claims for supplemental coverage, most.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


An opt out does no one any good.
All socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in.
That way no one finds themselves in shit they don’t want


----------



## deanrd (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


  The GOP fix has been die quick for decades. Why would the GOP start wanting to help the middle class and poor people now? They haven’t before.
 I don’t even know a republican that is interested in helping poor people or the middle class. Maybe that’s why they treat their own people so terribly in Appalachia?


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Ok then I'll make you two lapel badges one for opt in and one for opt out and you can wear one or the other depending on how you feel on a particular day. What the hell man you can't beat that.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


Na, Just make it like I don’t even exist to the federal government. That would be fine with me


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 10, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Ask old people how many years they paid into Medicare before they drew a dime! Get back to me.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


This isn’t supposed to be a nanny State... 
People need to take care of their own shit


----------



## Redfish (Nov 10, 2018)

antontoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...




of course it would, if less is "insured" then the price of insurance would go down.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



Hell most auto policies only cover you for $10,000 of your own medical expenses anyway. Well I guess it might be different in at fault state. Liability of other's is the kicker so no I don't think it will ever go down.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 10, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...




basic medicare only pays at most 80% of some, not all, medical costs.  If you buy a medicare advantage or supplement plan you can get almost everything covered, but its not free.  Nothing is free, winger, and we paid into medicare every week from our paychecks our entire working lives.  Trying to extend medicare to 330 million people would not work, there simply isn't enough money in the federal budget.   Ask any Brit how they like their national health service,  ask them how long they wait for basic procedures and tests.  It sucks.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



That calls for another badge "TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN SHIT" Hell before you know it you will have to buy a special vest to wear all your badges.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...




what could make it go down would be to cap judgement amounts and get lawyers out of it.  ambulance chasers are a significant factor in auto insurance rates.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 10, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...




which party passed the across the board tax cut that cut the tax rate of everyone that pays taxes?   Which party has created middle class jobs over the last two years?   Which party is responsible for the growth in your 401K account?  hint: not the dems.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


In theory, 'the others' would be covered already for any hospitalization.  Thus my question


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Uh, no. That's not how Medicare works. They just farm it out to private insurance companies who have lobbied government for the favor.
> 
> Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits


Not true.  You're citing supplemental insurance coverage.  As I mentioned in the post you quoted[/QUOTE]

No, it's true. I'm not saying you're stupid or anything. It's a common misconception.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy[/QUOTE]LOL...I didn't get the impression that you said I was stupid.  Your first link offered info on typical supplemental insurance plans.  I had already addressed that in a previous post.  This link is interesting.  It seems the govt. defers to those who are in the business to decide on what should/should not be covered.  I'm guessing that leads to the need for supplemental plans?  Ironically, we read a lot about how providers are paid by private insurance only what Medicare pays for the same procedures.

Remember...I'm not calling for an immediate Medicare for all approach.  I want the choice to buy into Medicare, as I'm very healthy, take no meds, and would benefit from what should be lower costs.  I'm only a few years away from Medicare eligibility anyway, but if millions of healthier people opted to purchase a Medicare plan, all parties would benefit.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 10, 2018)

Redfish said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Funny how more jobs were produced under Obama than now, super duper. Only cost a trillion and a half dollars and extra debt under Trump...


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

Redfish said:


> which party passed the across the board tax cut that cut the tax rate of everyone that pays taxes?   Which party has created middle class jobs over the last two years?   Which party is responsible for the growth in your 401K account?  hint: not the dems.


Which party almost passed a bogus healthcare bill that would have taken access away from millions of people?  They needed to kill ACA in order to do away with that pesky 3.8% cap gains tax on high earners.

Your claims about the tax cut are laughable, and your 401k value changes like the weather in this unstable market.
Hint...trump's job creation in the last two years still doesn't match Obama's in his last two years in office.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 10, 2018)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Once people are required to pay for medical costs out of their own pockets, they will not opt for some unnecessary shit, and will refuse to pay some of the ridiculous bills providers and pharma want to charge.   If no one can afford expensive care, prices MUST come down.
> 
> Outlaw health insurance.  It has done nothing but widen the gaps and run up the cost of care/pharma.



People are required to pay for houses out of their own pockets.  The prices seem to be constantly rising
People are required to pay for land out of their own pockets.  The prices seem to be constantly rising
People are required to pay for cars out of their own pockets.  The prices seem to be constantly rising
People are required to pay for clothing out of their own pockets.  The prices are constantly rising.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> > Once people are required to pay for medical costs out of their own pockets, they will not opt for some unnecessary shit, and will refuse to pay some of the ridiculous bills providers and pharma want to charge.   If no one can afford expensive care, prices MUST come down.
> ...



LOL - how fast do you suppose those prices would rise if they weren't paying for it themselves?

C'mon. Even the most pie in the sky liberal has to understand that prices will go up when the customers don't care how much they are paying (because _they _aren't paying). Are you really denying it?


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Your first link offered info on typical supplemental insurance plans.


You misread. I might have mentioned supplemental plans, but the point of the article is that the top five insurance companies are getting 60% of the revenue from the plans they serve up to Medicare and Medicaid. Read it again, perhaps without an incorrect assumption guiding you. The government sub-contracts Medicare and Medicaid to private for-profit insurance companies. This is an established fact.

I wouldn't make such a fuss about this, but a lot of people think that Medicare for All will take private insurance out of the equation, when the fact of the matter is it won't. They are deeply embedded in Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare for all will just force us to buy their insurance, whether we want to or not - much like ACA.

Single-payer wouldn't be an end-run around insurance companies, it would be a funnel forcing us to support them.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> ...



Its a different argument.

But it certainly seems as though the insurance companies with their enormous clout would be able to over-rule the healthcare industry when it comes to pricing if the argument is that the price rises because it can and if “someone else” is paying (that someone else being the insurance companies.  

The argument was that if you have a bunch of people with no means to pay, the price will fall.  It’s completely unfounded.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> The argument was that if you have a bunch of people with no means to pay, the price will fall.  It’s completely unfounded.



Read it again. That wasn't the argument.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




They already do, have you ever looked at an EOB?  Charge, allowed amount and then what you pay. MRI $3000 allowed amount $300 and then your co pay or co insurance of the allowed amount.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


That is what the public option was -- before you conservatives fear-mongered it to death...

Then Obama tried to compromise with you and offered up your own plan --- then you conservatives fear-mongered that too

In the years since, republicans have FAILED consistently to come up with anything better, so now here we are --- as predicted -- some conservatives having to admit, "the libs were right"


----------



## candycorn (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The argument was that if you have a bunch of people with no means to pay, the price will fall.  It’s completely unfounded.
> ...



I did.
It was.

At least it was the argument that I responding to.


debbiedowner said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The argument was to get rid of the insurance, make consumers of health care pay out of pocket and the price will drop accordingly.

Not going to happen.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> The argument was to get rid of the insurance, make consumers of health care pay out of pocket and the price will drop accordingly.
> 
> Not going to happen.



Probably not. But it would reduce prices.


----------



## candycorn (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The argument was to get rid of the insurance, make consumers of health care pay out of pocket and the price will drop accordingly.
> ...



Doubtful.

The MRI in your local hospital is probably made by either Seimens or GE.  Next get MRIs costs about 2M each.  Maintenance contracts alone run into the six figures. This thing has got to work flawlessly. Unless your hospital was constructed in the 80’s and hasn’t upgraded from the single dimensional resolution (also doubtful), the campus your visiting is probably still paying tens of thousands a month in their lease agreement on the MRI.  Covering that has to come from somewhere.  The price won’t magically go down from Seimens because Aetna is no longer in the picture.  Sorry.


----------



## BS Filter (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


You're a conservative and you want the Federal government to totally run healthcare? Are you having a stroke?


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Wow.... how can you ignore what is so painfully obvious? If that's how much MRI's cost, then - we - can't - afford - them. Why is that so hard to understand? If we face that fact like sober adults, instead of clicking our heels three times and pretending government can wave a wand and make MRIs cheaper, then we can get to work finding alternatives we can afford. As it is, we're too preoccupied with schemes to get someone else to pay for it. The cheaper alternatives are never explored, and prices continue to rise.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


*In general, insurance premiums are determined by risk so we would expect health insurance premiums to be high for the elderly and low for younger people.  However, that's all changed with Obamacare. The risks and thus the cost of insuring older people is much higher than younger people.  In a single payers system, the fee paid by the public could be a flat fee, aged based, income based, or even no fee at all with all cost paid by the government. It just depend on congress.

Healthcare cost of $6,000 for family of 4 is a lot less than what people are paying today.  A typical American family of four insured by the most common employer-sponsored health plan can expect to spend more than $28,000 on healthcare in 2018, according to the annual Milliman Medical Index report.  This includes the average cost of health insurance paid by employers and employees, as well as deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. It also includes government subsidies.*
*$28k: The average price a family of 4 will spend on healthcare in 2018*


----------



## candycorn (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You tell me.  You’re the one doing it.



dblack said:


> If that's how much MRI's cost, then - we - can't - afford - them. Why is that so hard to understand?


Sorry.  It costs money to make these machines; it costs money to maintain these machines.  We can make less accurate machines and hire terrible technicians I suppose but healthcare will suffer.



dblack said:


> If we face that fact like sober adults, instead of clicking our heels three times and pretending government can wave a wand and make MRIs cheaper, then we can get to work finding alternatives we can afford. As it is, we're too preoccupied with schemes to get someone else to pay for it. The cheaper alternatives are never explored, and prices continue to rise.



Gee, if only we had a President who would force you to purchase your own insurance so the government wouldn’t have to “wave a wand” like you pretend they do….  

Oh wait, we did. Every republican on earth opposed it.  Now you see more and more GOP states expanding insurance in every possible way.  From just this week...




 

As I recall Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia expanded their Medicaid already.
————

The costs are the costs.  Be it Healthcare or any other field you wish to name.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Lawyers and doctors own the MRIs in South Dakota, They are an investment for them.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

Yep, the federal government uses socialism for the good of the people... see the results  

Pine Ridge Reservation

STATISTICAL DATA

Despite nearly-insurmountable conditions, few resources, and against unbelievable odds, Indigenous people are struggling hard to overcome decades of neglect, discrimination and forced destruction of their traditional cultures to promote a life of self-respect and self-sufficiency.

BRIEF STATISTICS 

* 97% of of the population at Pine Ridge Reservation live below federal poverty line.

* The unemployment rate vacillates from 85% to 95% on the Reservation.

* Death due to Heart Disease: Twice the national average.

* The infant mortality rate is the highest on this continent and is about 300% higher than the U.S. national average.

* Elderly die each winter from hypothermia (freezing).

* Recent reports point out that the median income on the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately $2,600 to $3,500 per year.

* At least 60% of the homes are severely substandard, without water, electricity, adequate insulation, and sewage systems.

* Recent reports state the average life expectancy is 45 years old while others state that it is 48 years old for men and 52 years old for women. With either set of figures, that's the shortest life expectancy for any community in the Western Hemisphere outside Haiti, according to The Wall Street Journal.

INTRODUCTORY

Hidden away, dotted throughout the landscape of America, are the Reservations of the Indigenous People of our land. Mostly unknown or forgotten by the mainstream culture of the dominant U.S. society, the average United States resident knows little or nothing about these people other than what romanticized versions they see in movies and television or else in their nearest Reservation casino. Most assume that whatever poverty exists on a reservation is most certainly comparable to that which they might experience themselves. 

And definitely, mainstream Americans are accustomed to being exposed to poverty. It has become nearly invisible due to its overwhelming presence everywhere. We drive through our cities now with a blind eye, numb to the suffering around us. Even more, we watch the televised reports of Third World countries, shake our heads and turn away, rightfully assuming that our government and our charities will help those in need all over the globe.

But the question begs: What about the foreign nations on America's own soil, within this country, a part and yet apart from mainstream society? What about the Native American Nations on America's reservations? Few mainstream Americans know anything about the people that live on these reservations and fewer still know or comprehend the unconscionable conditions present on many of them. 

What many do not know is that a staggering number of residents on Native American reservations live in abject conditions rivaling, or even surpassing, that of many Third World countries.

This report chronicles just one Nation, the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Nation of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Yet the name and only a few details could easily be changed to describe a host of others; Dineh (Navajo), Ute Mountain Ute, Tohono O'odham, Pima, Yaqui, Ojibwa, Chippewa, the list is long.

But despite nearly-insurmountable conditions, few resources, and against unbelievable odds, Nation after Nation of Indigenous leaders and their people are working hard to counteract decades of oppression and forced destruction of their cultures to bring their citizens back to a life of self-respect and self-sufficiency in today's world. 



*Below are further in depth statistics of Pine Ridge*

IN DEPTH STATISTICS

* The Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Indian Reservation sits in Bennett, Jackson, and Shannon Counties and is located in the southwest corner of South Dakota, fifty miles east of the Wyoming border.

* The 11,000-square mile (over 2 million acres) Oglala Lakota Pine Ridge Reservation is the second-largest Native American Reservation within the United States. It is roughly the size of the State of Connecticut.

* The Reservation is divided into eight districts: Eagle Nest, Pass Creek, Wakpamni, LaCreek, Pine Ridge, White Clay, Medicine Root, Porcupine, and Wounded Knee.

* The topography of the Pine Ridge Reservation includes badlands, rolling grassland hills, dryland prairie, and areas dotted with pine trees.

* According to the 1998 Bureau of Indian Affairs Census, the Pine Ridge Reservation is home to approximately 40,000 persons, 35% of which are under the age of 16. Approximately half the residents of the Reservation are registered tribal members of the Oglala Lakota Nation.

* The population is steadily rising, despite the severe conditions on the Reservation, as more and more Oglala Lakota return home from far-away cities in order to live within their societal values, be with their families, and assist with the revitalization of their culture and their Nation.

* Recent reports point out that the median income on the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately $2,600 per year.

* The unemployment rate vacillates from 85% to 95% on the Reservation.

* There is no industry, technology, or commercial infrastructure on the Reservation to provide employment.

* The nearest town of size (which provides some jobs for those few persons able to travel the distance) is Rapid City, South Dakota with approximately 57,000 residents. It is located approximately 120 miles from the Reservation. The nearest large city to Pine Ridge is Denver, Colorado located about 350 miles away.

* Some figures state that the life expectancy on the Reservation is 48 years old for men and 52 for women. Other reports state that the average life expectancy on the Reservation is 45 years old. With either set of figures, that's the shortest life expectancy for a community anywhere in the Western Hemisphere outside Haiti, according to The Wall Street Journal.

* Teenage suicide rate on the Pine Ridge Reservation is 150% higher than the U.S. national average for this age group.

* The infant mortality rate is the highest on this continent and is about 300% higher than the U.S. national average.

* More than half the Reservation's adults battle addiction and disease. Alcoholism, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and malnutrition are rampant.


* The rate of diabetes on the Reservation is reported to be 800% higher than the U.S. national average.

* Recent reports indicate that almost 50% of the adults on the Reservation over the age of 40 have diabetes. Over 37% of population is diabetic.

* As a result of the high rate of diabetes on the Reservation, diabetic-related blindness, amputations, and kidney failure are common.

* The tuberculosis rate on the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately 800% higher than the U.S. national average.

* Cervical cancer is 500% higher than the U.S. national average.

* Each winter, Reservation Elders are found dead from hypothermia (freezing).

* It is reported that at least 60% of the homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation are infested with Black Mold, Stachybotrys. This infestation causes an often-fatal condition with infants, children, elderly, those with damaged immune systems, and those with lung and pulmonary conditions at the highest risk. Exposure to this mold can cause hemorrhaging of the lungs and brain as well as cancer.

* Many Reservation residents live without health care due to vast travel distances involved in accessing that care. Additional factors include under-funded, under-staffed medical facilities and outdated or non-existent medical equipment. There is little hope for increased funding for Indian health care.

* Preventive healthcare programs are rare.

* In most of the treaties between the U.S. Government and Indian Nations, the U.S. government agreed to provide adequate medical care for Indians in return for vast quantities of land. The Indian Health Services (IHS) was set up to administer the health care for Indians under these treaties and receives an appropriation each year to fund Indian health care. Unfortunately, the appropriation is very small compared to the need. The IHS is understaffed and ill-equipped and can't possibly address the needs of Indian communities. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

* School drop-out rate is over 70%.

* According to a Bureau of Indian Affairs report, the Pine Ridge Reservation schools are in the bottom 10% of school funding by U.S. Department of Education and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

* Teacher turnover is 800% that of the U.S. national average

* The small Tribal Housing Authority homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation are so overcrowded and scarce that many homeless families often use tents or cars for shelter. Many families live in shacks, old trailers, or dilapidated mobile homes.

* There is a large homeless population on the Reservation, but most families never turn away a relative no matter how distant the blood relation. Consequently, many homes have large numbers of people living in them.

* There is an estimated average of 17 people living in each family home (a home which may only have two to three rooms). Some homes, built for 6 to 8 people, have up to 30 people living in them.

* 60% of Reservation families have no telephone.

* Over 33% of the Reservation homes lack basic water and sewage systems as well as electricity.

* Many residents must carry (often contaminated) water from the local rivers daily for their personal needs.

* 39% of the homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation have no electricity.

* 59% of the Reservation homes are substandard.

* It is reported that at least 60% of the homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation need to be burned to the ground and replaced with new housing due to infestation of the potentially-fatal Black Mold, Stachybotrys. There is no insurance or government program to assist families in replacing their homes.

* Some Reservation families are forced to sleep on dirt floors.

* Many Reservation homes lack adequate insulation. Even more homes lack central heating.

* Without basic insulation or central heating in their homes, many residents on the Pine Ridge Reservation use their ovens to heat their homes.

* Many Reservation homes lack stoves, refrigerators, beds, and/or basic furniture.

* Most Reservation families live in rural and often isolated areas.

* The largest town on the Reservation is the town of Pine Ridge which has a population of approximately 5,720 people and is the administrative center for the Reservation.

* There are few improved roads on the Reservation and many of the homes are inaccessible during times of heavy snow or rain.

* Weather is extreme on the Reservation. Severe winds are always a factor. Traditionally, summer temperatures reach well over 110*F and winters bring bitter cold with temperatures that can reach -50*F below zero or worse. Flooding, tornados, or wildfires are always a risk.

* Many of the wells and much of the water and land on the Reservation is contaminated with pesticides and other poisons from farming, mining, open dumps, and commercial and governmental mining operations outside the Reservation. A further source of contamination is buried ordnance and hazardous materials from closed U.S. military bombing ranges on the Reservation.

* The Pine Ridge Reservation still has no banks, motels, discount stores, or movie theaters. It has only one grocery store of any moderate size and it is located in the town of Pine Ridge on the Reservation.

* Several of the banks and lending institutions nearest to the Reservation were recently targeted for investigation of fraudulent or predatory lending practices, with the citizens of the Pine Ridge Reservation as their victims.

* There are no public libraries except one at the Oglala Lakota College of the reservation.

* There is no public transportation available on the Reservation.

* Ownership of operable automobiles by residents of the Reservation is highly limited.

* Predominate form of travel for all ages on the Reservation is walking or hitchhiking.

* There is one very small airport on the Reservation servicing both the Pine Ridge Reservation and Shannon County. It's longest, paved runway extends 4,969 feet. There are no commercial flights available.

* There is one radio station on the Pine Ridge Reservation. KILI 90.1FM is located near the town of Porcupine on the Reservation.

* Alcoholism affects eight out of ten families on the Reservation.

* The death rate from alcohol-related problems on the Reservation is 300% higher than the remaining US population.

* The Oglala Lakota Nation has prohibited the sale and possession of alcohol on the Pine Ridge Reservation since the early 1970's. However, the town of Whiteclay, Nebraska (which sits 400 yards off the Reservation border in a contested "buffer" zone) has approximately 14 residents and four liquor stores which sell over 4.1 million cans of beer each year resulting in a $3million annual trade. Unlike other Nebraska communities, Whiteclay exists only to sell liquor and make money. It has no schools, no churches, no civic organizations, no parks, no benches, no public bathrooms, no fire service and no law enforcement. Tribal officials have repeatedly pleaded with the State of Nebraska to close these liquor stores or enforce the State laws regulating liquor stores but have been consistently refused.

* Scientific studies show that the High Plains/Oglala Aquifer which begins underneath the Pine Ridge Reservation is predicted to run dry within the next thirty years, possibly as early as the year 2005, due to commercial interest use and dryland farming in numerous states south of the Reservation. This critical North American underground water resource is not renewable at anything near the present consumption rate. The recent years of drought have simply accelerated the problem.

* Scientific studies show that much of the High Plains/Oglala Aquifer has been contaminated with farming pesticides and commercial, factory, mining, and industrial contaminants in the States of South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

* The Tribal nations are considered to have sovereign governmental status and have a government to government relationship with the United States. The Oglala Lakota Sioux Tribal government operates under a constitution consistent with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and approved by the Tribal membership and Tribal Council of the Oglala Lakota Sioux Tribe. The Tribe is governed by an elected body consisting of a 5 member Executive Committee and an 18 member Tribal Council, all of whom serve a four year term.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies would be removed from the equation, save for those who want to pay for private insurance as a backup plan, or a primary plan.
> ...


*Medicare Advantage plans operated by private insurance companies now cover 33% of Medicare beneficiaries. For most people, the alternative is original Medicare or original Medicare plus a supplement and possibly a part D drug plan.

For the beneficiary, there are advantages and disadvantages to all three routes.  For the government, MedAdvantage plans can control cost in ways original Medicare can not.

Medicare Advantage plans are great for retirees with few healthcare problems since they have low and often zero premiums.  Unfortunately, as you age and your healthcare problems increase, these plans can become not only costly but put the beneficiary in a mountain of medical bills for copays and coinsurance which vary with every type healthcare service.  The plans are mostly HMOs which means referrals by a primary care doctor and staying in network.  Often there is no coverage at all except emergency care if you travel outside your local community. 

Premiums for medicare supplements are costly compared to Medadvantage plans but there are virtually no medical bills to pay.  You can go to any doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare anywhere in the country which are about 98% of healthcare providers and there is no cost.  

Once you are in a MedAdvantage going back to Medicare with a supplement is nearly impossible for most people because they will be subject to medical underwriting. *


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...


So what?


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Yep, the federal government uses socialism for the good of the people... see the results
> 
> Pine Ridge Reservation
> 
> ...


That is lack of socialism. Socialism would give them a living wage and Medicaid and housing, not GOP suffering and discrimination and lack of services d u h....


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


*When expanded medicaid was made available and states were given a choice, 26 states adopted it.  Today the number has increased to 37 states.  In most of the 14 states that have not adopted it there's a strong movement to adopt it or an alternative plan. By 2024, many insurance specialist expect there will be 2 major single payer systems available in all states, Medicare and Expanded Medicaid.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Medicaid, Medicare reflect 59% of revenue for 5 largest commercial insurers

Don't be fooled. Medicare for All doesn't deny insurance companies their profits. It guarantees them. Medicare is insurance that government buys for us, with tax dollars, from private vendors - generally the same bastards who have been screwing us all in the traditional insurance market. The only difference is that we don't have any say in it. The government sits down with insurance industry lobbyists and decides what kind of health care we'll get. Pretty much the same as ACA, albeit with even less input from consumers.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the federal government uses socialism for the good of the people... see the results
> ...


Lol
American Indians that live on the pine ridge Ridge Indian reservation depend 100% on socialism, you fucking moron.
There is no such thing as capitalism on the Pineridge Indian reservation...
Like I have always said Progressives are fucked in the head.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> You misread. I might have mentioned supplemental plans, but the point of the article is that the top five insurance companies are getting 60% of the revenue from the plans they serve up to Medicare and Medicaid. Read it again, perhaps without an incorrect assumption guiding you. The government sub-contracts Medicare and Medicaid to private for-profit insurance companies. This is an established fact.
> 
> I wouldn't make such a fuss about this, but a lot of people think that Medicare for All will take private insurance out of the equation, when the fact of the matter is it won't. They are deeply embedded in Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare for all will just force us to buy their insurance, whether we want to or not - much like ACA.
> 
> Single-payer wouldn't be an end-run around insurance companies, it would be a funnel forcing us to support them.


Whereas I understand that Medicare/Caid are using ins. company infrastructure to deliver care to patients, said patients are only paying for their supplemental coverage that isn't covered under their Medicare plan...which costs little or nothing. Are you saying that insurers are taking Fed money, and pocketing the bulk of that money as profits?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


That is why we have buses in my state that take people up to Canada to buy their scrips. Pharm a is number one contributer of campaign money. Companies are not people.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

evenflow1969 said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...


If someone owns an s-Corp... And they are the only owner. Yes companies can be people


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. I might have mentioned supplemental plans, but the point of the article is that the top five insurance companies are getting 60% of the revenue from the plans they serve up to Medicare and Medicaid. Read it again, perhaps without an incorrect assumption guiding you. The government sub-contracts Medicare and Medicaid to private for-profit insurance companies. This is an established fact.
> ...



Exactly. Do you really think an insurance company is going to give you a low or no premium Medicare Advantage plan out of the goodness of their hearts?  Nope, the government gives them upwards towards or a little more than $10000.00 per person per year just to handle your health insurance. The higher the star rating of a plan the more money they get.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. I might have mentioned supplemental plans, but the point of the article is that the top five insurance companies are getting 60% of the revenue from the plans they serve up to Medicare and Medicaid. Read it again, perhaps without an incorrect assumption guiding you. The government sub-contracts Medicare and Medicaid to private for-profit insurance companies. This is an established fact.
> ...



They're taking the Fed money and pocketing the profits, yes. Are you saying they're not? 

A lot of people think that, but they're being misled. The insurance companies that operate Medicare behind the scenes are still seeking profits. They still deny claims. They're still focused on the bottom line: making money for shareholders. The only difference is how those profits are secured. They have no need to attract and satisfy customers, they just need to keep the government bureaucrats happy enough to renew their contract - one way or another.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...


Not until it can be put in jail or drafted. S coprs require more than one person. We pay way more for drugs and insurance due to PAC's that is a fact. Citizens united exacerbated this in a big way. Why would we give all the rights of a person to some thing that does not have the same responsibilites that is bull shit.


----------



## AZGAL (Nov 10, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Both systems are abused and bankrupt.


some people depend on these


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Obviously our socialism in the United States is crap GOP socialism, dumbass. No suffering or sacrifice is too great to protect the greedy idiot GOP Rich from paying their fair share...


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




"_Absorb'? You mean the costs for administration just disappear from the books?"_
"Absorb" meant the normal claim processing costs, salaries, computers, buildings, telecommunications, etc. are ALL expensed by the MACs.
If there weren't any MACs then Medicare would have nearly 100,000 people for which they paid salaries, PLUS payroll taxes, as well as office buildings etc.
Instead idiots don't comprehend that the bragging about Medicare's low cost of handling totally forget these costs are absorbed by the MACs and
Medicare pays the yearly contract.

Now where would you be "adding" "low risk demographic"...?  From what pool?  
A) 10 million of Obama's 46 million were illegal aliens... so they can't make up that pool!
B) 14 million of the 46 million were already eligible for MEDICAID and if you read closely you'd see that the same guy that called people like you that
     were "stupid" for passing ACA, he proved that nearly 10 million of the "newly" signed ACA members WERE ELIGIBLE before ACA for Medicaid.
     Do you understand?  There was no need to cover them as they are already covered by Medicaid!
PROOF!  Last year, analysis from the  RAND Corporation found that 6.1 million new Medicaid enrollees were already
eligible for Medicaid. MIT economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan _Gruber estimates that nearly  9 million new Medicaid enrollees were already eligible_.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...s-already-had-health-insurance/article/261132
So why would these people become part of "pool" when they are already covered?
C) Finally the 10 million plus 14 million leaves 22 million.
     These 22 million of which 18 million are under 34, make over $50,000 and defer their employers' health plans.  notThey pay out of pocket!
     So consequently these 18 million ARE NOT needed in the pool as they don't NEED insurance!
That leaves less than 5 million and again I've offered the solution but people like just don't comprehend that $1 Trillion a year is wasted because physicians are afraid the lawyers will make them part of the $300 billion in legal fees!
So why not do as ACA did when they taxed tanning salons 10% because tanning causes cancer!
Well 10% of lawyers $300 billion would provide a $5,000 a year health insurance policy for these less than 5 million truly uninsured!

But see this is too logical.  Makes too much sense and I understand why YOU would be against the ideas because you don't understand how 
health insurance works! But surely you can comprehend that $30 billion tax on lawyers would have a positive effect on defensive medicine dropping that
$1 trillion a year and also provide those few that need health insurance...ALL without disrupting anything else!


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



And I for one am very happy with my Medicare Advantage plan!  
My advantage plan does MORE for me than plain Medicare and that's why 36% of the 60 million are 
using MA plans.  For example plain Medicare subtracts $134/mo from peoples' SS.  My MA pays SS that
deduction.  My MA calls me every month to make sure I've seen my doctor.  They also provide me $50/mo in OTC supplies, toothpaste, etc.  And the best part is these MAs pay Federal taxes on their profits!

So really ignorant people about Medicare have no idea how it works why the MAs were the best thing to come from the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003!


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Get it through your thick skull you infant, There is no capitalism at all on the Pineridge Indian reservation it is 100% government run socialism...
Socialism has to depend on taxes far too much, because it is a system developed by and for fucking morons.
There is a reason why socialism has a 100% failure rate long-term… Fucking morons like yourself keep on trying it thinking “this time” it’s gonna work...


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Granted, the Medicare pool is the highest risk demographic, but $10k/year is more than a policy on the exchange.

Which further bolsters my point that putting younger/healthier people into the Medicare pool pays dividends.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> "_Absorb'? You mean the costs for administration just disappear from the books?"_
> "Absorb" meant the normal claim processing costs, salaries, computers, buildings, telecommunications, etc. are ALL expensed by the MACs.
> If there weren't any MACs then Medicare would have nearly 100,000 people for which they paid salaries, PLUS payroll taxes, as well as office buildings etc.
> Instead idiots don't comprehend that the bragging about Medicare's low cost of handling totally forget these costs are absorbed by the MACs and
> Medicare pays the yearly contract.


  Take the hundreds of millions in CEO pay for insurance companies, add the advertising/lobbying, and you can fund any infrastructure that Medicare would need if you create a public option.

When younger/healthier people are buying a Medicare plan, it bolsters the coffers, and lowers per capita cost.  Cost sharing in Medicare.


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You misread. I might have mentioned supplemental plans, but the point of the article is that the top five insurance companies are getting 60% of the revenue from the plans they serve up to Medicare and Medicaid. Read it again, perhaps without an incorrect assumption guiding you. The government sub-contracts Medicare and Medicaid to private for-profit insurance companies. This is an established fact.
> ...


You forgot taxes!


> Are you saying that insurers are taking Fed money, and pocketing the bulk of that money as profits?


I said they are profiting, they wouldn't do it otherwise. I have no idea what you're getting at with "bulk". 

From the perspective of the insurance companies, underwriting Medicare is fundamentally just another group policy. Medicare is government buying group insurance for a specified group. No different than an employer buying insurance for their employees.

So, we've gone from buying our own health care, to buying our own insurance, to enslaving ourselves to our jobs via dependency on employer provided insurance, to enslaving ourselves to our government via dependency on state provided insurance. This is referred to as "progress".


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 10, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> And I for one am very happy with my Medicare Advantage plan!
> My advantage plan does MORE for me than plain Medicare and that's why 36% of the 60 million are
> using MA plans.  For example plain Medicare subtracts $134/mo from peoples' SS.  My MA pays SS that
> deduction.  My MA calls me every month to make sure I've seen my doctor.  They also provide me $50/mo in OTC supplies, toothpaste, etc.  And the best part is these MAs pay Federal taxes on their profits!
> ...


 Arguably one of the worst things Bush did to the budget, notwithstanding the Iraq debacle.
The Worst Entitlement Program In Our History



> In two separate studies for the National Center for Policy Analysis, Milliman & Robertson, Inc. estimated that Medicare spending plus Medigap premiums were sufficient to purchase insurance coverage for seniors comparable to what nonseniors typically enjoy. In other words, by allowing the market to combine three plans into one (as is typically done in Medicare Advantage) Medicare enrollees could have had acceptable drug coverage with no new taxes, no new spending and no addition to the program’s long term unfunded liability.
> 
> So why wasn’t that done? The short answer is that all the organizations selling Medigap insurance (including the AARP) were against such a plan. What they wanted instead was a (highly inefficient) reform that preserved the product they were selling. And that’s what they got.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


You are talking about communism, certainly not socialism as defined now, which is fair capitalism well regulated with a good safety thing that is always democratic. Reservations are a disgrace and you can thank the GOP, nothing is worth doing if we can save the rich from paying their fair share.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 10, 2018)

francoHFW said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Fair is everyone paying the same dollar amount... No matter how much or how little they make. Progressive taxation is for fucking losers


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*The point is that MedAdvantage plans are reducing coverage by forcing the subscriber to pay more and more.  In the end  they becomes just another insurance company subsidized by the government.  They attract customers with their zero premiums.  Once a person signs up for one these of these plans they can not transfer to a supplement or a standalone drug plan. This is not how Medicare was suppose to be.     *


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Nov 10, 2018)

The OP is smokin sumthin and it ain't libs...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 10, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



The only way to put those younger people into that kind of coverage is to mandate it, which was the major flaw in Obamacare!


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*According to the law Medadvantage plans are paid by Medicare to insure members.  The amount the plan receives is determined by the number of members and is suppose to be no more than Medicare would pay to provide healthcare if they were Medicare beneficiaries.  The insurance companies must cover the same things that Medicare covers.  However, the insurance companies are given great latitude as how they will cover them, through private networks, through their own healthcare facilities, etc.  The insurance company also become the one to determine whether a procedure is medically necessary, not Medicare.

The way the companies make their money is by offering incentives that will attack younger healthier retirees such as gym membership, discounts on sporting goods, discounts on travel, and most important low or zero premiums.  Insurance companies know that healthy people don't pay a lot attention to their share of medical cost.  As the members grow older they see their costs rising sharply and they are not able to take advantage of the perks the plans often.  The insurance companies often scrutinize the need for procedures, pressure hospitals for early release, and deny coverage for various reason.  If a member becomes dissatisfied and wants to go back to regular medicare with a supplement, they find they will probably be subject to medical underwriting which makes it impossible for most people, so they're stuck in the Medadvantage world.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 10, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Huh. How about that?. It looked like you were responding to my post, so I thought maybe your post had something to do with what I was talking about. Guess not.


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 10, 2018)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


It just turns the country into a Banana Republic... Every country ever has had a progressive tax system, otherwise it's a total give away to the rich and screws the rest.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 10, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





dblack said:


> Medicaid, Medicare reflect 59% of revenue for 5 largest commercial insurers
> 
> Don't be fooled. Medicare for All doesn't deny insurance companies their profits. It guarantees them. Medicare is insurance that government buys for us, with tax dollars, from private vendors - generally the same bastards who have been screwing us all in the traditional insurance market. The only difference is that we don't have any say in it. The government sits down with insurance industry lobbyists and decides what kind of health care we'll get. Pretty much the same as ACA, albeit with even less input from consumers.


*Medicare for all mean original Medicare, not MedAdvantage plans. 2/3 of the people on Medicare opt for original Medicare and 70% purchase a supplement.  I have original Medicare plus a supplement.  To me this is the way healthcare should be in this country.  I can go to essentially any doctor and any hospital in the country.  I pay nothing. I don't get any medical bills.  I don't worry about copays, co-insurance, deductibles, or referrals.  I don't have to ask permission from anyone to go to a doctor. I never have to change doctors because the insurance company's network changes.  The only question I need to ask a healthcare provider is do you take Medicare.  If the answer is yes, which it in over 97% of the healthcare facilities in the US, then I get the care my doctor thinks I need, not what an insurance company believes is needed or what the plan covers.  When you have a serious healthcare problem, the last thing you need is a battle with your insurance company to get the care your doctor says you need when you needed.

The cost of original Medicare with a supplement is not cheap but to me it's worth the extra cost.      *


----------



## Flopper (Nov 11, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Not directly. Sometimes I get the posts the mixed up.
BTW, 2/3 of Medicare beneficiaries are covered by Medicare, not an insurance company.  Their Medicare covered expenses are paid by CMS, a federal agency within HHS that administers Medicare.   *


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 11, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The only way to put those younger people into that kind of coverage is to mandate it, which was the major flaw in Obamacare!


If you want to do away with Reagan's EMTALA, you can also do away with the mandate. Hospitals should greet people with 'cash, credit,or insurance?'

When I say 'younger', I mean people in their forties and fifties who are smart enough to have insurance, but don't want to pay $6k/year in premiums when they only go to the doctor once/year.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 11, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > which party passed the across the board tax cut that cut the tax rate of everyone that pays taxes?   Which party has created middle class jobs over the last two years?   Which party is responsible for the growth in your 401K account?  hint: not the dems.
> ...




Obozocare was/is the worst legislation in the history of the USA.   It would be history but for the arrogance of McCain.   No one is denied medical care in the USA, now, before ACA, or after ACA.   Obozocare was a failed attempt to have the government take over 1/5 of the economy and force healthy young people to pay huge premiums for insurance that they neither wanted or needed. 

Capital gains tax is double taxation and should be eliminated.  The tax cuts cut taxes for every tax paying American,  probably not for you since its impossible to pay less than zero.

The unemployment rate is at record lows, especially for blacks and Hispanics.   Your claim about obozo and jobs is bullshit.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 11, 2018)

Flopper said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...




your last sentence is incorrect.  you can change plans or go back to basic medicare until March 30 or each year regardless of which plan you sign up for the previous year, and there is no penalty or limitation on doing so.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 11, 2018)

Flopper said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...




that's your decision and that's just fine.   I have been on medicare advantage since I was eligible and have been totally satisfied with the coverage, the doctors, the hospitals and the 0 or very small premiums.  But to each his own, there is no right and wrong about this, its a choice.


----------



## dblack (Nov 11, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Not directly. Sometimes I get the posts the mixed up.
> BTW, 2/3 of Medicare beneficiaries are covered by Medicare, not an insurance company.  Their Medicare covered expenses are paid by CMS, a federal agency within HHS that administers Medicare.





Flopper said:


> Medicare for all mean original Medicare, not MedAdvantage plans....



You got more than your posts mixed up. I'm talking about Medicare, not Medicare Advantage. Medicare is insurance, provided by insurance companies. It's just another group policy, fundamentally no different than a group policy that an employer buys for their employees. Except it's the government buying the policy for taxpayers.

The insurance companies are still making profits, still processing the claims, still denying as many as they can in the name of maximizing shareholder returns. These are the same companies selling policies to employers, and they're making even more money from Medicare than they are on their "private" plans.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership || Center for Medicare Advocacy

Nearly 60 percent of top health insurers' revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2018)

Yep. As you age, killing you off in a thousand subtle or not so subtle ways becomes the preferred way of doing business. An HMO murdered my father in collusion with his grifting spouse in 2014. Took him four days to die drowning in his own fluids. I would've preferred he died more humanely being water boarded at Gitmo.

HMOs have cleverly eliminated what little vestige of intervention there was between hospitals & insurers as to saving patients lives from the talons of the bottom line. If you belong to an HMO & are over 40, grow a pair of eyes in the back of your head.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 12, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > "_Absorb'? You mean the costs for administration just disappear from the books?"_
> ...



What an idiot!
"_Take the hundred of millions in CEO pay"_
Right.... that will make a gigantic difference!

WOW how disgusting idiots like you complain...
Wow...
But wait...Tell me something...
Why aren't you pissed about these guys??
What kind of life changing decisions that CEOs make DAILY do these guys that you idiots pay good money to watch?
These guys you have NO complaints about HOW much more they make then their handlers, etc.
These guys make no decisions about buildings, hiring thousands of people, and more importantly signing financial documents that if are untrue,
these CEOs will be imprisoned!  But you idiots don't complain them.
Finally how what % of the gross revenue of these companies went to these CEOs?

Health insurance CEOs earned $342.6M in 2017  | FierceHealthcare






Top 5 Largest Health Insurance Payers in the United States
These five grossed $431 billion in revenues  so let's look at each CEOs compensation: $121 million!  Which is 2/10ths of 1%!!!!
And you guys bitch about that !


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



Wow. That’s very leftist of you. 

As a naturalized American from Canada, I will tell you this - the American system is better for upper middle class people and higher, the Canadian system is better for lower middle class and lower.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > My coverage in retirement is fantastic, and since I paid for those before me, I want my cut.
> ...



You are being alarmist. 

If you retire at 65, you will receive benefits from the socialist entitlement programs Americans love so much.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



The only way that would work is if you made a one-time choice when you entered the workforce and never had the option to opt-in after that. 

Otherwise, you’d have a bunch of people opting not to pay taxes into the system, then choosing to opt in once they got sick. 

Such a system would bankrupt the country faster than what we have now.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Most Canadians would rather have the Canadian system than the American system, flaws and all.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

WillowTree said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Most seniors take more out of the system than they put in. That’s a big reason why Medicare is in dire shape. It’s simple math.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Bull! Many die before using a dime! The system is in dire shape because demoncraps use it as a slush fund. They helped themselves to 960 billion Medicare dollars to fund Obamacare!


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

candycorn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The problem is that the market fails. 

One study I read looked at MRI prices hospitals were billed in a specific area. The prices varied wildly from hospital to hospital for what is essentially the same service. When asked about the prices, the doctors had no idea the cost disparities, let alone the patients. 

For a market to work, people have to know what they are paying for.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

WillowTree said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Nope. That’s a myth, believed by people with bias, political or otherwise.

In any risk pool, some people will always die without getting anything out of it. But others will take out far more before they die.  Nobody knows who will die early or late. That’s why you enter a risk pool in the first place.

What you look for in a risk pool is the average. And the average senior citizen takes out more of Medicare than they put in.

That’s not necessarily the senior citizens’ fault.  That’s the system they are in.  But seniors are taking out more than they put in.

Many seniors don’t want to believe this, however. It’s easier to blame others.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


I don’t want or need to participate in any socialist entitlement programs. They are bankrupt, there is no reason for me to continue paying into them.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


You can’t force people into something they do not want, can not afford and will not benefit from. And expect any of them to trust the system...


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Maybe they weren't denied health care but they sure were denied health insurance before obamacare for pre x medical conditions.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Still working on those badges my internet is out at home so maybe I can work on design today at work.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


Conservatives would rather stay out of the collective... their participation is not necessary.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Lol
Not needed, no sign up necessary


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant to what Redfish said about Canadians. Most Canadians would rather have Canada’s system than America’s.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



I don’t necessarily disagree. But if it’s an opt-in system, then it must be an opt-in system when they are 18, not 68. Otherwise, you will have 68 year-olds opting out for 50 years and not paying for the system, then opting in when their costs are highest. That would bankrupt the country much faster than the current system.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Yes, opt in if you want to depend on socialist entitlement programs. An automatic exclusion if an individual has no desire to part of the collective.
I have no problem giving up everything I have paid in up to this point if could not participate any longer in these socialists entitlement programs.
I just don’t want any part of it anymore, and millions are just like me


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Nota myth. Fact!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




social security and medicare are not entitlements,  we paid for them with our money our entire working lives.  Money that was taken out of our paychecks without our permission.  Its ours.  The government owes it to us.  Its not welfare or charity or entitlement its the return of forced savings (taxes)


----------



## Redfish (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




then why do the come to the USA if they have any serious medical problems?   Surveys of Canadians contradict your claim, but that's ok, we understand that liberals lie.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 12, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...




wrong, they may have had to pay a higher premium, much like you pay more for car insurance if you have a bunch of wrecks and tickets, but no one was denied insurance.   that is a left wing lie.

What obozocare did was raise premiums for everyone so that healthy young people were better off paying the penalty than paying the premiums for coverages that they did not want or need.   Why did obozocare require a healthy 25 year old male to buy a policy that included maternity benefits?  It was the absolute worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. and but for bitter old McCain it would have been repealed last year.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




but they come to the USA for serious conditions.   That says quite a lot.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> For a market to work, people have to know *what they are paying for.*



People aren't paying for health care. That's the problem. They're paying for insurance instead. The important value decisions are being made by people who are spending someone else's money. That's what breaks the market.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 12, 2018)

dblack said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



absolutely right,  the problem is that most people today think that insurance should pay for ALL medical costs.   In the not too distant past medical insurance was hospital insurance,  it only kicked in if you were hospitalized, you paid routine medical costs out of pocket.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...




And I have NO problem with Canada single payer  with a population of 36.7 million of which 83.8% are Caucasian...
Versus the USA...327.7 million... nearly 9 times!
But see this is where the ONE size fits all concept of single payer breaks down!
Canada with less then 1/9th the population can manage it and with 10 providences versus 50 states?  
So why not get YOUR state to have single payer health insurance and let me in my state make up whether I want single payer?
I don't understand that this "one size fits all" mentality because people in Florida hardly freeze to death versus Minnesota!!
And people in Texas probably have a different health issues than Iowa.

So why this need for "one size fits all"?  Comparing a country with less than 1/9th the population as a model?  Get real!


----------



## candycorn (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I’m sure the costs vary widely.  Did the study discuss why the costs varied widely?


----------



## candycorn (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...



It has always seemed to be the case.  I see it up close every week.  

When I was in the public sector working for the health department, we have capabilities here that those patients would have benefitted greatly from but simply did not have access to.  If you’re talking about the difference between a Lincoln and a Hyundai, you’re still getting from point A to B.  But in healthcare, the difference is quite literally life and death in some cases.  The only deciding factor is the means of the patient. One of the great shortcomings of capitalism.


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > JustAnotherNut said:
> ...





That's one of the reasons why we need single payer.

When things are privatized they always cost more because there has to be a profit for the private company.

In my opinion the only people who should be making a profit off this are the doctors, nurses and health care workers. They actually do something and help people. All an insurance company does is pay the bills. If you're lucky. Usually it's a long drawn out fight to get them to pay the bills. Which I will never understand why people think it's a good idea to give a company thousands of our hard earned dollars for health care then the company turn around and tell you that you can't use your own money to pay your medical bills. While that company puts at least 30% of your hard earned money in their pockets.

One of the biggest reasons why insurance costs so much more now is because since the reagan years when he deregulated the medical and insurance businesses, there were very few regulations on the insurance companies and medical facilities so they got to set their own rules.

Insurance all of a sudden was able to kick millions of sick people or people who become sick off using that preexisting condition clause and the 1 million dollar cap.

Now a lot of those millions have insurance and can actually see a doctor. That costs money. If they had not been kicked off insurance in the first place, everyone could have had much lower insurance premiums because their problems would have been addressed long before they became serious and very expensive to treat. We would have had more people paying into the insurance pool.  We also wouldn't have had billions in unpaid bills.

I was in a serious accident in Maui in 2009. They had socialized medicine at the time. No medical bill went unpaid. I was in an ICU unit in a coma for a week. Went through ER first. When the bill for the hospital came both the ex and I thought it would be at the very least 40 thousand dollars.

The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The reason why is because the hospitals and doctors in Hawaii didn't have millions in unpaid bills that they "cost shifted" to those who could pay the bills. People had not been thrown off insurance leaving thousands without a way to pay their bills thus not have a way to see a doctor for their medical problems.

People need to wake up and see the reality of our health care situation.

We're doing it the most expensive and least efficient way.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...



Canada’s system has its problems, no doubt about it. I think the US system is better, especially as an upper income earner. But after being in both systems, if I were lower middle class, I’d move back to Canada. 

FYI in Canada, the system is run by the provinces, not the Federal government. The Federal government sets the standards and provides funding, but the provinces run the program. 

But the size doesn’t really matter. Germany and Japan are large nations with single payer systems.


----------



## Siete (Nov 12, 2018)

lets just use Trumps healthcare plan -


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...




Well then you better educate the younger right.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


That why they must be abolished, depending on the collective is a lost cause...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> lets just use Trumps healthcare plan -


How about people take care of their own shit, And tell the nanny state to fuck off.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


Before I add you to my ignore list, I find it interesting that you throw the word 'idiot' around so easily, when in fact you are clearly the board moron.  If you can't distinguish between a performer's salary, and how insignificant it is in society, compared to CEO pay for Pharma/Ins/Oil executives that directly affect what we have to pay out of pocket for essential goods/services, then you're too stupid to engage with me anymore.

See ya!


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> wrong, they may have had to pay a higher premium, much like you pay more for car insurance if you have a bunch of wrecks and tickets, but no one was denied insurance.   that is a left wing lie.
> 
> What obozocare did was raise premiums for everyone so that healthy young people were better off paying the penalty than paying the premiums for coverages that they did not want or need.   Why did obozocare require a healthy 25 year old male to buy a policy that included maternity benefits?  It was the absolute worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. and but for bitter old McCain it would have been repealed last year.


Incorrect.  If you let insurance lapse for 30 days or more, you lost the ability to be covered for pre existing conditions.


----------



## Siete (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > lets just use Trumps healthcare plan -
> ...



how about RW's stfu and get over the healthcare laws ..


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Maybe they weren't denied health care but they sure were denied health insurance before obamacare for pre x medical conditions.


Correct.  Most people don't understand the market, as they were never stuck in the individual market as I was for 40 years.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> What obozocare did was raise premiums for everyone so that healthy young people were better off paying the penalty than paying the premiums for coverages that they did not want or need.   Why did obozocare require a healthy 25 year old male to buy a policy that included maternity benefits?  It was the absolute worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. and but for bitter old McCain it would have been repealed last year.


Clearly, you don't understand cost sharing, which is how every type of insurance works.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> > Obozocare was/is the worst legislation in the history of the USA.   It would be history but for the arrogance of McCain.   No one is denied medical care in the USA, now, before ACA, or after ACA.   Obozocare was a failed attempt to have the government take over 1/5 of the economy and force healthy young people to pay huge premiums for insurance that they neither wanted or needed.
> 
> 
> I kept young people on their parents' insurance until they were out of college.  You can thank Reagan for the mandate.  If not for EMTALA, nobody would walk into a hospital and expect to get treated for free.
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


You did not answer the question, why must everyone be forced into the collective wheather want to participate or not?


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > What obozocare did was raise premiums for everyone so that healthy young people were better off paying the penalty than paying the premiums for coverages that they did not want or need.   Why did obozocare require a healthy 25 year old male to buy a policy that included maternity benefits?  It was the absolute worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. and but for bitter old McCain it would have been repealed last year.
> ...


Fuck the collective, the Collective always fucks over the individual


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


Fuck the nanny state...


----------



## Siete (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



that's a minority opinion .. the majority wants healthcare.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


Insurance is not healthcare


----------



## Siete (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



riiiiiiiiiiiight -  having medical insurance covers hail damaged cars.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


Lol
Only a fool would depend on and trust insurance companies


----------



## Siete (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



only a fool would decline insurance, and put the burden on counties/states leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.

or a Republican ....


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...





So you buy your vehicles with cash? If you finance your vehicle, you have to buy insurance.

So you paid for your house with cash? If you financed your house, you have to buy insurance. 

If you don't have a car then you take public transportation and if you don't own a house you must rent. 

If you're renting, you're paying the insurance on the building and apartment with a portion of your rent. Along with the property taxes.

If you're saying that only health care insurance is for fools, do you have the cash to pay for every medical issue that arises? If you're healthy great. If you think that you will be healthy for the rest of your life and never need to see a doctor, you're fooling yourself.

Or do you expect to have all that health care for free?

I personally think that anyone who makes the choice to not pay for insurance such as health insurance should never be able to have any sort of health care that you can't afford. So if you break your leg or arm or something like that, you pay for it all or you don't get the care. If you are diagnosed with cancer, heart disease or any one of many conditions that people are diagnosed every day in America, you refused to pay for insurance so you can only pay for what you can afford. You can't borrow the money to pay for it. You just have to go without. 

If you insist on standing on your own two feet then do so and stop giving those who know that insurance is necessary since we don't have a single payer system a hard time. At least we do the responsible thing. We pay our own way into the established system. 

You don't. You expect all the benefits of our nation and expect it all for free.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


I have been self employed for 25+ years, out of debt for 20+ years.
I have never claimed anything off of insurance, I have all always paid out of pocket for any medical issues with me and my family.
I have never borrowed any money for a vehicle, up till 25 or so I always bought $200 and $300 Rez runners. 
I’ve built my own house in north western South Dakota... 20+ years ago
I have no problem if other people want to depend on the nanny state, but no one should force those that want nothing to do with it into the shit.

And yes I don’t want anyone to pay for my shit, and vice versa


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


There's a lot of merit to parts of this post.  In many states, you cannot register a car without insurance.  It's about liability, not collision.  What many young people don't take into consideration, is that even healthy people break bones...as you mentioned above.  Once Reagan passed COBRA, which included EMTALA, people got the impression that E.R treatment was 'free'.  Do away with that, and see who rushes to get insurance.

I haven't been without insurance in 40 years, and at one point I hadn't seen a doctor in 10 years.  Everyone gets hurt at some point in their life.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> Lol
> Only a fool would depend on and trust insurance companies



only a fool would decline insurance, and put the burden on counties/states leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.

or a Republican ....[/QUOTE]
Yep.  Everyone who rails against our social safety nets, are typically the first ones in line after a catastrophe leaves them in dire straits.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Forcing anyone to pay for something that might or might not happen is ridiculous. Insurance assures waste, fraud and abuse is the norm...


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...






So if you're ever in a car accident you have the money to pay for all the damage you caused someone else? 

I don't know about your state by my state requires everyone to have liability insurance so when you harm someone that person can be compensated for their loss and medical bills.

I guess you either break the laws in your state or live in one of the few states that don't require you to be financially responsible for the damage you cause to other people. Which I'm sure if that's the case, you live in a red state. Where people expect to get everything for free.

If you paid for your house great. But if there's a fire or any one of a number of natural disasters I'm going to have to bail your butt out with my federal FEMA dollars only because you weren't responsible enough to buy insurance on your home.

You may be heathy now but blink your eye. That's how fast you can go from being healthy to having cancer.

It happened to me. A simple surgery discovered a very deadly form of cancer. I had been healthy all my life. Just your normal colds and flu with a couple of broken ankles along the way. 

I have insurance so I had the proper coverage to treat that very deadly form of cancer. My insurance and I paid for all of it. While when something like that happens to you, you're going to deadbeat on the bills or have to go into bankruptcy because of it. Which is typical for a conservative.

When you do get that diagnosis or are in that life threatening accident, you should be denied care you can't pay for with cash without borrowing it. You made the choice to not pay into the system so you shouldn't be able to mooch off the system when you finally need it. 

Pull yourself up by your boot straps and die with dignity because you're too selfish to understand you live in a society and in that society you have some responsibilities as being a member of that society. One of them is to make sure you and your family have proper health care so that other people don't have to pay for your deadbeat butt. Another one is make sure you can compensate people you've harmed and to make sure your home is covered from disasters so we tax payers don't have to bail your deadbeat butt out.

You aren't an island to yourself.


----------



## Lesh (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> have been self employed for 25+ years, out of debt for 20+ years.
> I have never claimed anything off of insurance, I have all always paid out of pocket for any medical issues with me and my family.
> I have never borrowed any money for a vehicle, up till 25 or so I always bought $200 and $300 Rez runners.
> I’ve built my own house in north western South Dakota... 20+ years ago
> ...



You must be SERIOUSLY rich if you think you can pay for a heart transplant or cancer treatment out of pocket.

Ans even there you're feakin stupid.

I know several VERY rich folks and guess what?

They have healthcare insurance.

Know why?

Because they don;t want to pay those hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

Jesus...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


I don’t live my life that way, scared shitless of what “might” happen. I guess you can call it an Indian thing.
My family will never have financial problems, I’ve made sure of that.

It never takes a village


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > have been self employed for 25+ years, out of debt for 20+ years.
> ...


Lol
Those are the least of my worries...
 Control the things you can, don’t worry about the things you can’t...


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


There are other options for your each of your questions.
Being mandated to buy health insurance leaves no other options.
And a one size fits all insurance is just plain BS.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 12, 2018)

Meister said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Yep, I would rather be dead than being chained up like that


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2018)

Siete said:


> lets just use Trumps healthcare plan -



Hate to break it to you bub, but we already are. We did that when we put government in charge of our health care. Dr. Trump will see you now ...


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Entitlements are anything you get from the government.


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Yes. Very true. 

But more Americans go abroad proportionally for medical treatment because of cost than Canadians go to the US because of rationing


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> In my opinion the only people who should be making a profit off this are the doctors, nurses and health care workers.



Then you should oppose Medicare:  Nearly 60 percent of top health insurers' revenue comes from Medicare and Medicaid


----------



## Toro (Nov 12, 2018)

Rustic said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...





Dude, that’s fucking retarded.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 12, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...




No thank you.

The first biggest problem we have is government interference in the health care markets.  It's not a coinkydink that health care inflation has sky rocketed as government's share has increased.

The second biggest problem is that consumers are shielded from prices due to routine and maintenance care being co-mingled with catastrophic insurance.  Routine and maintenance care end up being overpriced prepaid services masking as insurance.   I'm convinced that without the insurance overhead and cost plus distorted incentives for the insurance middleman - supplier duopoly, that what we currently pay as co-pays would be what routine appointments and prescriptions would cost without insurance.

So - we should break up the insurance bundles.  Consumers should be free to choose catastrophic care only and to self-fund routine care or subscribe to a concierge service...or other models as the market is free to experiment.

One size fits all is one size fits none.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2018)

boedicca said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a conservative.
> ...




I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 12, 2018)

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...




I've often said the the underlying ideology of Progressivism turns people into slaves.  It's actually incredibly reactionary (hence the deceptive branding) as most people throughout history have lived as serfs, slaves or chattel.


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 12, 2018)

Toro said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Size DOES matter!
Population of Japan..126.8 million  1/3 of the USA! And of that  98.5% contribution from ethnic Japanese people.
Population of Germany: 82.8 million 1/4 the size of the USA. German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Polish, Italian, Romanian, Syrian, and Greek)

Again... why is it you want to compare a almost homogenous population like Germany/Japan!  Of course it's easier to handle health care in that situation.
But again... idiots like you don't know a shitting thing about health insurance, states' insurance regulators, medical liability ratios, and yet you complain and think
single payer is the answer!
Do idiots like you know that less than 1.5% of the American population do not have health insurance that WANT it??? 3%!
FACTS do the math!
less than 5 million truly want and need insurance out of a population of 327 million!
But you idiots don't want to deal in the FACTS.  There never were 46 million uninsured Americans!  Period!
And you idiots keep believing this same MSM that touts 500 million straws consumed per day from a 9 year old KID who called SOME manufacturers who told him how many they MADE!  But even the National Park Service and dozens of MSM repeated that figure.
The point is why can't idiots like you do some simple Google searches as I did and put into the ATTACHED!
Why even the architect of ACA who said it took the stupidity of Americans to pass ACA AGREED!  nearly 10 million of those that signed up for ACA were already eligible BEFORE
ACA for Medicaid.  Again read the attached and start thinking for yourself and not depending on the dumb ass biased MSM!


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> No thank you.
> 
> The first biggest problem we have is government interference in the health care markets.  It's not a coinkydink that health care inflation has sky rocketed as government's share has increased.
> 
> ...


The only problem with your a la carte proposal is that the majority would not be able to afford insurance that actually covers anything.  Which includes most women.  Cost sharing is the only way any insurance works.  It's certainly not a new concept.

If you want to go back to having people fired because they skew the insurance pool numbers for the business they worked for, that's your choice.

Most don't.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer *provided health care is a bad idea*. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.


True.  And it accounts for many people really not understanding the issue of healthcare in this country.  The govt. now pays for the lion's share of healthcare, so I'm not sure what's being 'shifted'?


----------



## Toro (Nov 13, 2018)

healthmyths said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



I’m sorry. I mistook you for someone who wanted a serious conversation, not some ranting racist. I won’t make that mistake again.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > No thank you.
> ...




Your strawman is burning.  

The one size fits all Obabblecare with high premiums, huge deductibles and high co-pays with limited doctor availability isn't making health care affordable. It is just taxing people who do not have employer provided insurance in order to subsidize free loaders.

(And your screen name is incredibly inappropriate for someone with your ideology.)


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it. They've finally figured out that employer *provided health care is a bad idea*. It's made us virtual slaves to our employers, dependent on them for our very health. And the only fix they can come up with is to shift the dependency to government.
> ...



Does that matter? I mean, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea and we should be heading the other direction. If you think it's a good idea, make that argument. Justifying more crappy policy with existing crappy policy isn't compelling.


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> The only problem with your a la carte proposal is that the majority would not be able to afford insurance that actually covers anything.  Which includes most women.  Cost sharing is the only way any insurance works.  It's certainly not a new concept.



It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.



> If you want to go back to having people fired because they skew the insurance pool numbers for the business they worked for, that's your choice.



And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.

I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 13, 2018)

Toro said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




not in today's jargon.   entitlements are things you get from the government without paying anything in to the government for them.

social security and medicare have been paid for by working americans who get some of it back in retirement.  If they live long enough they can get back more than they paid in, but many die before collecting any of their money back.   Food stamps and welfare are entitlements.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > SmokeALib said:
> ...




true, the one difference being that employers were covering a major portion of the cost whereas under ACA the taxpayers are covering 100% of it


----------



## Redfish (Nov 13, 2018)

Toro said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




got any proof of that?


----------



## Anathema (Nov 13, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.... Everybody has health care.
> I hate to say it, but that's what it's come down to.



Those are not the thoughts or words of a Conservative; therefore they have no value to a real Conservative such as myself. Have a nice day.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Your strawman is burning.
> 
> The one size fits all Obabblecare with high premiums, huge deductibles and high co-pays with limited doctor availability isn't making health care affordable. It is just taxing people who do not have employer provided insurance in order to subsidize free loaders.
> 
> (And your screen name is incredibly inappropriate for someone with your ideology.)


ACA was never allowed to function as designed, so your incorrect generalizations are baseless.

Howard Roark was an ultra competent architect who was frustrated by the incompetence he encountered in his field, and in society.

My screen name fits just fine, thanks.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> Does that matter? I mean, if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea and we should be heading the other direction. If you think it's a good idea, make that argument. Justifying more crappy policy with existing crappy policy isn't compelling.


You make it sound as if healthcare is the only bad idea that our legislators have thrust upon us throughout history.  Granted, this thread addresses healthcare only, but the problem is systemic in this country.

If you think that corporations are going to willingly give up the wage crushing, tax avoidance scheme of providing health insurance in lieu of living wages, you're in for a surprise.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your strawman is burning.
> ...




B'loney.  ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care".  Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.

And Howard Roark would never support government programs as the answer to a problem resulting from government interference in free markets.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.


  I don't know of any type of insurance that doesn't rely on cost sharing.  It's simply not feasible any other way.  Odd how Conservative men rail against paying for maternity care, but have no problem with everyone paying for their boner pills? (NOTE....V iagra is a banned word here?  LMAO)

Nobody takes the picture as a whole.  They just cherry pick issues that they don't like, and believe that laser focus on the minutia will make for intelligent debate.
Employers are not assuming responsibility for health care expenses.  The taxpayers are.





> And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.
> 
> I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?


I wish you would stop posting to everyone as 'you people', as if everyone agrees/disagrees with your positions in toto.  The govt. isn't taking over insurance.  It could be argued that some sort of single payer is the ultimate cost sharing device.

A device that allows all insurance to exist.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> B'loney.  ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care".  Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.
> 
> And Howard Roark would never support government programs as the answer to a problem resulting from government interference in free markets.


Your silly generalizations don't belong in a thread that begs intelligent debate.  ACA was actually a massive handout to insurance companies, in exchange for a wide variety of coverage that didn't previously exist.  The funding was removed by House Republicans for political purposes, and we are left with the shell of ACA that now exists as a punching bag for people like yourself...the uninformed.

There was no concept of large scale health insurance when Howard Roark roamed the halls of fictional characters, so I'm a bit amused by your problems with my positions.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > B'loney.  ACA is working just as intended - to destroy the private insurance market to pave the way for single-payer nationalized "health care".  Insurance is not health care, although you gullible dupes often confuse the two.
> ...




Your silly misunderstanding of Howard Roark, The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Ayn Rand pins the bogometer.  The ideological underpinnings remain the same.  Centralized planning and forcing people to support others at the point of a gun are not consistent with Howard Roark by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Anathema (Nov 13, 2018)

As a Conservative, I will DIE before I take Government Health Care of ANY type. I got my wife off Medicare when we got married. We’re not going back to it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It's not new, but it's not insurance, and it would make for more clarity if we stopped calling it that. Real insurance isn't "cost-sharing". It's not a club you join to score subsidized health care. What we call group health insurance is simply someone else assuming responsibility for your health care expenses. Usually an employer. It's not viable, and now that it's all crumbling down, people want to double down on a bad idea and make the government the principle provider of health care.
> ...


 So what? You're equivocating the cost-sharing that insurance companies do to balance their books with the purpose of insurance. They are very different. The point of real insurance, the reason people buy policies, isn't cost sharing. It's a hedge against risk.

Do you understand that? Do you understand how attempting to use insurance as a cost-sharing club isn't viable? Can you imagine what would happen in other markets if we tried the same nonsense? How would financing your grocery expenses work on the group-cost-sharing model? How would that impact prices?



> > And what will happen to the people who skew the insurance numbers when government takes over? Pretty much any unpopular group who poses a health care risk will be a target for regulation. Fatties, gays, smokers, you name it. Every election cycle populists will scapegoat some reviled group - because, hey, that shit works.
> >
> > I wish you people would think this through. Why do you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care?
> 
> ...



Ok, no problem. Can you answer the questions posed?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Your silly misunderstanding of Howard Roark, The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Ayn Rand pins the bogometer.  The ideological underpinnings remain the same.  Centralized planning and forcing people to support others at the point of a gun are not consistent with Howard Roark by any stretch of the imagination.


Your silly misunderstanding that Rand was a fantastic author, but horrible candidate for social commentary, is very common among Right Wing extremists.

I think you'd have to understand her biography before you delve into the deeper discussions.  Emigrating from a heinous regime in communist Soviet Union skews her views about how a society should exist.

In her fantasies, isolationism is fine.  Your error is discerning fantasy from reality.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Your silly misunderstanding of Howard Roark, The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Ayn Rand pins the bogometer.  The ideological underpinnings remain the same.  Centralized planning and forcing people to support others at the point of a gun are not consistent with Howard Roark by any stretch of the imagination.
> ...




Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzz

Riddle me this:  why did Roark blow up the Cortland Arms low income housing project?  How does that contrast with your implication that he would support ACA?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

dblack said:


> So what? You're equivocating the cost-sharing that insurance companies do to balance their books with the purpose of insurance. They are very different. The point of real insurance, the reason people buy policies, isn't cost sharing. It's a hedge against risk.


  It's only a hedge against risk because cost sharing makes it affordable to the masses.  Otherwise, you would simply be prepaying for maternity/cancer/etc.  You would be better off just banking the premium dollars and try to pay when the claims arise.  It doesn't work.



> Do you understand that? Do you understand how attempting to use insurance as a cost-sharing club isn't viable? Can you imagine what would happen in other markets if we tried the same nonsense? How would financing your grocery expenses work on the group-cost-sharing model? How would that impact prices?


Do you understand that cost sharing is the only way it can work?  We do finance grocery costs on a cost sharing basis, although govt. subsidized agriculture further skews the numbers. BUT... grocery prices in high volume stores are much lower than small stores that don't buy in volume.





> Ok, no problem. Can you answer the questions posed?


What are you asking?  All I've seen is your commentary on how you believe insurance should exist.  Are you/have you ever been in the individual market?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzz
> 
> Riddle me this:  why did Roark blow up the Cortland Arms low income housing project?  How does that contrast with your implication that he would support ACA?


If you're tired, take a nap and come back when you can focus.


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > So what? You're equivocating the cost-sharing that insurance companies do to balance their books with the purpose of insurance. They are very different. The point of real insurance, the reason people buy policies, isn't cost sharing. It's a hedge against risk.
> ...


What does that even mean?

The difference between a hedge against risk and cost sharing is what the customer hopes to get out of it. People don't buy insurance to share costs. You don't buy insurance for your house to share the cost of lawn care and upkeep. You don't buy car insurance to cover fuel and maintenance expenses. You buy insurance to cover you in cases of extreme financial loss. In case your house burns down or your car is damaged in an bad accident. Using insurance to cover regular expenses is just dumb. It makes them _more_ expensive (the insurance company always takes a cut), not less.



> Do you understand that cost sharing is the only way it can work?  We do finance grocery costs on a cost sharing basis, although govt. subsidized agriculture further skews the numbers. BUT... grocery prices in high volume stores are much lower than small stores that don't buy in volume.



No, we don't try to handle grocery expenses in the way we're trying to handle health care expenses. If we did, we'd be facing the same problems with price inflation and abuse.


> Are you/have you ever been in the individual market?


My dad was self-employed, so the insurance I grew up with was of that variety. And it was much better. The doctor never had to interact with the insurance company. They provided health care. We filed claims against insurance. We paid for insurance against emergencies and unexpected medical bills. We had incentive to not use the insurance because if we did our rates would go up. People in group plans have the opposite incentive.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Oh blah blah blah so sleepy....zzzzz
> ...




I can always take a nap to deal with being tired.

You, however, are boring and dull...for which there is no cure.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


It's rather common for those who cannot keep up with the subject, to become bored and lose focus


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...




You don't even grok the subject, bub.

You're just a dull lurker who has decided to bore us all with your drivel.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You don't even grok the subject, bub.
> 
> You're just a dull lurker who has decided to bore us all with your drivel.


Again...it's often a symptom of a lack of ability to focus, that causes boredom.  If you work on your comprehension issues, you'll eventually see a marked improvement when you participate on these boards.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even grok the subject, bub.
> ...




Think that if it gives you comfort.  In RealityLand, you are boring, dull, uninteresting, bland, tedious, tiresome, trite....


----------



## healthmyths (Nov 13, 2018)

Toro said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



For someone wanting a "serious conversation" you will not be considered "serious" if you can't even admit that there never were 46 million uninsured which was one of
several lies told by Obama ad admitted to by Gruber when he said it was the stupidity of people evidently like you !


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Think that if it gives you comfort.  In RealityLand, you are boring, dull, uninteresting, bland, tedious, tiresome, trite....
> 
> View attachment 228566


I believe the term you're hunting so hard for, is erudite


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Think that if it gives you comfort.  In RealityLand, you are boring, dull, uninteresting, bland, tedious, tiresome, trite....
> ...




Nope.  I'm quite certain that is not the term.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 13, 2018)

boedicca said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Look on the bright side.  If conservatives of those eras had their way, most people would still live as serfs, slaves and chattel.  Thank progressives.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 13, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Don't know much about history, do you bub?

The term conservative under authoritarian regimes is misnomer.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 16, 2018)

boedicca said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Conservatives are always dragged into the future, kicking and screaming.  Then and now.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...





Nope.  Conservatives want to preserve what is effective and healthy.  Progs want to destroy it all.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...



Yep. And sometimes, they were right. The future is what we make it. State health care isn't a future I want to see.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 16, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Nope.  Conservatives want to preserve what is effective and healthy.  Progs want to destroy it all.


Nope.  Conservatives only want to talk about what is effective and healthy, and work to do just the opposite.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  Conservatives want to preserve what is effective and healthy.  Progs want to destroy it all.
> ...




You again?  heh


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 17, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You again?  heh


Is this a memory lapse, or willful ignorance.  It's getting hard to tell


----------



## boedicca (Nov 17, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You again?  heh
> ...




Neither.  Just plain old vanilla sheer boredom.  Toodles!


----------



## Flopper (Nov 17, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


*Yes, if you are dissatisfied with your MedAdvantage Plan, you have until the end of March to change to a different Medicare Advantage plan or go back to original medicare. 

However, if you sign up for a MedAdvantage Plan when you become eligible for Medicare then a few years latter you decide you want to get out of MedAdvantage and go to original medicare with a supplement, you may find it very difficult.  The reason is supplement plans have some pretty strict rules.  If you don't meet certain guaranteed issue rights, then you are subject to Medical Underwriting which often means, you will not be accepted or only at a much higher premium. 

MedAdvanatage and original medicare with a supplement are two very different types of medical coverage.  You can always joint or leave a MedAdvantage plan during yearly open enrollment.  Supplement plans have only one open enrollment and that's during the 6 months after you become eligible for Medicare.  After that time, getting a supplement can be difficult.

People that choose Medicare Advantage are usually in it for the rest of their life. That's why people should consider carefully which is the best path.  They both have advantages and disadvantages. *


----------



## Flopper (Nov 17, 2018)

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


*I had an MedAdvantage Plan for 9 years and was quite satisfied, free gym membership, free vision care, and some dental benefits, plus out of network coverage.  Then one day I got a letter saying the plan would no longer include any of the doctors, hospitals, or other medical providers my wife and I used in my area.  The only MedAdvantage alternatives were a half dozen HMOs with high co-insurance and yearly maximums, with no coverage out of the immediate area and no foreign coverage.  Lucky for us, the exiting of our MedAdvatage company provided a window to enter original medicare with a supplement.  Since we made the change a few years ago, we have not paid a single medical bill.  In fact we don't even receive bills anymore.  It's great for us, however people with fewer medical bills would probably find a MedAdvantage plan more appealing because the premiums are lower.  However, when you start receiving a stack of medical bills each month or you start traveling extensively, the MedAdvantage plan is not so good . Like you said there is no right or wrong plan.*


----------



## Flopper (Nov 17, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...


*That seems to be the nature of conservatives, return to the good old days or maintain the status quo.*


----------



## boedicca (Nov 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




The most reactionary people on the planet are the Progs that want to return us all to the state of serfs, slaves and chattel owned by the elites.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 17, 2018)

Flopper said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Rediculous statement. Just when I decide to give you clowns the benefit of the doubt, you blow it out of the water.


----------



## w1nter1sc0ming (Nov 18, 2018)

Conservatives conserve. Ted Nugent for example plants 2 trees for every 1 he cuts down. Liberals burn California for land. They’ve clear cut Corrupticut to install tolls they haven’t even approved yet, though they’ve spent 15 mil on 4 studies to a company that has a track record of corruption. 
What do the liberal pushers of ‘global warming’ drive/fly/live in? The hypocrisy is blinding. It’s nothing but a money maker. They come up with convoluted theories & fake info to support their bs, & have dumbed down most of the people into being easily brainwashed. Go libs. [emoji849]


----------



## PredFan (Nov 18, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



Our healthcare system is not broken, it is not screwed, it is in fact the best in the world.

It's our healthcare insurance system that is broken.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 18, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare.
> 
> One of the things I do have a problem with having government regulated healthcare is I don't want them telling me what can be treated or not....although Dr's & Insurance already do that to some degree. I am thinking of the case of the little boy in England that they refused care because of his condition that even a US Dr said he'd do it, but they wouldn't let the boy come for treatment and soon died.



And therein lies the problem. You can't get the best of universal care, without the worst of it.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

w1nter1sc0ming said:


> Conservatives conserve. Ted Nugent for example plants 2 trees for every 1 he cuts down. Liberals burn California for land. They’ve clear cut Corrupticut to install tolls they haven’t even approved yet, though they’ve spent 15 mil on 4 studies to a company that has a track record of corruption.
> What do the liberal pushers of ‘global warming’ drive/fly/live in? The hypocrisy is blinding. It’s nothing but a money maker. They come up with convoluted theories & fake info to support their bs, & have dumbed down most of the people into being easily brainwashed. Go libs. [emoji849]


LMAO

"Clean Coal"

LMAO


----------



## Flopper (Nov 18, 2018)

JustAnotherNut said:


> I am too a Conservative and agree. Everyone needs quality health CARE, not just a once over & given some drug that has more side effects than it treats just so everyone in the loop gets rich. Dr's don't treat the problems, they treat the symptoms and that's not healthcare.
> 
> One of the things I do have a problem with having government regulated healthcare is I don't want them telling me what can be treated or not....although Dr's & Insurance already do that to some degree. I am thinking of the case of the little boy in England that they refused care because of his condition that even a US Dr said he'd do it, but they wouldn't let the boy come for treatment and soon died.


*Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.  It can't be doctors and hospitals which leaves either the insurance companies or the government. If insurance companies are allowed to make that decision, they will cover only what maximizes profits.  That leaves government.*

*For the last two decades Medicare, that is CMS has made the major decisions as to what will be covered by Medicare.  Medicaid picks up basically what Medicare covers.  Insurance companies are compelled by federal and state laws to cover procedures that Medicare covers.

That's not to say that insurance coverage will be exactly the same as Medicare.  Insurance companies add perks to their coverage which may include holistic medicine, nurse call lines, dental care, vision care, gym membership etc.  Also state laws can force insurance companies to consider procedure that have not yet been covered by Medicare.

Various provides of medical coverage do have great latitude in determining how cost will be shared between the company or agency, the medical provider, and the customer.

Basically, I don't think we need to worry about government restricting medical procedures. They have been doing it for decades. *


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.



Why? Why can't you regulate your healthcare spending and I regulate mine? Why the presumption of centralized, authoritarian control of every. god. damned. thing?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.
> ...


LMAO.  Regulate your spending?  When your meds cost $2000/month, do you opt to avoid food?


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Regulate your spending?  When your meds cost $2000/month, do you opt to avoid food?


 Why? Did you want government regulating our food spending next?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Regulate your spending?  When your meds cost $2000/month, do you opt to avoid food?
> ...


Perhaps you didn't understand the question?

Meds or food.  What do you choose?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

Pfizer announced that they're jacking up prices on a list of meds soon.  This little lie has been discussed in this thread.  The Ins. companies never pass the discounts along.



> Pfizer said it expects list prices “to be offset by higher rebates and discounts paid to Insurance Companies and Pharmacy Benefit Managers” and said the net effect on the company’s revenue growth in the U.S. in 2019 is expected to be zero.




Why increase prices to consumers, if the revenue growth will be zero?


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...


Purple. What's your fucking point?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


It seems that this discussion is a tad above your pay grade.


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...


So, no point. Just distraction. Thanks.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 18, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yea...go with that.  At least you didn't opt for a color this time.  Maybe the next door neighbor's kid can explain this segment to you?


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 18, 2018)

Trump’s Drug Pricing Czar Found With ‘Multiple Blunt Force Injuries,’ Ruled Suicide


----------



## dblack (Nov 18, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...


Don't like it much when your bluff is called? You pose a ridiculous dilemma expecting an answer?? You clearly don't expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> Don't like it much when your bluff is called? You pose a ridiculous dilemma expecting an answer?? You clearly don't expect to be taken seriously.


If you think being forced to choose between buying necessary meds, and buying food is ridiculous, then you aren't qualified to remain in this discussion.


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Don't like it much when your bluff is called? You pose a ridiculous dilemma expecting an answer?? You clearly don't expect to be taken seriously.
> ...



Your fantasy scenario has jack squat to do with regulating health care spending.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 19, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Trump’s Drug Pricing Czar Found With ‘Multiple Blunt Force Injuries,’ Ruled Suicide


That's a little odd.  'Multiple blunt force injuries'?  And they believe he did it himself?  Maybe he chose to dive down a flight of stairs?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> Your fantasy scenario has jack squat to do with regulating health care spending.


On the contrary.  Your idiotic claim that everyone should 'regulate' their own healthcare spending begs the question:

Meds, or food?  What do you choose?

Or do you opt for meaningless rhetoric whenever you don't like the way the discussion is going?


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Your fantasy scenario has jack squat to do with regulating health care spending.
> ...



How??? You're going to have to actually make an argument if you expect me to respond to it. You can't just spout random, leading questions as if they mean something. Are you taking notes from Fox News?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> How??? You're going to have to actually make an argument if you expect me to respond to it. You can't just spout random, leading questions as if they mean something. Are you taking notes from Fox News?


Hmm...so you spout random idiotic statements about 'regulating your own healthcare spending', but don't expect to be questioned about the viability of the nonsense?

Your problem is that you are looking for arguments where they don't exist.


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > How??? You're going to have to actually make an argument if you expect me to respond to it. You can't just spout random, leading questions as if they mean something. Are you taking notes from Fox News?
> ...



Heh.. apparently.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.
> ...


*How can you regulate your healthcare spending?  Sure you can regulate day to day healthcare cost such as yearly physicals, going to doctor with minor health issues, preventive care, and such.  But that is not where our major health cost are.  If you are struck down by an illness or injury and find yourself in ICU, are you going to research medical procedures and costs and determine which are the most cost effective procedures.  I think not.  People that think they can control medical costs don't realize how complex the system is nor their limited ability to understand the costs and benefits or various healthcare procedures.

If you go into the hospital today and it's determined you need open heart surgery, it is very unlikely you will be able to get any estimate of what the total bill might be.  Yes, your surgeon will be able to give you his fee for the procedure and hospital can give you the cost per day of a room but that's not going be even close to the total cost. The reason is the cost could be 50 thousand or 500 thousand depending on how you respond and what type of treatment you will need.   You simple can not regulate your cost because the total cost depends on how a patient responds to treatment and what is discovered during treatment.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Flopper said:


> You simple can not regulate your cost.



I can certainly "regulate" my spending. I don't need, nor want, "we-know-better" busybodies telling me that I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You simple can not regulate your cost.
> ...


*It would be interesting to see just exactly how you would do that if you went to an emergency room complaining of extreme pain, swelling, and blisters on your leg.  A few tests lead to a diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis, fleshing eating bacteria.  It requires immediate medical attention in the hospital.  I had a relative die with this.  Over a two week period in the ICU, there were 3 operations, two amputations, 12 doctors involve.  The total cost was over $450,000.  There were 257 page of medical records, dozens of procedures. *


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Flopper said:


> It would be interesting to see just exactly how you would do that


It might interesting, but it's none of your business. I think that's the part you really don't get.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 19, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It would be interesting to see just exactly how you would do that
> ...


*In other words, you have no idea how you would go about regulating healthcare costs.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 20, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *How can you regulate your healthcare spending?  Sure you can regulate day to day healthcare cost such as yearly physicals, going to doctor with minor health issues, preventive care, and such.  But that is not where our major health cost are.  If you are struck down by an illness or injury and find yourself in ICU, are you going to research medical procedures and costs and determine which are the most cost effective procedures.  I think not.  People that think they can control medical costs don't realize how complex the system is nor their limited ability to understand the costs and benefits or various healthcare procedures.
> 
> If you go into the hospital today and it's determined you need open heart surgery, it is very unlikely you will be able to get any estimate of what the total bill might be.  Yes, your surgeon will be able to give you his fee for the procedure and hospital can give you the cost per day of a room but that's not going be even close to the total cost. The reason is the cost could be 50 thousand or 500 thousand depending on how you respond and what type of treatment you will need.   You simple can not regulate your cost because the total cost depends on how a patient responds to treatment and what is discovered during treatment.*


Whereas you make a valid point, your scenario takes the issue to the extreme.  Millions of people are experiencing a problem with ability to afford their medications.  Having no control over rising costs, or the lack of regulation of same, makes it impossible to 'regulate your own healthcare spending'

To claim otherwise is just plain foolish.  Especially given that the argument is that you can opt to use/not use services that aren't even subject to govt. regulation.

Far and away, medications are the driving force behind the inability to afford insurance, and proper healthcare.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.
> ...



Because you (maybe) have an abdominal aortic aneurysm that hasn't been found yet, and the shunt from your arm to your legs to replace that aorta and keep you alive, is going to cost a quarter-of-a-million dollars, including the hospital stay.

Not in the budget?  Oh, man, we'll miss you.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So what? That's not a reason to dictate how people pay for their healthcare. Why can't you accept the fact that other people have different ideas about how to deal with risk? Why must you force _your_ preferences on others? Why can't you deal with your health care expenses and I'll deal with mine?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good.  There frequently is no "substitute good".  Specialties are not fungible.  There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room.  (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)

BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition.  I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good.  There frequently is no "substitute good".  Specialties are not fungible.  There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room.  (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)
> 
> BTW, the hypothetical abdominal aortic aneurysm may be a genetic trait and an unknown pre-existing condition.  I'm leery of anyone thinking they can adequately prepare for the unknown, particularly in a situation which brings them face-to-face with their instinct for survival.



None of this has any bearing on the core issue: why do you feel justified in forcing you preferences on others? You can be "leery" about my choices all you want, but it's really none of your business. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Fair enough?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > It's infantile to think healthcare is the same as every other market-based good.  There frequently is no "substitute good".  Specialties are not fungible.  There is an inequality of information in which the patient/decider is the least knowledgeable person in the room.  (Then the patient's decision is sometimes subject to insurance company review and reversal.)
> ...



Promise to die before you reach 65.  If you live long enough, you'll go on Medicare, and it will be my business.  God knows how much we'll pay to keep you in an Alzheimer's Unit.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...



Then change Medicare. Don't use it as an excuse to lord it over everyone.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 20, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?


You ask a question that requires a modicum of cognitive ability.

That seems to be lacking in this discussion.


----------



## joaquinmiller (Nov 20, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> > What's your substitute good when the unexpected happens?
> ...



The line between "American" and "every-man-for-himself" is not a fine one.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

joaquinmiller said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > joaquinmiller said:
> ...



None of your business. That's the entire point I'm making here. I actually agree with many of  your comments about health care in general, but they don't justify forcing your prescription for the "right way to do health care" on everyone else.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.  In that environment, they have to make the decision as to what they will pay for.  The individual can have any type healthcare procedures they choose as long as they are willing and able to pay for it and a health professional will provide it.  *


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

Flopper said:


> > No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.
> 
> 
> Most of the healthcare billing is paid by insurance companies or government.



And that's the problem, not the solution.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > > No, I reject your presumption that government should have the power to "regulate" how I spend money on health care.
> ...


*That may be the problem however it's not going to change.  In fact healthcare coverage has been increasing over the last 10 years.  Currently all or part of the healthcare bills of 90% of Americans are paid by insurance companies or government.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It's got to change. The current system is failing. And no, piling on more of the same (more government, more insurance) is not the answer.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 20, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*No, it does not have to change, although it should. America spends 17% of GDP on healthcare.  It's higher than other countries not because of what government does but what it doesn't do.  Americans pay far higher prices for drugs than any other country.  For the 20 top selling drugs, Americans pay 3 times the cost that Europeans pay.   This is because, US drug companies are allow to charge what the market will bear and market completion exists only low priced generic drugs. The  administrative cost of health care in the US is about 8%, over twice that of other developed countries.  This is because America has so many different payers in both government and the private sector.  The cost of handling so many different payers each with different contracted pay amounts and different rules has made medical billing a major industry.   

What we should do is reduce the number of payers, force drug prices down as almost all other countries have down, and provide better incentives to reduce hospital costs.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



No, that's even worse. I don't want Trump in charge of my health care. I don't want Congress in charge of my health care. If you can come up with a way to get what you want that can be implemented voluntarily, and doesn't centralize control of one fifth of our nation's spending, I'd love to hear it. 

But enough with the laws already. That's what got us into this mess.


----------



## usmcstinger (Nov 23, 2018)

Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 23, 2018)

usmcstinger said:


> Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.


LMAO


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 23, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...


Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a good place to start.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Under Single Payer Health Care, the Federal Government determines wether or not you can receive life saving operations.
> ...



Why is that funny to you?


----------



## Flopper (Nov 23, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost.  As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.

If your doctor says he considers a treatment medical necessary, the chances are your health insurer, be it private or government will agree.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2018)

Flopper said:


> The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.



Yep. And the less you pay for it, the less control you have. If government is the 'single' payer for all health care, you have no fucking choice at all. Can't imagine why you think is would be an improvement.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 23, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The only way you can have total control of your healthcare is for you to pay 100% of the cost. As long as someone else pays all or even part of the cost, they are going to have a say.
> ...


*Most people aren't looking for choices in healthcare.  They're looking for quality care with  lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower coinsurance, and insurance that can be used anywhere in the country that's independent of their employer.  

Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.  No one should have to worry about being able to afford healthcare or having to change doctors because their employer goes to a new plan, or to move to different state to get Medicaid coverage, or pay 3 times as much for prescription drugs as the rest of world.   *


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?



> Employers should not have to offer health insurance and should not have to pay for it.



Totally agree. Any laws forcing them to do so should be repealed immediately.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.  It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements.  Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market.  ACA fixed that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.



Then why do we need laws forcing them to do so? Why do we need tax incentives rewarding them for doing it? 



> It was always a scam to keep wages lower, and avoid FICA disbursements.  Problems arise because large group plans were getting better coverage, better rates at the expense of the individual market.  ACA fixed that.



No, it didn't. It prohibited alternatives.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > Employers WANT to pay for health insurance.
> ...


Because EMTALA created a scenario where people think that they can get healthcare for free in any hospital.  Get rid of free healthcare for all, and people will be smart enough to acquire insurance.  Employers aren't forced to pay for insurance.  They are forced to offer a policy to employees, and charge what they want.  They just choose to pay for all/most of it because they save on FICA disbursements.
It didn't prohibit alternatives. Insurance companies did that.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...



So, you agree we should repeal EMTALA?



> Employers aren't forced to pay for insurance.  They are forced to offer a policy to employees, and charge what they want.  They just choose to pay for all/most of it because they save on FICA disbursements.


Split hairs all you want - employer provided health care is propped up by government. Get rid of the laws requiring and subsidizing it, and it will go away.



> It didn't prohibit alternatives. Insurance companies did that.



They did it via ACA. You're lies are getting tangled.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 24, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...




The government fucked it up in the first place, get government out and prices will collapse. If other companies can produce these expensive drugs cheaper, or people can buy them online from Canada, let them do it. If they bankrupted madicare/medicade/socialsecurity/thetreasuryand20generations They'll bankrupt the next 100 generations providing "free" healthcare.

The solution is not more fuck up, it's less fuck up.

Government fucks shit up.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 24, 2018)

antontoo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Let's convince "our girl on the East Coast", to get more economical on the right wing, through better use of economics.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage enables market friendliness from Labor, and Compensation for Capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment enables the ready reserve labor force to be more market friendly as well, along with circulating more capital, paying more in taxes, and creating demand that would otherwise not exist.

What insurance market would be worse off, if they could sell more "catastrophic insurance" policies, as a "mandatory minimum"?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Make it an opt in, For the people that want to participate. It does not require everyone to participate...
> ...


Unlike unequal protection of the law in any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Someone has to regulate healthcare spending, that is what medical procedures will be covered.
> ...


With a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed people would be able to afford some coverage.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 24, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society. 

There was a time in America when 80% of the people and 90% of the workforce lived on farms.  Most were self sufficient with very little dependence on others.  It was within that environment the nation was created. What happened on the other side of the hill, in neighboring towns, or across the country had little on impact on our daily lives.  Today, that is certainly not the case.  We depend on our employers for jobs, government for protection, doctors and hospitals to maintain our health and often our very life.  Most of our jobs depend on goods, service, and raw material produce around the country and around the world.   Poverty and crime in ghettos overflows to the city and suburbs so when we ignore the plight of poor, we pay for it in higher rates of crime and other social problems. One crazed gunman in your kids school can destroy your family.  Wars, natural disasters, and polices of other nations effects our daily lives.  

In a world and a nation with so many interdependence, individual freedoms will suffer or the result will be chaos and the destruction of civilized society.    *


----------



## Flopper (Nov 24, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > If that's the case, then "most of us" can can dismiss our right to other choices, and submit to some authority on the matter. We're all free to do that now. The question is, do "most of us" have the right to force our preferences on others? If most people are convinced that a monolithic insurance company is the best way to pay for health care, should they be allowed to force everyone else to sign up?
> ...


*Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage.  People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.

Changes in laws in 1990's and Obamacare made mobility of employees much easier in regard to healthcare.  However, it still does make any sense to tie health insurance to jobs.   *


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2018)

Flopper said:


> In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.



Actually they can. That's the whole point of the Constitution.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 25, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage.  People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.
> 
> Changes in laws in 1990's and Obamacare made mobility of employees much easier in regard to healthcare.  However, it still does make any sense to tie health insurance to jobs.   *


Yes.  Before ACA you could get coverage for pre existing conditions only if you haven't had a 30 day lapse in your coverage. The obstacle to getting your own insurance if you chose to start your own business, was exorbitant premiums in the individual market.  Employer based insurance was always given better rates, and many kept a bad job, or worked a second job just for the bennies.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 25, 2018)

Flopper said:


> *In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.
> 
> There was a time in America when 80% of the people and 90% of the workforce lived on farms.  Most were self sufficient with very little dependence on others.  It was within that environment the nation was created. What happened on the other side of the hill, in neighboring towns, or across the country had little on impact on our daily lives.  Today, that is certainly not the case.  We depend on our employers for jobs, government for protection, doctors and hospitals to maintain our health and often our very life.  Most of our jobs depend on goods, service, and raw material produce around the country and around the world.   Poverty and crime in ghettos overflows to the city and suburbs so when we ignore the plight of poor, we pay for it in higher rates of crime and other social problems. One crazed gunman in your kids school can destroy your family.  Wars, natural disasters, and polices of other nations effects our daily lives.
> 
> In a world and a nation with so many interdependence, individual freedoms will suffer or the result will be chaos and the destruction of civilized society.    *


You're describing the Libertarian dream.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.
> ...


no, it isn't.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage.  People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.
> ...



Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Before Obamacare, employers used healthcare benefits to keep employees, even those that wanted to leave often couldn't because they feared not being able to get coverage.  People with prexisting conditions that wanted to start their own business often found they had to stay with their employer because they could duplicate their health insurance or even get it.



Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.


What direction is that?  Free market for profit?


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Designating employers as our health care providers was stupid, I agree. It gives them way too much power over us. Designating government as our health care provider is even worse, for the same reason. We need to go the other direction.
> ...



You got it right! For once. Good for you!


----------



## Flopper (Nov 25, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > In a civilized society each person can not be free to do as they please ignoring what is best for society.
> ...


*NO.
One person's liberty ends where another begins. In early America where population densities where low, and there was little dependence on others, freedom to do as one chooses was rarely challenged since population densities were measured in square miles per person.  Today in America with population densities of 10,000 to 50,000 per square mile in our cities and suburbs, we simply can not have the degree of personal freedoms we had in the past. Freedom of some must be restricted to increase the freedom of others.

Some folks like to think that independence is about allowing every American to stand alone as a rugged individual, free to do as one pleases. But it’s not. It’s about the independence of our nation as a whole, not a bunch of individuals looking after their own interests.

There was a time when a factory could dump all types of pollutants in the river because there were few if any people downstream to complain.  A hunter was free to hunt whatever game he chose because the supply was seemingly inexhaustible. The farmer could plant without concern for exhausting the fertility of the land because fertile land seemed inexhaustible.  A person could built a house without concern for building restrictions,  because he had few neighbors and he planned the live there the rest of his life. 

If you believe you should be able to do just as you please, you're living in wrong century and the wrong place.  Our challenge today is to preserve as much individual freedoms as we can while dealing with ever increasing dependence on others.*


----------



## dblack (Nov 25, 2018)

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Yes. The notion of protecting individual rights, embodied in the Constitution, defies your claim. It protects our rights from incursion regardless of what ambitious leaders might claim is "best for society". For example, government can't pass laws suppressing freedom of speech regardless of how much some folks might claim it would be "best for society". You can't pass laws keeping black people "in their place" - even if the majority has decided it's "best for society". And you can't pass laws forcing people to buy insurance from your favorite insurance company, no matter how good for society you think it will be.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 25, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.


I've been in the individual market for 40 years.  Before ACA, it was common for companies to stop writing business in an area, and I had to shop elsewhere.  I don't have any P.E.Cs, but as long as I had no lapse in insurance longer than 30 days, they would be covered anyway.

ACA gave every individual the same coverage as groups, at the same price.  At least, before House Republicans de funded risk corridors, and cost sharing.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.
> ...




Here's a wee clue:  health insurance is not health care.  All the ACA has done for many people is to enable the Big Goverment Elites to virtue signal about how they care for the poor and working classes while forcing upon latter virtually unaffordable health insurance when one considers the premimums, deductibles and co-pays.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.
> ...



Nope you're wrong in 1996 I believe under hippa you had 63 days to get coverage (group) without pre x, not an individual plan which went through medical underwriting unless then again it was a fly by night like golden rule who would underwrite at time of claims and then turn down the claim and cancel the policy or like assurant.  Don't know where you get this 30 days from on an individual plan hasn't existed since I've been in the business in 1994.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > Depending on your pre x you could not get insurance before ACA unless it was a temporary plan, all individual plans were medically underwritten (asked health questions) before ACA and so were and are temps today. Before ACA you had 60 days to get other coverage if you could pass underwriting or going on a group health insurance plan. Employer group insurance was only cheaper because normally your employer paid 50% of your premium, most true premium's were more expensive than an individual plan, now they are damn near neck and neck.
> ...



At the same price? What state are you licensed in?


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Howard Roark said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...




Here's a hint I never said health insurance is health care and I've disputed that since I've been on this board with ones who think they are one in the same.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Howard Roark said:
> ...




I wasn't replying to you.


----------



## debbiedowner (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Oh sorry, I don't like when you have all these alerts and you click on one and most of the time no one is talking to you. I don't look at those alerts much anymore.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 25, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...




 No worries.  The alerts are often misleading.


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 25, 2018)

boedicca said:


> No worries.  The alerts are often misleading.


It's not the alerts.  It's this wretched format.  When I joined way  back when, I think I remember a V Bulletin format.  This current format sucks.  When I quote someone, I take the time to delete all of the previous comments that get lumped in with the quote.  It makes it easier to follow.  I'm guessing that paying members don't have this extremely slow, extremely troubling format?


----------



## well named (Nov 25, 2018)

Howard Roark said:


> When I quote someone, I take the time to delete all of the previous comments that get lumped in with the quote.



If you're viewing in a browser you can drag-select only the text you want and you'll get an option to either add it to the saved list of quotes or to reply immediately. It's pretty handy. I agree it's annoying the way it grabs the entire history of nested quotes by default, which gets unreadable pretty quickly. But the shortcut above mostly makes it tolerable IMO


----------



## Howard Roark (Nov 26, 2018)

> If you're viewing in a browser you can drag-select only the text you want and you'll get an option to either add it to the saved list of quotes or to reply immediately. It's pretty handy. I agree it's annoying the way it grabs the entire history of nested quotes by default, which gets unreadable pretty quickly. But the shortcut above mostly makes it tolerable IMO


Thanks!  Just tried it, and it might be a quicker alternative.  Previously, I've only see PMs stack the messages,and it's annoying.


----------



## Flopper (Nov 26, 2018)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*NO.
One person's liberty ends where another begins. Just as crying fire in a crowded auditorium is not protected by the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to own tanks, surface to air missiles, and nuclear bombs.

People often confuse freedoms with rights. Rights are freedoms guaranteed in the constitution.  Americans enjoys many freedoms not protected by the US Constitution such as, freedom of travel, freedom to marry, freedom to be judged by a jury of your peers, right to privacy, freedom of expression, etc.  So many of the freedoms we have in America are not guaranteed by the US constitution, however some are guaranteed at the state level. The implication of the aphorism that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do is simple not stated in any constitution or law, yet so many people actually believe this.

Probably the most glaring violation of constitutional rights have occurred when the federal government takes actions to defend the nation.      *


----------



## Flopper (Nov 26, 2018)

debbiedowner said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > debbiedowner said:
> ...


I don't know how you can easily see all replies to your posts.  If there is a way, I would like to know how to do it.  It would save a lot time.


----------



## dblack (Nov 26, 2018)

Flopper said:


> Americans enjoys many freedoms not protected by the US Constitution such as, freedom of travel, freedom to marry, freedom to be judged by a jury of your peers, right to privacy, freedom of expression, etc.  So many of the freedoms we have in America are not guaranteed by the US constitution...



Nope.

Check out the Ninth Amendment. (see: Bill of Rights).


----------



## RogerThat (Dec 7, 2018)

SmokeALib said:


> I'm a conservative.
> But even I realize that our health Care system is screwed.
> Pharmacutical companies are gouging us out of our retirement savings.
> Insurance companies are gouging us out of our 401k's.
> ...



"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly."

Government oversight is not the problem. I love my Country, but fear my Government. The Government is run by humans. Until that changes it is in our nature to be corrupt in power, greed and every other evil inclination that makes our nature dominate all weaker species of life. Please dont read the following thinking AI will fix, or take over...AI will be programmed and sustained by corrutable humans, for corruptable human 'needs'. 

The health insurance casino, pharmaceutical, lobbyist, naturalists, whatever the 'ist', is; if your human, your corrupt and destined to fight those identities that seek to over-power and dominate you. Save the planet, save the whales, save the humans... all corruption ridden campaigns run by inherently corrupted humans. If a tiger was give a choice between steaks and carrots... the tiger is going to eat stakes. It's not a bad kitty, it is just the nature of the kitty. So rather than being a victim, or offering more steaks, fight back with the only thing the kitty understands... no more steak.

We do not need more human regulation, we need less. Then respond to the government, insurance, doctors, lawyers and every other human corrupted organization with the only thing they understand, deprivation. Dont feed the kitty. When the kitty gets hungry it will either attack its handlers, the weak, or find another food source. No one said it was easy, when are only human. 

I make a decent wage, and this last insurance racket installment cycle they raised our deductables yet again. If you step back, the insurance companies are much like the student loan industry and their effects on tuition. Student loans cover the costs of higher education, so higher education raises the cost of tuition.... why? it's not because they increased the quality of the education, practicle skills, or increased the cognition of higher thinking...not at all, if anything they lowered them and increased the lobbying for the institution to get brain numb humans in to make them feel entitled because of the penance they paid (or, somebody paid). Why...? because these institutions are governed by humans. 

Human institutions are rotted in greed, that force subservient humans to seek alternatives...(don't think your subservient...get the flu and shut off your breaker box in the winter and ditch your car keys)

The only thing any human governed institution will understand, is supply and demand. Healthcare and the insurance of it falls into the darkest domains of humanity and exemplifies our primal nature of survival of the fittest. It is no different than any other human corruptible concept. Look at what happened and is happening to the cable industry and as the phone companies before them...enter media streaming and as ISPs supporting choice and affordability. Eventually, human nature will take over and will become corrupted (regulated) and human prey will continue to seek other safe alternatives to gain Information.

As stated, I pay 'premium'-prices for 'insurance' for my family, without any assurance it will cover much at all, or that I will be able to 'cover' the criminal deductables (hedged bets), medical service costs, or the cassiono house odds of medical codes being even 'accepted'-againts the house rules.

For me and my family, I cannot afford the increasing expenses of health care (medical, vision, dental....all corrupt). I have no choice but to speak alternatives for survival. HSA...ha-joke, 'Christian-backed... bigger scheme' (being a Christian, I know I'm forgiven - so trusting other forgiven Christian's, is joke in itself)


In the end we are only human. We may love, desire, trust, communicate, and 'support' humanity. The only thing I know I have control over is what knowledge I have, and what resource are in my hand today. Humanity in itself is limited by our inherent human nature of succession through domination of all weaker life


----------



## blenkins90 (Dec 23, 2018)

Anyone with thoughts on the whole thing about getting your prescription meds from Canada? Why do pharmaceutical companies have so much leverage on pricing?


----------

