Compared to capitalism, what has socialism and communism ever produced or manufactured?

[Uncensored2008]

Now, I do believe in a free market but that does not mean an unfettered free market is right for all sectors of economy or even most sectors.

If the goal of healthcare is to provide all Americans the healthcare services they need without driving families to the brink of bankruptcy, then the free market has proven to be a disaster. The best solution is private sector healthcare providers and government as the major insurer and private insurance providing supplemental insurance.

Other areas where the free market was a failure includes auto safety, the drug industry, and protecting the environment. In fact, most any segment of the economy where high corporate profits requires damage to the health, environment, or the social structure of America there is need for government regulations.

Let me see if I've got this straight; so medical care was affordable until the early 1980's, with middle class people able to pay cash for routine care. During the 80's a combination of Unions and Government took over medical care and we had the rise of Kaiser, Pacific Care and Ross Lous , which replaced the general practitioner. The payment of care by government and employers divorced the costs of care from those seeking care. By the mid-90's medical care was impossible without a health care plan, which hadn't existed in the 60's and 70's - when you could pay for care out of pocket.

But this is a failure of the market? So the market failed when government took over the market?

Well, then obviously the only answer is MORE GOVERNMENT.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism could command economies to build new Cities in more optimal locations and make them more efficient and market friendly from Intelligent Design.

 

[dudmuck]

Now, I do believe in a free market but that does not mean an unfettered free market is right for all sectors of economy or even most sectors.

If the goal of healthcare is to provide all Americans the healthcare services they need without driving families to the brink of bankruptcy, then the free market has proven to be a disaster. The best solution is private sector healthcare providers and government as the major insurer and private insurance providing supplemental insurance.

Other areas where the free market was a failure includes auto safety, the drug industry, and protecting the environment. In fact, most any segment of the economy where high corporate profits requires damage to the health, environment, or the social structure of America there is need for government regulations.

Let me see if I've got this straight; so medical care was affordable until the early 1980's, with middle class people able to pay cash for routine care. During the 80's a combination of Unions and Government took over medical care and we had the rise of Kaiser, Pacific Care and Ross Lous , which replaced the general practitioner. The payment of care by government and employers divorced the costs of care from those seeking care. By the mid-90's medical care was impossible without a health care plan, which hadn't existed in the 60's and 70's - when you could pay for care out of pocket.

But this is a failure of the market? So the market failed when government took over the market?

Well, then obviously the only answer is MORE GOVERNMENT.

more middlemen

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those ARE socialist things my friend.

If it ain't free market...it's socialist and none of those things are free market

No stupid fuck, they are not.

My god but you're fucking stupid.

The middle class is a uniquely American occurrence, given rise by the Market Revolution. ( How Did the Market Revolution Change America ) I get that you're uneducated and dumb as a lamp post, but the rest of us are not the stupid fucks that you are. Specialization combined with free markets provided the opportunity for private enterprise to produce more than needed for subsistence for the first time in history, allowing farmers and tradesmen to accumulate hard currency, educate their children, and pass inheritance on to subsequent generations.

That has nothing to do with the fact that huge chunks of the infra structure that helped us utilize those inventions...were built by tax dollars THROUGH GOVERNMENT ACTIONS... that's "socialism" my stupid loudmouthed friend.

And that doesn't even touch on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the VA and worker safety rules and the 40 hour week and the EPA and the FDA

and on and on...ya dumb bastard

^^^^^^^^^^ Dumbfuck bleats that roads are "socialist"

You can't make this shit up!

Hey dumbass...a "free market road" would be a privately owned toll road.

Ownership of the means of production, stupid fuck.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They targeted SOCIALISTS, you functionally illiterate idiot.

Did Stalin target anyone for BEING a socialist?

No?

Hitler sure did. You stupid fuk

Yes, Stalin targeted Trotsky and his people for BEING socialists you fucking retard.

 

[Lesh]

Yes, Stalin targeted Trotsky and his people for BEING socialists you fucking retard.

Post a link. Not that you'd lie...but yea..ya would

 

[deanrd]

Compared to capitalism, what has socialism and communism ever produced or manufactured?

Trump's boss, Putin.

 

[Lesh]

Ownership of the means of production, stupid fuck.

Roads aren't part of the production chain?

You stupid fuck

 

[Flopper]

Now, I do believe in a free market but that does not mean an unfettered free market is right for all sectors of economy or even most sectors.

If the goal of healthcare is to provide all Americans the healthcare services they need without driving families to the brink of bankruptcy, then the free market has proven to be a disaster. The best solution is private sector healthcare providers and government as the major insurer and private insurance providing supplemental insurance.

Other areas where the free market was a failure includes auto safety, the drug industry, and protecting the environment. In fact, most any segment of the economy where high corporate profits requires damage to the health, environment, or the social structure of America there is need for government regulations.

Let me see if I've got this straight; so medical care was affordable until the early 1980's, with middle class people able to pay cash for routine care. During the 80's a combination of Unions and Government took over medical care and we had the rise of Kaiser, Pacific Care and Ross Lous , which replaced the general practitioner. The payment of care by government and employers divorced the costs of care from those seeking care. By the mid-90's medical care was impossible without a health care plan, which hadn't existed in the 60's and 70's - when you could pay for care out of pocket.

But this is a failure of the market? So the market failed when government took over the market?

Well, then obviously the only answer is MORE GOVERNMENT.

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ownership of the means of production, stupid fuck.

Roads aren't part of the production chain?

You stupid fuck

My god you're fucking stupid.

Roads are infrastructure.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

 

[Flopper]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

Do you actually know what doctor's bill. Last year, my wife and I made over 75 trips to doctors, hospitals, or other healthcare providers. There was never a bill for as much as $500 for a 20 min office visit which is just about how long you would spend with an ENT to get a prescription. I just saw a claim for my wife's 35 min office visit with her pulmonolgist. The billing amount was $252. The insurer paid 88.93 and I paid $22.37 for a total of $111.30. Had she gone to her GP, the costs would have been significantly less. How about not grossly exaggerating. It doesn't help your claim.

The actually billing for an aspirin or Tylenol in a the hospital would be about $35. I saw it on a claim in Dec. The real cost is not the pill. It's the personnel cost. The nurse whose cost to the hospital is about $60/hr has to check the patient's chart and probably check with a doctor who cost the hospital $100/hr. If the nurse doesn't have the pills, she has to be order it from the pharmacy like all medications and someone has to delivery it. To that cost the hospital has to add their overhead. However, neither the insurance company nor the patient pays for it directly. It's folded into overhead of the hospital which is included in the cost of the room.

Catastrophic health insurance is a great idea for people that are in good health and can actually afford to pay the deductible. Premium are actually affordable. My son in Florida is single and has a high deductible plan. It think the deductible is about $25,000 and he pays about $110/mo.

A high deductible plan or any health insurance which has contracted rates with providers (a network) is a huge benefit even if you have not met your deductible. When you are in the deductible phase, the healthcare provider submits a claim to your insurance company for the contracted amount for the service which is what you pay. This can save 25% to 50% or more of the provider's bill. When you're billed you will be billed at the contracted amount, the amount the provider would receive from the insurance company and the patient's copay or coinsurance.

 

[basquebromance]

A poor Swede is much more likely to become middle class than a poor American is. We can learn from Sweden, but the lesson is not what many people think.

Opinion | How to Think About Taxing and Spending Like a Swede

 

[francoHFW]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

Do you actually know what doctor's bill. Last year, my wife and I made over 75 trips to doctors, hospitals, or other healthcare providers. There was never a bill for as much as $500 for a 20 min office visit which is just about how long you would spend with an ENT to get a prescription. I just saw a claim for my wife's 35 min office visit with her pulmonolgist. The billing amount was $252. The insurer paid 88.93 and I paid $22.37 for a total of $111.30. Had she gone to her GP, the costs would have been significantly less. How about not grossly exaggerating. It doesn't help your claim.

The actually billing for an aspirin or Tylenol in a the hospital would be about $35. I saw it on a claim in Dec. The real cost is not the pill. It's the personnel cost. The nurse whose cost to the hospital is about $60/hr has to check the patient's chart and probably check with a doctor who cost the hospital $100/hr. If the nurse doesn't have the pills, she has to be order it from the pharmacy like all medications and someone has to delivery it. To that cost the hospital has to add their overhead. However, neither the insurance company nor the patient pays for it directly. It's folded into overhead of the hospital which is included in the cost of the room.

Catastrophic health insurance is a great idea for people that are in good health and can actually afford to pay the deductible. Premium are actually affordable. My son in Florida is single and has a high deductible plan. It think the deductible is about $25,000 and he pays about $110/mo.

A high deductible plan or any health insurance which has contracted rates with providers (a network) is a huge benefit even if you have not met your deductible. When you are in the deductible phase, the healthcare provider submits a claim to your insurance company for the contracted amount for the service which is what you pay. This can save 25% to 50% or more of the provider's bill. When you're billed you will be billed at the contracted amount, the amount the provider would receive from the insurance company and the patient's copay or coinsurance.

$25,000? What happened to aca's out-of-pocket limit?

 

[bripat9643]

A poor Swede is much more likely to become middle class than a poor American is. We can learn from Sweden, but the lesson is not what many people think.

Opinion | How to Think About Taxing and Spending Like a Swede

Evidence?

 

[Ambivalent1]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

Do you actually know what doctor's bill. Last year, my wife and I made over 75 trips to doctors, hospitals, or other healthcare providers. There was never a bill for as much as $500 for a 20 min office visit which is just about how long you would spend with an ENT to get a prescription. I just saw a claim for my wife's 35 min office visit with her pulmonolgist. The billing amount was $252. The insurer paid 88.93 and I paid $22.37 for a total of $111.30. Had she gone to her GP, the costs would have been significantly less. How about not grossly exaggerating. It doesn't help your claim.

The actually billing for an aspirin or Tylenol in a the hospital would be about $35. I saw it on a claim in Dec. The real cost is not the pill. It's the personnel cost. The nurse whose cost to the hospital is about $60/hr has to check the patient's chart and probably check with a doctor who cost the hospital $100/hr. If the nurse doesn't have the pills, she has to be order it from the pharmacy like all medications and someone has to delivery it. To that cost the hospital has to add their overhead. However, neither the insurance company nor the patient pays for it directly. It's folded into overhead of the hospital which is included in the cost of the room.

Catastrophic health insurance is a great idea for people that are in good health and can actually afford to pay the deductible. Premium are actually affordable. My son in Florida is single and has a high deductible plan. It think the deductible is about $25,000 and he pays about $110/mo.

A high deductible plan or any health insurance which has contracted rates with providers (a network) is a huge benefit even if you have not met your deductible. When you are in the deductible phase, the healthcare provider submits a claim to your insurance company for the contracted amount for the service which is what you pay. This can save 25% to 50% or more of the provider's bill. When you're billed you will be billed at the contracted amount, the amount the provider would receive from the insurance company and the patient's copay or coinsurance.

$25,000? What happened to aca's out-of-pocket limit?

Include the Premiums dumbass.

 

[francoHFW]

A poor Swede is much more likely to become middle class than a poor American is. We can learn from Sweden, but the lesson is not what many people think.

Opinion | How to Think About Taxing and Spending Like a Swede

Well I couldn't read that because I reached my limit but it's what I go on about all the time. All the GOP cares about the last 38 years is cutting taxes on the rich and cutting services for everyone else. We're getting dumber and dumber and college and training have gotten ridiculously expensive. We are the only rich country that doesn't have health care daycare good infrastructure good vacations also because of the GOP and its dupes...

 

[Pilot1]

Misery
Poverty
Totalitarian Oppression
Flood of hostile "migrants" that don't want to assimilate
Higher Taxes
Higher cost of living
Lower standard of living
Shortages on everything
Rationed healthcare
National pessimism

 

[francoHFW]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

Do you actually know what doctor's bill. Last year, my wife and I made over 75 trips to doctors, hospitals, or other healthcare providers. There was never a bill for as much as $500 for a 20 min office visit which is just about how long you would spend with an ENT to get a prescription. I just saw a claim for my wife's 35 min office visit with her pulmonolgist. The billing amount was $252. The insurer paid 88.93 and I paid $22.37 for a total of $111.30. Had she gone to her GP, the costs would have been significantly less. How about not grossly exaggerating. It doesn't help your claim.

The actually billing for an aspirin or Tylenol in a the hospital would be about $35. I saw it on a claim in Dec. The real cost is not the pill. It's the personnel cost. The nurse whose cost to the hospital is about $60/hr has to check the patient's chart and probably check with a doctor who cost the hospital $100/hr. If the nurse doesn't have the pills, she has to be order it from the pharmacy like all medications and someone has to delivery it. To that cost the hospital has to add their overhead. However, neither the insurance company nor the patient pays for it directly. It's folded into overhead of the hospital which is included in the cost of the room.

Catastrophic health insurance is a great idea for people that are in good health and can actually afford to pay the deductible. Premium are actually affordable. My son in Florida is single and has a high deductible plan. It think the deductible is about $25,000 and he pays about $110/mo.

A high deductible plan or any health insurance which has contracted rates with providers (a network) is a huge benefit even if you have not met your deductible. When you are in the deductible phase, the healthcare provider submits a claim to your insurance company for the contracted amount for the service which is what you pay. This can save 25% to 50% or more of the provider's bill. When you're billed you will be billed at the contracted amount, the amount the provider would receive from the insurance company and the patient's copay or coinsurance.

$25,000? What happened to aca's out-of-pocket limit?

Include the Premiums dumbass.

You said he pays $110 a month that's 1300 a year and the out-of-pocket limits is about 7,000 I believe. So you are full of s***.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Of course the cost of medical care was low 50 or 60 years ago because effective treatments for most serious diseases did not even exist then.

While what you claim is false, it is also irrelevant. If you have an ear infection and need antibiotics, it will cost you $400 to $500 for an office visit. Then whatever the prescription cost is.

Basic, routine treatment is out of reach to a consumer, because government and employers pay into massive "health care plans" that are designed to ensure that health care is not available to consumers. There is no market. People think the copay that comes out of their pocket is the cost, but it isn't.

There is no connection between the cost of medical care and the value of services provided, which results in the flat out rape of consumers by the massive medical providers.

In 1960 the treatment for a heart attack was almost nothing compared to today. You rested in a hospital were given a few medication, were sent home with some nitroglycerin pills, and instructed to rest which meant take it easy while waiting for your next heart attack. There were no MRIs or other tools to see into the heart or arteries. There were no heart lung machines to make open heart surgery safe. And of course there were no artificial hearts, nor were their heart transplants, angioplasty for removing blockages, or effective cholesterol drugs. The story is much the same with other big ticket diseases such as cancer.

You've convinced me that catastrophic insurance is needed, yet 98% of medical care has nothing to do with catastrophic illness. Oh, and the silver plan Obamacare patient would be lucky to get the nitroglycerin. More likely they would be charged $1,000 for and aspirin and sent home to die.

Yep, medical cost were really low in those days. A few trips to the doctor to monitor the progression of the disease, pain killers, and waiting at home to die really saved on medical cost.

The first heart transplant was in 1971. Your claims that modern medicine began with Obama and socialized medicine is, shall we say "suspect."

Do you actually know what doctor's bill. Last year, my wife and I made over 75 trips to doctors, hospitals, or other healthcare providers. There was never a bill for as much as $500 for a 20 min office visit which is just about how long you would spend with an ENT to get a prescription. I just saw a claim for my wife's 35 min office visit with her pulmonolgist. The billing amount was $252. The insurer paid 88.93 and I paid $22.37 for a total of $111.30. Had she gone to her GP, the costs would have been significantly less. How about not grossly exaggerating. It doesn't help your claim.

The actually billing for an aspirin or Tylenol in a the hospital would be about $35. I saw it on a claim in Dec. The real cost is not the pill. It's the personnel cost. The nurse whose cost to the hospital is about $60/hr has to check the patient's chart and probably check with a doctor who cost the hospital $100/hr. If the nurse doesn't have the pills, she has to be order it from the pharmacy like all medications and someone has to delivery it. To that cost the hospital has to add their overhead. However, neither the insurance company nor the patient pays for it directly. It's folded into overhead of the hospital which is included in the cost of the room.

Catastrophic health insurance is a great idea for people that are in good health and can actually afford to pay the deductible. Premium are actually affordable. My son in Florida is single and has a high deductible plan. It think the deductible is about $25,000 and he pays about $110/mo.

A high deductible plan or any health insurance which has contracted rates with providers (a network) is a huge benefit even if you have not met your deductible. When you are in the deductible phase, the healthcare provider submits a claim to your insurance company for the contracted amount for the service which is what you pay. This can save 25% to 50% or more of the provider's bill. When you're billed you will be billed at the contracted amount, the amount the provider would receive from the insurance company and the patient's copay or coinsurance.

$25,000? What happened to aca's out-of-pocket limit?

Include the Premiums dumbass.

You said he pays $110 a month that's 1300 a year and the out-of-pocket limits is about 7,000 I believe. So you are full of s***.

I never said any of that so you once again are an abject liar.