BajaNomad

ACA - Obamacare?

 Pages:  1  

Mula - 12-13-2013 at 06:01 AM

Just wondering how other expats are thinking about the pending Obamacare coverage?

We are out of the US 330 days a year and have Seguro Popular here which we are happy with and have no immediate intention of returning to live in the US.

I have found this from the Surviving the Yucatan board:
http://yucalandia.com/living-in-yucatan-mexico/aca-obamacare...

Any comments?

Pescador - 12-13-2013 at 09:02 AM

That was a good report with some good information. We know that the availability of services is for those under medicare is going to diminish, especially when the reimbursement rates continue to go down. The much touted savings of 758 billion in Medicare can easily be translated into less money for the doctors and hospitals who accept Medicare patients. Already there have been reports of up to 40% of hospitals and doctors who are giving up seeing Medicare patients because of lowering reimbursement rates. It gets worse as you go to lower reimbursement rates of Medicaid and MediCal. During the transition, I have opted to keep my Medicare coverage (part A and part B) in effect and have opted to carry a Medicare supplement (High F) with Blue Cross and Blue Shield which gives me a yearly deductible of $2,000 for my supplement. For that I only pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $39 a month. ( I am sure that will go up)
So for Mexico, I carry Seguros Popular for the small stuff and am well aware of the limitations of trying to get any services out of that program. Same kind of social medicine program. Lets get everyone signed up so that politically we can say we cover everyone in Mexico, but we do not have enough money to pay any of the doctors or provide any real dent in prescriptions. I can get in to see a doctor but usually don't choose to wait for 3 or 4 hours in the waiting room of our local facility. So, instead, I pay a private doctor when I need something and find the rates and treatment more than satisfactory. One of the expats in our small village had a bladder reconstruction done by the same doc and it was less than it would have been to pay the deductible in the US.

I have several good friends who are specialists in the medical field in Tijuana and they claim that they are gearing up to accept more and more Norteamericanos for treatments and surgeries that they see as more difficult to obtain in the US with the new Obamacare taking over. While it is certainly too early to tell how that will work out, it is true, historically, that when a vacuum is created in one area, someone will figure out a way to provide a needed service in another area.

An example of this is that they are closing down the Shriner's hospital in Los Angeles because it has become prohibitively expensive to operate in the US. By moving the facility to Tijuana under the direction of my friend who is a renowed Childrens Orthopaedic Surgeon, they are able to service a much larger population of children with the same level of service at a significantly lower cost.

Bajajorge - 12-13-2013 at 09:37 AM

I'd answer about Obamacare, but it would probably be sent over to the "Off Topic" forum.
:barf:IMO

dasubergeek - 12-13-2013 at 09:44 AM

Wow. I hadn't thought about that... and what crap. If you've got Seguro Popular, that ought to count—and the US government has exactly f@$#-all to say about foreign plans' worthiness.

apple - 12-13-2013 at 11:42 AM

If you don't live in the USA for most of the year, you are exempt from the minuscule penalty for not having health insurance.

I am a supporter of the ACA

sequoyah - 12-13-2013 at 12:17 PM

which, based on some of the replies here, seems like it may be an unpopular position.

I have purchased insurance through the exchange and now have coverage for the first time in 8 years.

I realize that I probably can't use it outside of the US except in an emergency, but I plan to establish my medical care in the US and travel there when I need to.

The penalty is not an issue - it's small and I want the insurance anyway, but the yucalandia article linked above appears accurate and comprehensive in terms of ex-pats who are out of the country over 330 days a year or have established residency elsewhere.

Ateo - 12-13-2013 at 12:26 PM

My current policy is being cancelled. My new one will be $300 more. I still support the idea of universal healthcare.

oxxo - 12-13-2013 at 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
My current policy is being cancelled. My new one will be $300 more.


Is that $300 more per month or per year? Does that $300 include increased coverage that was not included in your cancelled policy, which probably did not include the new minimum coverage standards.

Quote:
I still support the idea of universal healthcare.


I support universal healthcare too, like my Kaiser Senior Advantage plan. Instead President Obama floated the Republican version of health care reform to try to get consensus, which is better than nothing, but a far cry from perfect.

My Kaiser Senior Advantage plan premium ($100 per month comes out of my Soc Sec check) remains the same for 2014. Some co-pays have gone up for 2014 while others have gone down, so it comes out a wash. Kaiser has also included several new, no cost preventive care services for 2014.

I am willing to have my premiums increase if it means that fewer of my tax dollars are spent in the emergency room on the uninsured. Presently, about one million people who previously had no coverage have signed up with the ACA.

[Edited on 12-13-2013 by oxxo]

Ateo - 12-13-2013 at 01:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
My current policy is being cancelled. My new one will be $300 more.


Is that $300 more per month or per year? Does that $300 include increased coverage that was not included in your cancelled policy, which probably did not include the new minimum coverage standards.

Quote:
I still support the idea of universal healthcare.


I support universal healthcare too, like my Kaiser Senior Advantage plan. Instead President Obama floated the Republican version of health care reform to try to get consensus, which is better than nothing, but a far cry from perfect.

My Kaiser Senior Advantage plan premium ($100 per month comes out of my Soc Sec check) remains the same for 2014. Some co-pays have gone up for 2014 while others have gone down, so it comes out a wash. Kaiser has also included several new, no cost preventive care services for 2014.

I am willing to have my premiums increase if it means that fewer of my tax dollars are spent in the emergency room on the uninsured. Presently, about one million people who previously had no coverage have signed up with the ACA.

[Edited on 12-13-2013 by oxxo]


$300 more each month. I'll let you know more once I take a look at the papers.

tripledigitken - 12-13-2013 at 01:31 PM

Ateo,

Was there any change to the deductable as well?

Ken

danaeb - 12-13-2013 at 01:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lencho

For what it's worth, I saw something that made me question whether the ACA exchanges will accept someone over 65, so my guess is that is not an alternative to Medicare...


You are correct. The ACA is for the currently uninsured, or for those whose current insurance does not meet the ACA minimum requirements.

Barry A. - 12-13-2013 at 03:03 PM

Not sure if this is appropriate to this thread, but for comparison I offer the following--------??

I live in the USA.

My wife and I are on Medicare Parts A & B, and as a Retired Fed. Employee I have my FEHB (fed emp health benefit) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Health Insurance secondary to Medicare, and it covers both my wife and myself.

Our total 2014 monthly premiums for both my wife and I ---Part B Medicare -----equals $419.60 / mo.

Our total monthly premium for my 2014 FEHB Blue Cross for the two of us equals $444.12. (no vision or dental ins. included)

Total monthly premiums = $863.72

There are no "co-pays" so pay nothing additional when visiting a doctor. (we pay only premiums)

The only deductable we pay (as near as I can figure) is $147 per year for Medicare Part B (a strange amount???)

The Medicare Part B premium IS means-tested based on income, and is higher than normal (like twice the normal amount) for both my wife and I.

Barry

wessongroup - 12-13-2013 at 03:38 PM

About the same here Barry, we have dental and vision ... but, we both got a decease in SS .. :biggrin::biggrin::lol::lol:

[Edited on 12-13-2013 by wessongroup]

oxxo - 12-13-2013 at 07:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
but, we both got a decease in SS .. :biggrin::biggrin::lol::lol:

[Edited on 12-13-2013 by wessongroup]


That's odd! I just got a notice yesterday that I am getting a $25 per month increase in Soc Sec. (with no increase in my $100 per month contribution to Kaiser Senior Advantage). I guess it depends on how you are registered to vote! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

oxxo - 12-13-2013 at 08:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

Our total 2014 monthly premiums for both my wife and I ---Part B Medicare -----equals $419.60 / mo.

Our total monthly premium for my 2014 FEHB Blue Cross for the two of us equals $444.12. (no vision or dental ins. included)

Total monthly premiums = $863.72

There are no "co-pays" so pay nothing additional when visiting a doctor. (we pay only premiums)

The only deductable we pay (as near as I can figure) is $147 per year for Medicare Part B (a strange amount???)


Barry, Blue Cross does not fare well when compared to a progressive company like Kaiser. Check the Consumer Reports ratings for a start. I realize that you think that Blue Cross is a "free" benefit of your Federal employment, but you do have other options since Kaiser is offered in NorCal. However, I think that Kaiser has closed the open enrollment until November of next year.

Our Kaiser Senior Advantage plan does include vision but not dental. We could include dental at an extra cost, but it is not worth it to us. We take good care of our teeth on a daily basis. Blue Cross appears to be a high cost method of insurance coverage for those over 65 (and that includes AARP's United Healthcare too) when compared to Kaiser. Kaiser is rated first by Consumers Reports.

Yes, we do have co-pays with Kaiser that you don't have but we do not have $663 of co-pays per month (your $863 versus our $200 per month for everything but dental for two premiums). Our co-pays for two of us (annual mammograms were just added as a no cost service by Kaiser/wife loves Kaiser even more than I do) total less than $200 per YEAR!!!!!!!!!!. Doctors visits are $15 co-pay. We have an excellent Kaiser primary care physician....he even speaks Spanish if I insist! We had a choice of about 20 different Kaiser primary care physicians to pick from. We made a good choice. In fact my Kaiser ENT specialist ($15 co-pay per visit once a year) is originally from your area, Redding. He threw in the towel of private practice a few years ago and is making more money with Kaiser. He is a believer.

Barry you need to do your "due diligence" and compare your program to others that are offered in your area. I think you can save a lot of money.

BornFisher - 12-13-2013 at 08:57 PM

Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?

Bajaboy - 12-13-2013 at 09:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:

BornFisher - 12-13-2013 at 09:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:


OK help me out here. So are you saying if you chose not to have an automobile, you still are required to buy auto insurance?
Let me help you out--- when you buy a car, you have to buy insurance. If you are just born and exist in this country, and choose not to buy a car, you do not have to buy auto insurance.
With the ACA, if you are born here and exist, you HAVE to buy health care insurance. What ever happened to free choice??
Bottom line-- You can choose to buy a vehicle. When you do, you have to also buy insurance. You choose if you can afford both or not.
Now, all people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine ($600 by 2016). There`s a huge difference.

oxxo - 12-13-2013 at 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
With the ACA, if you are born here and exist, you HAVE to buy health care insurance. What ever happened to free choice??


The free choice is if you don't have insurance and you get sick, then the taxpayer has to pay for your care. Some "free choice." No thanks.

Yes, if you are born here and exist you are now required to get insurance rather than expecting the tax payer to pay for your health care. Whatever happened to individual responsibility? The US is one of the last developed nations to require health care for its citizens. It makes me proud to be American. :lol:

Bajaboy - 12-13-2013 at 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:



OK help me out here. So are you saying if you chose not to have an automobile, you still are required to buy auto insurance?
Let me help you out--- when you buy a car, you have to buy insurance. If you are just born and exist in this country, and choose not to buy a car, you do not have to buy auto insurance.
With the ACA, if you are born here and exist, you HAVE to buy health care insurance. What ever happened to free choice??
Bottom line-- You can choose to buy a vehicle. When you do, you have to also buy insurance. You choose if you can afford both or not.
Now, all people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine ($600 by 2016). There`s a huge difference.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Paula - 12-13-2013 at 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?



Because we live in Montana, and don't fit in a pool there, my husband is currently paying $1900 per month for private insurance, and he has a $10,000 deductible. By taking the time to get through the early problems with the ACA website, he has purchased a better plan for just over $500 per month with a smaller deductible and lower out-of-pocket.

The policies that are being lost due to Obamacare are unsound. 75% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical expenses incurred by people who had insurance. Something is wrong here, and Obamacare is a first step in fixing it. A single payer system would have been better, as private insurance companies are in business to maximize profit, not to help people. They use immoral and inhumane practices to enrich executives and stockholders. We would all be better off without them.

Medical Insurance

bajaguy - 12-13-2013 at 10:45 PM

Medicare part A and Part B....total cost $104/month

United Healthcare Medicare supplemental plan "F", no deductable $132/month

Wellcare Medicare Plan D (RX), no deductable $44/month

Total........$280/month

Barry A. - 12-13-2013 at 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Medicare part A and Part B....total cost $104/month

United Healthcare Medicare supplemental plan "F", no deductable $132/month

Wellcare Medicare Plan D (RX), no deductable $44/month

Total........$280/month


(1) Are there any "co-pays"?

(2) Does this plan cover only you?

If not, then it is about what I am paying to cover my wife and me, and with my means-tested Medicare Part A & B being $210 a month more than you have to pay.

Barry

bajaguy - 12-13-2013 at 11:03 PM

Forgot to mention that I am not restricted to any geographical area, can go to any Dr or Hospital and most any pharmacy in the US


No co-pays, covers just me


Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Medicare part A and Part B....total cost $104/month

United Healthcare Medicare supplemental plan "F", no deductable $132/month

Wellcare Medicare Plan D (RX), no deductable $44/month

Total........$280/month


(1) Are there any "co-pays"?

(2) Does this plan cover only you?

If not, then it is about what I am paying to cover my wife and me, and with my means-tested Medicare Part A & B being $210 a month more than you have to pay.

Barry


[Edited on 12-14-2013 by bajaguy]

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

Our total 2014 monthly premiums for both my wife and I ---Part B Medicare -----equals $419.60 / mo.

Our total monthly premium for my 2014 FEHB Blue Cross for the two of us equals $444.12. (no vision or dental ins. included)

Total monthly premiums = $863.72

There are no "co-pays" so pay nothing additional when visiting a doctor. (we pay only premiums)

The only deductable we pay (as near as I can figure) is $147 per year for Medicare Part B (a strange amount???)


Barry, Blue Cross does not fare well when compared to a progressive company like Kaiser. Check the Consumer Reports ratings for a start. I realize that you think that Blue Cross is a "free" benefit of your Federal employment, but you do have other options since Kaiser is offered in NorCal. However, I think that Kaiser has closed the open enrollment until November of next year.

Our Kaiser Senior Advantage plan does include vision but not dental. We could include dental at an extra cost, but it is not worth it to us. We take good care of our teeth on a daily basis. Blue Cross appears to be a high cost method of insurance coverage for those over 65 (and that includes AARP's United Healthcare too) when compared to Kaiser. Kaiser is rated first by Consumers Reports.

Yes, we do have co-pays with Kaiser that you don't have but we do not have $663 of co-pays per month (your $863 versus our $200 per month for everything but dental for two premiums). Our co-pays for two of us (annual mammograms were just added as a no cost service by Kaiser/wife loves Kaiser even more than I do) total less than $200 per YEAR!!!!!!!!!!. Doctors visits are $15 co-pay. We have an excellent Kaiser primary care physician....he even speaks Spanish if I insist! We had a choice of about 20 different Kaiser primary care physicians to pick from. We made a good choice. In fact my Kaiser ENT specialist ($15 co-pay per visit once a year) is originally from your area, Redding. He threw in the towel of private practice a few years ago and is making more money with Kaiser. He is a believer.

Barry you need to do your "due diligence" and compare your program to others that are offered in your area. I think you can save a lot of money.


Oxxo-------great post, and I truly appreciate it. I have looked into Kaiser Permanente based on info from you many months (yrs?) ago on the same subject. Unfortunately this is what I run into when I look into Kaiser for the Redding, CA Area-----

"Thank you for considering Kaiser Permanente. We currently do not offer health care coverage in your area. To find the coverage you need, please visit your state's Health Insurance Marketplace."

I believe the nearest Kaiser plan-coverage is Sacramento, 180 miles to our south.

Our BLUE CROSS insurance costs us $444.12 a month in 2014----the rest of our Health Care premiums are for Medicare Parts A and B and currently are $419 a month for the two of us, thus the total premium of $863 per month.

Thanks again for your help--------the Kaiser Plan looks great, I admit!!!

Barry

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

"Thank you for considering Kaiser Permanente. We currently do not offer health care coverage in your area. To find the coverage you need, please visit your state's Health Insurance Marketplace."

I believe the nearest Kaiser plan-coverage is Sacramento, 180 miles to our south.


Barry, I forgot that we had discussed this before. I drink margaritas as a prophylactic for CRS but it appears that it is not helping and I probably need to increase the dosage! :lol:

Kaiser is the prototype of what a truly comprehensive, "single payer" health care program could look like here in the US. The ACA is just a first baby step in that direction. The idea is low cost universal health care. I have talked to several doctors in the Kaiser system, both primary care and specialists, and without exception they love it at Kaiser. They all say they make less at Kaiser than in their private practices, but they have no overhead at Kaiser, less paperwork, no staff for which they are personally responsible and..........after three years at Kaiser they become eligible for profit sharing and that puts their income about equal to private practice. Somehow Kaiser finds a way to make reasonable profits while charging low premiums. Kaiser represents the best of American free enterprise system and a model for what the capitalism should look like.

Quote:
Our BLUE CROSS insurance costs us $444.12 a month in 2014----the rest of our Health Care premiums are for Medicare Parts A and B and currently are $419 a month for the two of us, thus the total premium of $863 per month.


Again, our total premium per month for both of us is $200 which includes primary care, specialists, vision, and medications - all with various copays. Our total copays per year for everything including medications is much less that you spend for one month of premiums. For example, this month has been a "high cost" month for my medications, they (four of them) came due at the same time. I will spend about $50 total in copays this month at the Kaiser Pharmacy, but those meds will last me anywhere from 3 to 6 months. And by way of full disclosure, I can purchase some medications at Costco for "retail" at a lower cost than my copay at Kaiser Pharmacy. It is my choice.

Here is a bonus! Kaiser covers me for medical emergencies (no pre-authorization required) while I live in Baja (or anywhere in the world).......including air evacuation if required! I know, I already had it happen! Total reimbursement less a $50 copay with no questions asked.

Comprehensive health care in the US still has a long way to go but with the ACA we are on our way!

durrelllrobert - 12-14-2013 at 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lencho
Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
I have opted to keep my Medicare coverage (part A and part B) in effect...
What are the implications of opting OUT of that after you've started?

For what it's worth, I saw something that made me question whether the ACA exchanges will accept someone over 65, so my guess is that is not an alternative to Medicare...


www.ask.com/How+Does+Medicare+Work‎

In 2013, Medicare provided health insurance to over 50 million Americans, and between 15%-20% of them were not 65. Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures. On average, Medicare covers about half of health care costs for enrollees. Medicare enrollees must cover the rest of the cost. These out-of-pocket costs vary depending on the amount of health care a Medicare enrollee needs. They might include uncovered services—such as long-term care, dental, hearing, and vision care—and supplemental insurance.[1]
__________________________________________________
... and the monthly premium (currently $104.90) is deducted from your social security benefit that was paid for by you and your employer as a payroll tax.

NOTHING CAN BE FREE so the question is how is the Federal Government going to get reimbursed for the 80% subsidy that the ACA will provide to 17 million Americans? (hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/11/05/aca-tax-subsidy‎)

Using the Canadian universal healthcare system as a baseline (not really fair since each Province has there own plan, just as each US state should do) the reimbursement will come in the form of major increases to all forms of Federal taxation, affecting all citizens, rich or poor.

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 12:01 PM

Oxxo---------that is the most convincing post or argument I have yet seen. I just assumed you were on Medicare-----bad assumption. I have a very Conservative Republican Doctor friend who has worked for Kaiser in the San Diego area for some time, and I believe he echo's everything you say if I understand him correctly. He is my age (75), and is even able to work part-time with Kaiser now that he is older and wants more spare time.

Very interesting-------maybe there is hope for true Health Care reform using models like Kaiser. We will see.

Thanks again.

Barry

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Quote:
Originally posted by lencho
Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
I have opted to keep my Medicare coverage (part A and part B) in effect...
What are the implications of opting OUT of that after you've started?

For what it's worth, I saw something that made me question whether the ACA exchanges will accept someone over 65, so my guess is that is not an alternative to Medicare...


www.ask.com/How+Does+Medicare+Work‎

In 2013, Medicare provided health insurance to over 50 million Americans, and between 15%-20% of them were not 65. Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures. On average, Medicare covers about half of health care costs for enrollees. Medicare enrollees must cover the rest of the cost. These out-of-pocket costs vary depending on the amount of health care a Medicare enrollee needs. They might include uncovered services—such as long-term care, dental, hearing, and vision care—and supplemental insurance.[1]
__________________________________________________
... and the monthly premium (currently $104.90) is deducted from your social security benefit that was paid for by you and your employer as a payroll tax.

NOTHING CAN BE FREE so the question is how is the Federal Government going to get reimbursed for the 80% subsidy that the ACA will provide to 17 million Americans? (hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/11/05/aca-tax-subsidy‎)

Using the Canadian universal healthcare system as a baseline (not really fair since each Province has there own plan, just as each US state should do) the reimbursement will come in the form of major increases to all forms of Federal taxation, affecting all citizens, rich or poor.


Just a brief comment----------keep in mind that Medicare premiums are "means-tested", and the premiums go up dramatically as your income increases----------in our case it went up 100% monthly from what it was last year. I don't object to that, but it hit us by surprise as we had not paid proper attention to the guidelines.

Barry

durrelllrobert - 12-14-2013 at 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:
Auto insurance requirements are determined by each state; not the Federal Government and the states do not force anyone to buy it unless they will be driving on that states highways. South Dakota (and some other states?) does not even mandate that you have to be insured to drive on their roads.

Universal Health Care should also be managed by each state instead of a massive Federal agency and enforced by the IRS (more agents? That's just what we need.)

vgabndo - 12-14-2013 at 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:


OK help me out here. So are you saying if you chose not to have an automobile, you still are required to buy auto insurance?
Let me help you out--- when you buy a car, you have to buy insurance. If you are just born and exist in this country, and choose not to buy a car, you do not have to buy auto insurance.
With the ACA, if you are born here and exist, you HAVE to buy health care insurance. What ever happened to free choice??
Bottom line-- You can choose to buy a vehicle. When you do, you have to also buy insurance. You choose if you can afford both or not.
Now, all people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine ($600 by 2016). There`s a huge difference.


How about my free choice, Fisher? How about my free choice to NOT pay for other peoples poor life decisions? A quick calculation just made it possible for me to claim that I've paid right at $150,000.00 over the past 23 years for health insurance. A significant part of that treasure was charged to me so that hospitals can go on treating other people for absolutely free. People with no insurance, Texas is a shining example, don't pay their own way. I find it perplexing how often I hear these same people complaining about their taxes being used for welfare. In the end, in our pre-ACA system, the many where paying more than their share for insurance, (from each according to his ability) making it possible for "hospitals" to profit, and serve the uninsured. (to each according to his need.) A single payer national health insurance program like Congress has, you'll remember, was rejected by the GOP as socialistic.

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 12:20 PM

I am not positive, Vag, but I don't believe that Congress has a "single payer system". My understanding is that they have the same system as all Fed. Employees have, and there are many options and Insurance companies involved in the FED Healthcare system, and each member has a choice as to which company they go with.

barry

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Universal Health Care should also be managed by each state instead of a massive Federal agency and enforced by the IRS (more agents? That's just what we need.)


Fine, but the States didn't do that, so Obama stepped in to fill the need. In fact about 15 States are still not cooperating with the ACA (all of them Red States). So what would you say to them Robert Durrell?

How is the IRS involved in health care?

tripledigitken - 12-14-2013 at 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo

How is the IRS involved in health care?


This should answer that question..

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions-fo...

absinvestor - 12-14-2013 at 12:30 PM

OXXO- Wasn't sure about your comments about Kaiser loving it. My wife and I also have Kaiser. We have different Drs. Both our Dr's love Kaiser but both think the ACA is a terrible idea. They believe that (not at Kaiser) but in general there will be a shortage of Dr's and hospitals. The ACA does not effect us but we have children that lost plans that they liked and now are forced into the exchange at higher premiums and higher deductibles. The administration may call the plans they had junk plans but the plans were what they wanted and what fit into their budgets. The ACA is good for some but forced many that were happy with their coverage to change with higher premiums and higher deductibles. Had people known that they were losing the plan that they liked (period!!) I doubt the bill would have passed. There is a reason our president's statement about being able to keep our Dr, Hospital and Ins was voted the lie of the year.

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Oxxo---------that is the most convincing post or argument I have yet seen. I just assumed you were on Medicare-----bad assumption.


Yes, Kaiser Senior Advantage program provides ALL my Medicare services. I don't deal with Medicare at all. Medicare takes about $100 out out of my Soc Sec check and pays it to Kaiser. Kaiser provides my health care needs without further premium cost to me other than what they get from Medicare.

Quote:
have a very Conservative Republican Doctor friend who has worked for Kaiser in the San Diego area for some time, and I believe he echo's everything you say if I understand him correctly. He is my age (75), and is even able to work part-time with Kaiser now that he is older and wants more spare time.


Exactly! My Kaiser primary care physician (in his 50's) works 40 hours per week by choice. He said in private practice he worked about 60 hours per week. The Kaiser specialists I see are primarily part timers over 60. They work around 25 hours per week (it varies). They love their profession and want to stay involved but as they age up they want to spend more time on golf, fishing, vacations, or just hanging out. And they say they love that Kaiser profit sharing check coming in each month!

Pescador - 12-14-2013 at 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo

Barry, Blue Cross does not fare well when compared to a progressive company like Kaiser. Check the Consumer Reports ratings for a start. I realize that you think that Blue Cross is a "free" benefit of your Federal employment, but you do have other options since Kaiser is offered in NorCal. However, I think that Kaiser has closed the open enrollment until November of next year.

Our Kaiser Senior Advantage plan does include vision but not dental. We could include dental at an extra cost, but it is not worth it to us. We take good care of our teeth on a daily basis. Blue Cross appears to be a high cost method of insurance coverage for those over 65 (and that includes AARP's United Healthcare too) when compared to Kaiser. Kaiser is rated first by Consumers Reports.

Yes, we do have co-pays with Kaiser that you don't have but we do not have $663 of co-pays per month (your $863 versus our $200 per month for everything but dental for two premiums). Our co-pays for two of us (annual mammograms were just added as a no cost service by Kaiser/wife loves Kaiser even more than I do) total less than $200 per YEAR!!!!!!!!!!. Doctors visits are $15 co-pay. We have an excellent Kaiser primary care physician....he even speaks Spanish if I insist! We had a choice of about 20 different Kaiser primary care physicians to pick from. We made a good choice. In fact my Kaiser ENT specialist ($15 co-pay per visit once a year) is originally from your area, Redding. He threw in the towel of private practice a few years ago and is making more money with Kaiser. He is a believer.

Barry you need to do your "due diligence" and compare your program to others that are offered in your area. I think you can save a lot of money.


Oxxo, you are right that consumer reports and for the most part consumers are happy with a closed system HMO but that system is not for everyone. For run of the mill general medicine, Kaiser has proven itself to run effeciently and effectively. But when you get into the truly complicated situations that require the expertise of MD Anderson, Mayo Clinic, Cancer Centers of America, what you find is that there is another step above and beyond. For the average person, that is an acceptable delivery and works very well, but in many cases (as my many years as a health insurance broder taught me), it is impossible to say that it is the right solution for everyone. First of all, as Barry explained, there are serious areas of non-coverage for geographic regions. If you choose to live in a city and metro area, it may well be a good alternative and I had many happy clients who went that route, but in a major city in Northern Colorado they did not provide coverage at the major metropolitan hospitals and it is not very functional to suggest driving 90 or more miles for doctor visits or hospital stays.

But after having reviewed the reimbursement rates that will be forthcoming under Obamacare , it may well turn out that a system which provides slightly less technological advancement, may well become the highest technological treatment available. Time will tell.

How is the IRS involved in health care?

durrelllrobert - 12-14-2013 at 01:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Universal Health Care should also be managed by each state instead of a massive Federal agency and enforced by the IRS (more agents? That's just what we need.)


Fine, but the States didn't do that, so Obama stepped in to fill the need. In fact about 15 States are still not cooperating with the ACA (all of them Red States). So what would you say to them Robert Durrell?

How is the IRS involved in health care?



"Tax provisions included in the Affordable Care Act represent the largest set of tax law changes the IRS has had to implement in more than 20 years," the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration noted in a recent report.

The ACA has some 500 provisions, and more than 40 amend or add provisions to the tax code, according to the report. It also adds considerably to the agency's administrative workload.

Among the IRS' biggest tasks will be to:

Collect information from employers and insurers: The ACA requires employers to tell the IRS whether an employee has insurance. Companies with at least 50 full-time employees must also indicate whether they offer "minimum essential coverage" under ACA standards.

At the end of the year, insurers must provide the IRS and policyholders a form verifying coverage status, and individuals must include those forms with their federal tax return.

While the tax agency will have information on someone's coverage status for compliance purposes, it will not be given personal health information.

Figure out who qualifies for subsidies or Medicaid: The ACA will provide federal subsidies known as premium tax credits to help millions of people pay for insurance. But to qualify, individuals and families must meet income requirements and buy their insurance on the newly created insurance exchanges.

When a person applies for coverage on an exchange, the information he provides will be cross-checked with income, job and coverage information from the IRS. That cross-check will determine whether someone is eligible for a premium credit, or if he's eligible for Medicaid, which the ACA expanded.

While the IRS is authorized to share income and other data with the exchanges and some federal and state agencies, those third parties may only use that information for determining eligibility for coverage and subsidies, according to the TIGTA report.

Determine who must pay a penalty: Starting in 2014, individuals must buy qualified health insurance or pay a penalty. Some groups are exempt from the new rule, including those whose income is so low that they're not required to file a tax return.

The IRS must assess who owes a penalty.
__________________________________________________

As for the states being mandated to provide an acceptable health insurance plan for all THEIR citizens the Federal Government has the responsibility to require same, just as the Canadian Government has done with all their Provinces. The health insurance needs and costs for persons living in North Dakota ARE NOT the same as for those in New York.

For instance people living in oil rich Alberta Province pay absolutely zero monthly premium while those in neighboring, wheat growing Saskatchewan pay according to income but both provide the same health coverage. Each hospital, doctors office, clinic and medical center is privately owned and bills the Government a negotiated amount for each service provided. The government in turn uses tax revenues to reimburse those facilities.

Cypress - 12-14-2013 at 01:39 PM

Jeez! Just try to stay healthy and hope my present insurance doesn't drop me. Will the IRS audit me for this post?:o

Bajaboy - 12-14-2013 at 02:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BornFisher
Ateo--$300 more per month? That is money you could use for your children`s education, your college funds. Our President said you will save $2,400 per year. He also said you will get more coverage, and pay less. I guess it all makes sense in some imagined World, but in real life, that just won`t happen. But what`s really horrible to me is you will be forced to buy something you would choose not to buy. What`s next?


Yeah, imagine if we didn't require people to buy auto insurance:?: Think of all the money people would save:lol:


OK help me out here. So are you saying if you chose not to have an automobile, you still are required to buy auto insurance?
Let me help you out--- when you buy a car, you have to buy insurance. If you are just born and exist in this country, and choose not to buy a car, you do not have to buy auto insurance.
With the ACA, if you are born here and exist, you HAVE to buy health care insurance. What ever happened to free choice??
Bottom line-- You can choose to buy a vehicle. When you do, you have to also buy insurance. You choose if you can afford both or not.
Now, all people are forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine ($600 by 2016). There`s a huge difference.


How about my free choice, Fisher? How about my free choice to NOT pay for other peoples poor life decisions? A quick calculation just made it possible for me to claim that I've paid right at $150,000.00 over the past 23 years for health insurance. A significant part of that treasure was charged to me so that hospitals can go on treating other people for absolutely free. People with no insurance, Texas is a shining example, don't pay their own way. I find it perplexing how often I hear these same people complaining about their taxes being used for welfare. In the end, in our pre-ACA system, the many where paying more than their share for insurance, (from each according to his ability) making it possible for "hospitals" to profit, and serve the uninsured. (to each according to his need.) A single payer national health insurance program like Congress has, you'll remember, was rejected by the GOP as socialistic.


Yeah, what he said:biggrin:

vgabndo - 12-14-2013 at 03:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
I am not positive, Vag, but I don't believe that Congress has a "single payer system". My understanding is that they have the same system as all Fed. Employees have, and there are many options and Insurance companies involved in the FED Healthcare system, and each member has a choice as to which company they go with.

barry


Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic in my definition of the single payer. The Congressman pays his taxes just like I do, but MY taxes have to pay the Congressman's insurance premium because he gets almost all of his premium PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. The little bit that isn't covered by the private insurance that is paid for by the government is taken out of their wages which are PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.

How many payers is that?

According to the website of a conservative Congressman the most popular government healthcare choice is BC BS and the premiums were described this way: "This year, (2009) the premiums are $1,120.47 a month for a family. Of that, the government pays $763.88 and the member of Congress would pay $356.59 a month." Assuming that is accurate, he is paying 2.5% of his $174,000.00 salary for his insurance.

Unlike our old Congressman Wally Herger, I paid my OWN insurance premiums for the last 23 years, now I'm on Medicare. I still pay $620. a month for the two of us because my secondary insurance is through my decades of contributions to the Carpenters Health and Welfare Trust Fund. The trust fund has to raise my premiums every year now because guys like Herger have waged an effective war on the labor unions, and and there is no work to allow carpenters to pay into the fund.
By contrast to a Congressman's $4280., I pay Anthem Blue Cross almost $8000. in premiums each year, which is 26.5% of my income. (Not counting the bankrupting Pharma co-pays!) The American dream reduced to a sh!t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less sh!t you have to eat.

Perhaps this revelation will help explain why I'm not real keen on people who seem to expect to receive healthcare while having made no provisions to pay for it. I believe I'm paying for it. If we ALL were paying for it together as a nation, as is being done quite nicely all over the world, perhaps the distribution of the expense would be less extreme than a 2.5% vs 26.5% comparison in my own case.

durrelllrobert - 12-14-2013 at 04:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo


Here is a bonus! Kaiser covers me for medical emergencies (no pre-authorization required) while I live in Baja (or anywhere in the world).......including air evacuation if required! I know, I already had it happen! Total reimbursement less a $50 copay with no questions asked.

The cost for my 3 day stay at a hospital in Canada this summer was close to $12k and Kaiser reimbursed me all but $363 of it.

Paula - 12-14-2013 at 04:10 PM

From vgabndo, above:

"If we ALL were paying for it together as a nation, as is being done quite nicely all over the world, perhaps the distribution of the expense would be less extreme than a 2.5% vs 26.5% comparison in my own case."

Not sure I understand or agree with all that led to the quote above, but I sure do like this conclusion. :dudette:

I know that our taxes and medical payments provide some bare minimum coverage for people in dire need, and that some get coverage they can't pay for. I think our insurance premiums just go directly to the 1% with a minuscule amount going out as benefits. But I don't think anyone in this country should have to do with less than adequate healthcare, just as no one should go hungry. Single payer is the best solution, and the ACA is a step in the right direction.

My Vet has that beat

durrelllrobert - 12-14-2013 at 04:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by absinvestor
OXXO- Wasn't sure about your comments about Kaiser loving it. My wife and I also have Kaiser. We have different Drs. Both our Dr's love Kaiser but both think the ACA is a terrible idea. They believe that (not at Kaiser) but in general there will be a shortage of Dr's and hospitals. The ACA does not effect us but we have children that lost plans that they liked and now are forced into the exchange at higher premiums and higher deductibles. The administration may call the plans they had junk plans but the plans were what they wanted and what fit into their budgets. The ACA is good for some but forced many that were happy with their coverage to change with higher premiums and higher deductibles. Had people known that they were losing the plan that they liked (period!!) I doubt the bill would have passed. There is a reason our president's statement about being able to keep our Dr, Hospital and Ins was voted the lie of the year.





AND IF YOU LIKE YOUR TESTICLES YOU CAN KEEP THEM !

[Edited on 12-14-2013 by durrelllrobert]

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 05:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
I am not positive, Vag, but I don't believe that Congress has a "single payer system". My understanding is that they have the same system as all Fed. Employees have, and there are many options and Insurance companies involved in the FED Healthcare system, and each member has a choice as to which company they go with.

barry


Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic in my definition of the single payer. The Congressman pays his taxes just like I do, but MY taxes have to pay the Congressman's insurance premium because he gets almost all of his premium PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. The little bit that isn't covered by the private insurance that is paid for by the government is taken out of their wages which are PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.

How many payers is that?

According to the website of a conservative Congressman the most popular government healthcare choice is BC BS and the premiums were described this way: "This year, (2009) the premiums are $1,120.47 a month for a family. Of that, the government pays $763.88 and the member of Congress would pay $356.59 a month." Assuming that is accurate, he is paying 2.5% of his $174,000.00 salary for his insurance.

Unlike our old Congressman Wally Herger, I paid my OWN insurance premiums for the last 23 years, now I'm on Medicare. I still pay $620. a month for the two of us because my secondary insurance is through my decades of contributions to the Carpenters Health and Welfare Trust Fund. The trust fund has to raise my premiums every year now because guys like Herger have waged an effective war on the labor unions, and and there is no work to allow carpenters to pay into the fund.
By contrast to a Congressman's $4280., I pay Anthem Blue Cross almost $8000. in premiums each year, which is 26.5% of my income. (Not counting the bankrupting Pharma co-pays!) The American dream reduced to a sh!t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less sh!t you have to eat.

Perhaps this revelation will help explain why I'm not real keen on people who seem to expect to receive healthcare while having made no provisions to pay for it. I believe I'm paying for it. If we ALL were paying for it together as a nation, as is being done quite nicely all over the world, perhaps the distribution of the expense would be less extreme than a 2.5% vs 26.5% comparison in my own case.


?????? It is going to take me a while to comprehend all that, and separate the emotional comments from the salient one's, and unwind what appears to me to be convoluted logic.

First, I want to take out the percentages of pay quoted as they seem irrelevant to me------as far as I know, only Medicare is means-tested, so most insurance premiums are the same for all of us with any specific Company, regardless of take home pay, and we know that going in.

Government Employees & Congress people are compensated via combinations of pay and benefits, and they too are all known and sorta contractual, and based on what your job is you get payed more or less, based on your grade level and longevity. In the case of Health Insurance, you do NOT have to buy it. If you decide to participate, Govt. employees and Congressmen KNOW that the Govt. picks up the tab for about 2/3rds of the premiums and that is one of the KNOWN benefits. My share/amount of premiums was the same as the Congressman's, even tho I grossed $40K a year, and he grossed considerably more. That is totally fair, IMO. Our Govt. and it's employees and Congressmen are financed by Tax Payers of all kinds, and if you think that is unfair I don't know what to tell you, other that it is what it is-----that's the way it works.

I tend to agree with your last paragraph, but it is my opinion that NO NATION can possibly afford 'universal health care' as presently planned over time, and eventually will go bankrupt if they try to. It simply does not pencil-out for a lot of reasons, human nature being the most costly part, and the high taxes required to maintain it would bring the economy to a grinding halt eventually. Nothing is FREE, but often Govt. sponsered Health Care makes it appear that it is resulting in a disaster due to abuse and fraud, and just way over use. (My daughter-in-law is Director of United Health Care's Fraud Division., and her horror-stories convince me of that)

You appear to have 3 different Health Care sources, but I got highly confused reading about THAT, and am sure I don't understand what your saying.

Barry

vgabndo - 12-14-2013 at 05:45 PM

I'm sorry to be emotional Barry, but I can see myself being choked-out before I have time to die.

Add Life, Auto and Home insurance to my 26.5% medical and exactly one third of my income is presently drained away by the insurance corporations.

I can't agree with your assessment of the viability of universal healthcare, and the governments of the nations in green below seem to agree with me.

universal healthcare.jpg - 50kB

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 06:27 PM

Vag-----I understand your point illustrated on the map---but I am very skeptical.

The actuaries that insurance companies employ have it worked out to a science because of competition, risk, and experience, leaving room for profits as that is what they are offering the insurance for in the first place----bottom line for almost any business is "profits"------"profits" are the mother's milk of capitolism, as Larry Kudlow likes to say ad nauseum.

NOBODY has to buy the insurance (other than Auto insurance) up until the President and the Democrats decided that we all MUST have it. Now we will see how THAT works out. I think that health expenditures have gone crazy in this Country, and now I expect it will just get worse with the AHCA.

Personally I have always liked the idea of insurance.

Barry

Bajaboy - 12-14-2013 at 07:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
I am not positive, Vag, but I don't believe that Congress has a "single payer system". My understanding is that they have the same system as all Fed. Employees have, and there are many options and Insurance companies involved in the FED Healthcare system, and each member has a choice as to which company they go with.

barry


I tend to agree with your last paragraph, but it is my opinion that NO NATION can possibly afford 'universal health care' as presently planned over time, and eventually will go bankrupt if they try to. It simply does not pencil-out for a lot of reasons, human nature being the most costly part, and the high taxes required to maintain it would bring the economy to a grinding halt eventually. Nothing is FREE, but often Govt. sponsered Health Care makes it appear that it is resulting in a disaster due to abuse and fraud, and just way over use. (My daughter-in-law is Director of United Health Care's Fraud Division., and her horror-stories convince me of that)


Barry


Barry, to me it's more about priorities. Can we as a nation afford our military? No be we feel it's a priority and thus spend money on it without regard. Health care, in my opinion, should be valued in the same manner. We as a nation must protect our people both from foreign threats as well as medical ones. Let some one go broke because they were diagnosed with cancer or buy another bomber....what would Jesus do?

Just my two cents...

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 08:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by absinvestor
OXXO- Wasn't sure about your comments about Kaiser loving it. My wife and I also have Kaiser. We have different Drs. Both our Dr's love Kaiser but both think the ACA is a terrible idea. They believe that (not at Kaiser) but in general there will be a shortage of Dr's and hospitals.


Maybe some Kaiser doctors think that the ACA doesn't go far enough. They think the ACA is too conservative in its approach to health care. They feel that the ACA should be modeled more like the Kaiser approach to health care. Unfortunately, a certain element in Congress was not going to let that happen.

Quote:
The ACA does not effect us but we have children that lost plans that they liked and now are forced into the exchange at higher premiums and higher deductibles. The administration may call the plans they had junk plans but the plans were what they wanted and what fit into their budgets.


A junk plan by any other name is still a junk plan. The plan they had would have forced taxpayers to pay for their catastrophic health care. The fact they liked their plan because it was cheap does not mean it was a good plan for them or the taxpayers who have to support these junk plans.

Quote:
The ACA is good for some but forced many that were happy with their coverage to change with higher premiums and higher deductibles. Had people known that they were losing the plan that they liked (period!!) I doubt the bill would have passed.


The ACA is good for the vast majority of the uninsured and under insured (junk plans). Some under insured people may have been happy with their plans but the American taxpayers were NOT happy with the under insured junk plans when they had to pay for their catastrophic health care.

Quote:
There is a reason our president's statement about being able to keep our Dr, Hospital and Ins was voted the lie of the year.


The President's statement is true for about 90%-95% of the people in the US. Yes, he was not precise in his statement. Sometimes I am not as precise with my words as I should be and sometimes you aren't. If you want to parse words, and apparently you do, the President (who is only human) should have said, "If you like your insurance, AND IT MEETS MINIMUM GOVERNMENT STANDARDS, you can keep it." The ACA would have passed anyway and approved by SCOTUS

I just came back from a Christmas open house at a neighbor's house hosted by a retired Kaiser administrator in the San Fernando Valley district. I engaged them in a conversation about the ACA as a result of this thread. They said that the ACA is good for the American people. I asked about a few Kaiser doctors voicing concern about insufficient doctors and hospital facilities to handle the demand. They said that they didn't know any Kaiser doctors who were opposed to ACA but if they were some they didn't have all the information that Kaiser administration has and they were consequently uninformed. They said that ACA will save money for about 95% of Americans, the exception being the very wealthy who might find their rates will go up. I hope someday I will be wealthy enough that my rates will go up!

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 08:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
The cost for my 3 day stay at a hospital in Canada this summer was close to $12k and Kaiser reimbursed me all but $363 of it.


And what would be wrong with that system applying to all Americans? ACA doesn't address that circumstance, but as the program is refined over the next few years, it can happen. I am happy the Canadians patched you up.

[Edited on 12-15-2013 by oxxo]

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 09:04 PM

Oxxo-------I have always thought that the "junk plans" WERE coverage for "catastrophic" happenings, and just did not cover the day to day routine stuff. That is sure the case with my kids when they were young and had "cheap" insurance---------they wanted coverage against the catastrophy, but felt that the day to day stuff did not concern them as it seldom to never happened.

Likewise, I have insurance that pays litterally millions in the case that I have a severe accident that is disastrous, or kills me, and it costs me almost nothing. It's all about protecting the Family---not me.

Now those types of insurance plans are no longer acceptable!?!?!?!

Another aspect is me, at 75, getting terribly ill, or with cancer------at my age I have no intention of taking all those "treatments" that cost a fortune---------I have done everything in life that I want too, and then some, and I am ready to cash-out and pass my assets on to my kids and grandkids.. I will not participate in prolonging my life under those circumstances!!!

I don't need the ACA, and I am not happy that I will have to pay for others vain efforts to stay alive when they are ancient, especially when they have not taken care of themselves when younger.

Barry

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 09:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
The actuaries that insurance companies employ have it worked out to a science because of competition, risk, and experience, leaving room for profits


Yes, but what is a REASONABLE profit! Kaiser is able to generate a fair profit and still provide outstanding service.

Quote:
NOBODY has to buy the insurance (other than Auto insurance) up until the President and the Democrats decided that we all MUST have it. Now we will see how THAT works out.


Shame on them Democrats for caring about the uninsured and under insured and the taxpayers who have to pay for their health care!!!! Although I would guess that you don't get Soc Sec since you feed at the trough of a Federal pension, but those of us who feed at the trough of Soc Sec think that it "works out" GREAT!

Quote:
I think that health expenditures have gone crazy in this Country, and now I expect it will just get worse with the AHCA.


Perhaps, we will see, just like Federal pensions have "gone crazy in this Country" How's that new swimming pool working out for you Barry? I guess you could write it off as hydrotherapy! :lol:

[Edited on 12-15-2013 by oxxo]

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 09:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
The actuaries that insurance companies employ have it worked out to a science because of competition, risk, and experience, leaving room for profits


Yes, but what is a REASONABLE profit! Kaiser is able to generate a fair profit and still provide outstanding service.

Quote:
NOBODY has to buy the insurance (other than Auto insurance) up until the President and the Democrats decided that we all MUST have it. Now we will see how THAT works out.


Shame on them Democrats for caring about the uninsured and under insured and the taxpayers who have to pay for their health care!!!! Although I would guess that you don't get Soc Sec since you feed at the trough of a Federal pension, but those of us who feed at the trough of Soc Sec think that it "works out" GREAT!

Quote:
I think that health expenditures have gone crazy in this Country, and now I expect it will just get worse with the AHCA.


Perhaps, we will see, just like Federal pensions have "gone crazy in this Country" How's that new swimming pool working out for you Barry? I guess you could write it off as hydrotherapy! :lol:

[Edited on 12-15-2013 by oxxo]


The " pool" is working out great, and I even used some of your advice in building it. The pool was paid for in cash with earnings from my Stock Investments which I have been working on for some 45 years plus, and are paying off big-time for the last 20 years, or so. 80% plus of my income comes from my Stock investments, like was planned for when I started investing in my late 20's and early 30's. My 4 kids are continuing the tradition.

I am not familiar with how Federal Pensions have "gone crazy"------certainly not true in my case. I certainly don't think that people on SS are "feeding at the trough"-----they did pay into that system, right?? I paid into it too, but because I don't have the required 40 quarters of non-government work I am not entitled to it (I think I have 36 quarters, so so).

Barry

[Edited on 12-15-2013 by Barry A.]

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 09:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Oxxo-------I have always thought that the "junk plans" WERE coverage for "catastrophic" happenings, and just did not cover the day to day routine stuff. That is sure the case with my kids when they were young and had "cheap" insurance---------they wanted coverage against the catastrophy, but felt that the day to day stuff did not concern them as it seldom to never happened.


Barry, you thought wrong. The junk plans had limits on coverage including maximum payout.

Quote:
Likewise, I have insurance that pays litterally millions in the case that I have a severe accident that is disastrous, or kills me, and it costs me almost nothing. It's all about protecting the Family---not me.


Yes Barry, you are happy with your plan AND it meets minimum Federal standards. You get to keep your plan. The President's statement is accurate when applied to most of the currently insured.


Quote:
Now those types of insurance plans are no longer acceptable!?!?!?!


If they meet minimum Federal standards, they are acceptable.

Quote:
Another aspect is me, at 75, getting terribly ill, or with cancer------at my age I have no intention of taking all those "treatments" that cost a fortune---------I have done everything in life that I want too, and then some, and I am ready to cash-out and pass my assets on to my kids and grandkids.. I will not participate in prolonging my life under those circumstances!!!


You and I are in agreement there. I have a "health care directive" (as I hope you do) that directs my family to pull the plug if I am incapacitated.

Quote:
I don't need the ACA,


But several million Americans do need it

Quote:
and I am not happy that I will have to pay for others vain efforts to stay alive when they are ancient, especially when they have not taken care of themselves when younger.


Yeah, that's a bummer! But nobody gets "ancient" if they haven't "taken care of themselves when younger." I hate it when I have to pay higher gas prices because others want to drive gas guzzlers 70 or 80 on the highway. Maybe you and I should go back to ox and cart transportation and people had the good sense to die by age 50!

oxxo - 12-14-2013 at 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
The pool was paid for in cash with earnings from my Stock Investments which I have been working on for some 45 years plus, and are paying off big-time for the last 20 years, or so. 80% plus of my income comes from my Stock investments, like was planned for when I started investing in my late 20's and early 30's. My 4 kids are continuing the tradition.


Great! I am glad the American taxpayer was able to provide you with a job that paid enough for you to have enough leftover at the end of the month to invest in the stock market. I am glad you provided a valuable public service at a National Park and had the foresight to invest your surplus earnings in the stock market. It is a win/win situation for all of us. Why can't we provide employment for the less fortunate among us that will allow them to achieve your dream?

Oh, by the way, what was the stock market in '08 when Dubya left office? 6000 and some? What is the stock market today, 5 years later? 15000? Remember that the next time you vote!

Quote:
I am not familiar with how Federal Pensions have "gone crazy"------certainly not true in my case.


It is a matter of perspective Barry. Just like some people think that health care costs have gone crazy. Ask most insurance companies and they will say, "certainly not true in my case!"

Quote:
I certainly don't think that people on SS are "feeding at the trough"-----they did pay into that system, right??


Yes and no. Currently the breakeven for people on Soc Sec is about 83 years old. You live longer than that and you are taking out more than you paid in. I am going to live to 140 since I feel about half dead today after decorating the house for Christmas.

Quote:
I paid into it too, but because I don't have the required 40 quarters of non-government work I am not entitled to it (I think I have 36 quarters, so so).


In some cases, it is possible to "buy" unearned quarters of service in a lump sum payment to Soc Sec. If you want to roll the dice and think you will live longer than the actuarial tables say you will, you too may qualify for Soc Sec. Check it out. I did it for a State of California pension. So far, I am underwater on that investment, but if I live to 140, it will pay off big time!

[Edited on 12-15-2013 by oxxo]

Barry A. - 12-14-2013 at 10:46 PM

:lol::lol::lol: Great stuff, Oxxo. Don't fully agree (naturally) but you DO make some good points.

Barry

805gregg - 12-14-2013 at 10:53 PM

South Crolina has voted to opt out for Obummercare, hopefully others will follow

LancairDriver - 12-14-2013 at 11:07 PM

Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.

vgabndo - 12-15-2013 at 01:02 AM

If I get this right, the insurance company you liked so much, when it learned that it didn't meet minimum standards, rather than provide condoms, and some modest increase for insuring infants, took the opportunity to jack your premiums through the roof to provide that coverage when they knew you had to have it. Don't we have a state agency to protect us from predators like that?

I don't think that was ever the intention of the ACA for you to take those kinds of hits, but you KNOW the insurance companies are making a killing on this.

Pescador - 12-15-2013 at 06:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
If I get this right, the insurance company you liked so much, when it learned that it didn't meet minimum standards, rather than provide condoms, and some modest increase for insuring infants, took the opportunity to jack your premiums through the roof to provide that coverage when they knew you had to have it. Don't we have a state agency to protect us from predators like that?

I don't think that was ever the intention of the ACA for you to take those kinds of hits, but you KNOW the insurance companies are making a killing on this.


Be careful, your politics are showing through your logic. Actually most insurance companies were able to do what they do and most made from1.5 to2.5% profit margins. They became experts assessing risk and staying ahead of the curve. I have heard all theB.S? About how they dropped people when you got sick but never did In actually see that happen. There has been lots of talk about how some people could not get coverage but almost all states had a state mandated plan which you were eligible for if you had been turned down by any insurance company.

So, I see let's let the government run the delivery system. Do you think it will be run as well as Amtrack, or the post Office, or any of the other systems that take 20% more to run because they are government entities.

I have had a craw full of the spin about substandard plans. I used to sell a Blue Cross plan, individual, in Colorado that had a 1,000 deductible, 80/20 co-insurance, $20 co-pay Dr. Visit, full Rx coverage, Accident rider. Lifetime max 2 million. for a 40 yr. old male, non smoker the monthly premium was $105. Now they have to drop that plan because Maternity was an exclusion. Sub-standard my fanny.

mtgoat666 - 12-15-2013 at 08:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
I have had a craw full of the spin about substandard plans. I used to sell a Blue Cross plan, individual, in Colorado that had a 1,000 deductible, 80/20 co-insurance, $20 co-pay Dr. Visit, full Rx coverage, Accident rider. Lifetime max 2 million. for a 40 yr. old male, non smoker the monthly premium was $105. Now they have to drop that plan because Maternity was an exclusion. Sub-standard my fanny.


Yes, but you would refuse to sell that or any plan to someone with a preexisting condition or refuse to cover the condition! And seems to me that 50 percent of people need maternity coverage at some time in their life. I like that govt standardized plans and provides coverage for preexistign. You bellyachers are tiresome!

By the way, you should be able to offer maternity coverage to any male for no additional cost. Duh! Males are unlikely to ever use the maternity coverage! Add a sentence to the plan benefits and you can still sell plan! Doh!

Liberal Math

MrBillM - 12-15-2013 at 08:11 PM

One need look no further than the Goat's statement to understand why the Libs get things so wrong:

"And seems to me that 50 percent of people need maternity coverage at some time in their life."

An assumption that isn't supported by statistics.

vgabndo - 12-15-2013 at 08:38 PM

Obviously you know a lot more about the insurance corporations than I do. Seems like you should get together with Lancairdriver. He's paying $850 for a policy that you can sell for $105, and all you have to do is add coverage for pregnant women. Lanc's underwriter wants $400. a month to add contraception and pediatric dental care to a $850. policy which already has maternity care which you offer for $105. which already HAS pediatric dental care and contraception, and only needs maternity.

Or, you quadruple the price of your policy and add maternity care. Do you think that Lancairdriver is going to go on paying $1,200. for a minimum qualifying policy if he can get it from you for $420. and cut his ORIGINAL premium in half?



Here's what I know about the ACA and Citizens United. My former Congressman, who was not running for reelection, was gifted with over $300,000.00 in free money by an amazing collection of HMO's, insurance companies, and a whole raft of medical "societies" because he made it clear from the beginning that his mind was permanently closed to any discussion of changing healthcare in America. (Those were the bribes which were REQUIRED to be reported) He kept his promise to big business and they paid him off. The corporate insurance giants MUST have known that buying a few congressmen would be good for the bottom line. Yes, my politics are showing. The ACA is a flawed law. I personally think there was a possibility worth exploring that it could have been a better law if the GOP had participated in rational discussion. "You want to destroy America you socialist fools", doesn't count.:?:

vgabndo - 12-15-2013 at 10:00 PM

What liberal math?

44% of married women by the time they reach their mid 40's will have needed maternity coverage. A smaller percentage of single women will need such coverage too. Add in the number of husbands who need maternity care for their children, process-in the fact that only half of Americans over 18 are married, and I'd say Goat was pretty close at 50% (Mostly Pew numbers)

Of course you knew that he was making the very common generalization that half of us is female and females get pregnant, thus a generalized 50%.
Did that go over your head?

Liberal math!!!!! Make your case. What percentage of Americans need maternity healthcare insurance?

LancairDriver - 12-15-2013 at 10:41 PM

Obviously the ACA act never would have left the ground without collaboration between the planners and the insurance company's getting on board. Of course it is all about money. You aren't going to insure 40 million who have no insurance with thin air. So who pays the bill. Mostly small business, and the middle class are discovering they too will have to take a bite of the big dung sandwich.
I'm sure pescador was referring to an individual policy where we are paying for family coverage. Our policy went from $357,000 in 2013, to $516,000 in 2014 for 35 employees, and this was with shopping around. Doing this for over 25 years means we aren't novices. That is a huge hit for a small business, and can't be absorbed. The difference of $159,600 will now be picked up by 35 employees where they paid zero before. They will all wind up paying $4,560/yr now that would otherwise be spent for car payments, house payments, college funds, etc. Easy to see the impact on the individual and the general economy. Multiply this situation times hundreds of thousands of small businesses and you will better understand why the economy will have a permanent 40% of the working population on food stamps and other subsidies.

Pescador - 12-16-2013 at 06:26 AM

Yes, that was a quote for an Individual Plan which meant you could pass underwriting and had no pre-existing conditions. Group insurance,which had to take every that applied was at least 3 times more expensive. That policy worked for millions of people but is now called substandard.

Now, let's take the discussion about Kaiser-permanente . They are able to take your Medicare part A and B which is around $364 a month. If you compare tour Medicare plan A and B which is an 80% plan with deductibles but run by the government!and you have the government write a check to Kaiser, you get a great coverage for the same price. They do that because they have developed a good delivery system that is cost effective and efficient,while the government struggles with fraud and mismanagement.

Unsupported Generalizations

MrBillM - 12-16-2013 at 07:27 AM

SPOT ON !

The Point EXACTLY. Glad that VGA resolution was sharp enough and able to tune in on that.

As to actual FACTS and FIGURES, they are the responsibility of those advocating a position based on actuarial numbers.

Which are then appropriate for contest and critical analysis

Osprey - 12-16-2013 at 08:50 AM

Words Matter

With the advent of the ACA, Affordable Care Act, comes more questions than answers. And it’s about time. There’s a stunning disconnect between Health Care and Insurance and until now there seemed no good reason to talk about it. Now it’s crucial.

The term Health Care points us toward Total Care or some kind of plan for cradle to grave protection of one’s health. That’s a big bill to fill with so many possibilities, so many diseases, accidents and conditions of disability. It may be that we, as a country, just don’t have the will, the money or the smarts to make that happen ----- in the meantime we have tried a long list of methods that now are being questioned.

PPOs were popular for a while and HMOs were all the rage too – they tried mightily to cut costs, tailor protection plans and go beyond reimbursement. All the while, the public did not really see the difference between Care, Indemnity and Maintenance. So here comes the big disconnect. The term Pre-existing Condition was about the safest language they could find to draw a line between Indemnity and Welfare. We can all see the gap widen if we form the analogy of buying fire insurance for your house AFTER THE FIRE. “What’s a fair premium for that?” is one of the new questions. The answer is that there is no fair cost or premium – the protection is Welfare and we can either afford it, as a country, or we cannot.

Maybe the people of the United States can afford it if we find out how much it is, find a way to fund it, let the people provide it, manage it and keep it safe and inviolate. That idea leaves us less to argue about when it comes to Long Term Care, Cost of Medicine, Maternity and things like inoculations. We already do a helluva lot of this stuff in big charitable hospitals, hospices and care centers all across the country.

If we took that staggering cost out of the ACA equation it would be a lot more like insurance and the public has a pretty good grasp on that term. Thousands of 100 year old health insurance companies are still able to provide the simple reimbursement for health and accident services for NEW ILLNESSES AND ACCIDENTS that have served us pretty well so far.

If the ACA people don’t have their math right about the cost of Pre-existing Condition coverage, the coverage could bankrupt the plan. In the meantime if the plan causes hospitals to close, doctors to retire, insurers to collapse all the people then out of work won’t be able to pay into any system and in fact they will be drag on the social coffer.

The only high side I see for the public right now is that there are millions of people out there who will opt out now and ONLY JOIN WHEN THEY HAVE THE FIRST SIGNS OF EMPHASEMA, PARKINSON’S, CANCER, ETC.

Barry A. - 12-16-2013 at 09:46 AM

Very well laid out, Osprey. Thank you!!!

Barry

wessongroup - 12-16-2013 at 09:51 AM

Dittos ... some great "examples and thoughts" on the topic

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
Be careful, your politics are showing through your logic. Actually most insurance companies were able to do what they do and most made from1.5 to2.5% profit margins. They became experts assessing risk and staying ahead of the curve.

It can be said that your politics are showing through your logic. The company you worked for rates very low in customer satisfaction. They not only became experts at assessing risk by eliminating those with pre-existing conditions and staying ahead of the curve of avoiding responsibility of comprehensive care while also delivering poor customer service. How is that different form the US Postal Service or Amtrak?

Quote:
There has been lots of talk about how some people could not get coverage but almost all states had a state mandated plan which you were eligible for if you had been turned down by any insurance company.


You mean like Romneycare in MA? The plan that the ACA is modeled after? The plan that was endorsed by the Republican Party when it was implemented? The plan that Romney said was appropriate at the State level, but no other State implemented?

Quote:
So, I see let's let the government run the delivery system. Do you think it will be run as well as Amtrack, or the post Office, or any of the other systems that take 20% more to run because they are government entities.


I think government will run the ACA delivery system about as efficiently as Social Security and we know how unhappy senior citizens are with that program! I think the ACA is a flawed program because it doesn't go far enough and is too complicated. The government should have implemented a more comprehensive "single payer" system like in Canada or most countries that have universal health care. But the President tried to compromise with the party of "no" and we have what is second best.

Quote:
I have had a craw full of the spin about substandard plans.


I have had my craw full of the spin about how the ACA isn't going to work when we haven't given it an opportunity to work yet!

Quote:
I used to sell a Blue Cross plan, individual, in Colorado that had a 1,000 deductible, 80/20 co-insurance, $20 co-pay Dr. Visit, full Rx coverage, Accident rider. Lifetime max 2 million. for a 40 yr. old male, non smoker the monthly premium was $105.


What year was that? I had Blue Cross coverage about 40 years ago and my premiums were higher than that. And what happens to that member who exceeds their $2M lifetime max when they are on kidney dialysis or two or three forms of cancer (like my father)

Quote:
Now they have to drop that plan because Maternity was an exclusion. Sub-standard my fanny.


The cost of maternity today is $9000 to $25000 depending on location and whether Caesarean is required. I guess if you don't get pregnant your fanny could care less how someone else pays for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Of course it is all about money. You aren't going to insure 40 million who have no insurance with thin air. So who pays the bill. Mostly small business, and the middle class are discovering they too will have to take a bite of the big dung sandwich.


This is partisan specualtion on your part, not supported by any statistics at this point. The current Administration says that the ACA will be paid for by efficiencies in the healthcare delivery system which they have implemented. Only time will tell if that statement can be supported.

Quote:
I'm sure pescador was referring to an individual policy where we are paying for family coverage. Our policy went from $357,000 in 2013, to $516,000 in 2014 for 35 employees, and this was with shopping around. Doing this for over 25 years means we aren't novices. That is a huge hit for a small business, and can't be absorbed. The difference of $159,600 will now be picked up by 35 employees where they paid zero before. They will all wind up paying $4,560/yr now that would otherwise be spent for car payments, house payments, college funds, etc. Easy to see the impact on the individual and the general economy.


I congratulate your company for picking up $800+ per month health premium for your employees and their families. I was never able to land a job with a company with such comprehensive health benefits. But with the added benefits of the ACA including pre-existing conditions, maternity, dental for children, and dependents to age 26, your employees should be willing to pick up the extra premium instead of paying $25000 out of pocket for the unplanned pregnancy of that 16 y.o. daughter.

Your logic is flawed when you say that $4560 per family is going to be taken out of the economy by the ACA. $4560 is now gong to be put into the economy by someone else for house payments, car payments, college funds, etc.

Quote:
Multiply this situation times hundreds of thousands of small businesses and you will better understand why the economy will have a permanent 40% of the working population on food stamps and other subsidies.


You mean like those of us on a Social Security subsidy, Medicare, or military pension? What is this? a war on us old people? Yes, I still work and so do a majority of my old friends.

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
Yes, that was a quote for an Individual Plan which meant you could pass underwriting and had no pre-existing conditions. Group insurance,which had to take every that applied was at least 3 times more expensive. That policy worked for millions of people but is now called substandard.


Yes, it might have worked for "millions" but it also DIDN"T work for "millions" too.

Quote:
Now, let's take the discussion about Kaiser-permanente . They are able to take your Medicare part A and B which is around $364 a month. If you compare tour Medicare plan A and B which is an 80% plan with deductibles but run by the government!and you have the government write a check to Kaiser, you get a great coverage for the same price. They do that because they have developed a good delivery system that is cost effective and efficient,while the government struggles with fraud and mismanagement.


Why didn't Blue Cross follow the Kaiser model that is cost effective and efficient? maybe because Blue Cross struggles with fraud and mismanagement?

And once again, my Kaiser Senior Advantage Plan is a total of about $100 per month including Medicare payment, is a 100% plan less a co-pay of $15 to $50 depending on procedure, includes reduced cost medications and vision, and a maximum out-of-pocket of about $5000 per year. Yep, I get get great coverage for the same price when the government works hand-in-hand with a progressive health care provider. HEY, wait a minute, isn't that what the ACA is all about?

Rome, KAISER and the ACA were not built in a day

durrelllrobert - 12-16-2013 at 10:17 AM

Here's how it took Kaiser 60 years to get to be number 1:

http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/history-of-kaiser-permanente/

Kaiser Permanente evolved from industrial health care programs for construction, shipyard, and steel mill workers for the Kaiser industrial companies during the late 1930s and 1940s. It was opened to public enrollment in October 1945.

The organization that is now Kaiser Permanente began at the height of the Great Depression with a single inventive young surgeon and a 12-bed hospital in the middle of the Mojave Desert. When Sidney Garfield, MD, looked at the thousands of men involved in building the Colorado River Aqueduct Project, he saw an opportunity. He borrowed money to build Contractors General Hospital; six miles from a tiny town called Desert Center, and began treating sick and injured workers. But financing was difficult, and Dr. Garfield was having trouble getting the insurance companies to pay his bills in a timely fashion. To compound matters, not all of the men had insurance. Dr. Garfield refused to turn away any sick or injured worker, so he often was left with no payment at all for his services. In no time, the hospital’s expenses were far exceeding its income.

Enter Harold Hatch, an engineer-turned-insurance agent. Hatch suggested that the insurance companies pay Dr. Garfield a fixed amount per day, per covered worker, up front. This would solve the hospital’s immediate money troubles and, at the same time, would enable Dr. Garfield to emphasize maintaining health and safety rather than merely treating illness and injury. Thus, “prepayment” was born. For the princely sum of five cents per day, workers were provided this new form of health coverage. For an additional five cents per day, workers could also receive coverage for non-job related medical problems. Thousands of workers enrolled, and Dr. Garfield’s hospital became a financial success.

As the aqueduct project wound down, Dr. Garfield prepared to leave his desert hospital and start a solo practice in Los Angeles. But he got a call from another industrialist. This time, the problem was providing health care to 6,500 workers and their families at the largest construction site in history—the Grand Coulee Dam. Excited by the possibilities, Dr. Garfield put his solo practice plans on hold. He turned the existing run-down hospital into a state-of-the-art treatment facility and recruited a team of doctors to work in a “prepaid group practice.” The method again was a smashing success and a big hit with the workers and their families. But as the dam neared completion in 1941, it seemed once again that the grand experiment was reaching an end.

Once again, however, history intervened. America’s entry into World War II brought tens of thousands of workers—many of who were inexperienced and in poor health already—pouring into the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, Calif., to meet the nation’s demand for big Liberty Ships, aircraft carriers, and the like. Now, Henry J. Kaiser had the problem: How to provide health care for this teeming mass of 30,000? Kaiser was convinced that Dr. Garfield could solve his problem, but it took some special wrangling—the surgeon was already scheduled to enter active duty with his U.S. Army Reserve unit in just a few weeks. But at Kaiser’s request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the present day.

dasubergeek - 12-16-2013 at 11:50 AM

Just a perspective from another country with a very Obamacare-like system:

I lived in Switzerland, which required universal health insurance cover.

Switzerland is an extremely decentralized government; the federal government controls the military, post, monetary system and provides the minimum standards for health cover (must cover maternity, must cover hospitalization in semi-private rooms, etc.). Everyone must hold insurance. Insurance is not sold through the employer; you purchase it on your own, like auto or homeowner's insurance.

The federal rules state that everyone in an age group in the same commune (municipality) must be charged the same rate for the same plan... so if you have Plan A and you are 40 years old in Nyons, you pay the same as all other 40-year-olds in Nyons. Companies compete on benefits (some offer private rooms in hospital, for example) and on contribution. The most common plan has a 300 Fr. (about $340) deductible and a 10 percent co-insurance, with a 700 Fr. or 1000 Fr. ($780 or $1125) out-of-pocket maximum. Costs do rise, but not particularly quickly; in the early 90s they cost about 250 Fr. per month per adult, now they're more like 310 Fr. per month. Children have, by law, no "franchise" (deductible) and their plans tend to be far cheaper. Dental and vision are not covered.

If you cannot afford it (a means test), you are given a subsidy by the canton (like a state), which varies based on your income tax reporting.

If you show up in a hospital, clinic or physician's practice and you are uninsured (and not exempt, like foreigners on visitor visas), you are treated and then furnished with paperwork for enrollment based on your residence. You must enroll and pay your first premium; the bill is sent to your new insurance company, and you are fined for non-compliance.

The system works astoundingly well; everyone pays something (there are no completely "free" rides except for children who are wards of the state).

I'm not suggesting at all that this is indicative of how the U.S. system will work; just that it does work in other places.

LancairDriver - 12-16-2013 at 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Here's how it took Kaiser 60 years to get to be

http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/history-of-kaiser-permanente/

Kaiser Permanente evolved from industrial health care programs for construction, shipyard, and steel mill workers for the Kaiser industrial companies during the late 1930s and 1940s. It was opened to public enrollment in October 1945.

The organization that is now Kaiser Permanente began at the height of the Great Depression with a single inventive young surgeon and a 12-bed hospital in the middle of the Mojave Desert. When Sidney Garfield, MD, looked at the thousands of men involved in building the Colorado River Aqueduct Project, he saw an opportunity. He borrowed money to build Contractors General Hospital; six miles from a tiny town called Desert Center, and began treating sick and injured workers. But financing was difficult, and Dr. Garfield was having trouble getting the insurance companies to pay his bills in a timely fashion. To compound matters, not all of the men had insurance. Dr. Garfield refused to turn away any sick or injured worker, so he often was left with no payment at all for his services. In no time, the hospital’s expenses were far exceeding its income.

Enter Harold Hatch, an engineer-turned-insurance agent. Hatch suggested that the insurance companies pay Dr. Garfield a fixed amount per day, per covered worker, up front. This would solve the hospital’s immediate money troubles and, at the same time, would enable Dr. Garfield to emphasize maintaining health and safety rather than merely treating illness and injury. Thus, “prepayment” was born. For the princely sum of five cents per day, workers were provided this new form of health coverage. For an additional five cents per day, workers could also receive coverage for non-job related medical problems. Thousands of workers enrolled, and Dr. Garfield’s hospital became a financial success.

As the aqueduct project wound down, Dr. Garfield prepared to leave his desert hospital and start a solo practice in Los Angeles. But he got a call from another industrialist. This time, the problem was providing health care to 6,500 workers and their families at the largest construction site in history—the Grand Coulee Dam. Excited by the possibilities, Dr. Garfield put his solo practice plans on hold. He turned the existing run-down hospital into a state-of-the-art treatment facility and recruited a team of doctors to work in a “prepaid group practice.” The method again was a smashing success and a big hit with the workers and their families. But as the dam neared completion in 1941, it seemed once again that the grand experiment was reaching an end.

Once again, however, history intervened. America’s entry into World War II brought tens of thousands of workers—many of who were inexperienced and in poor health already—pouring into the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, Calif., to meet the nation’s demand for big Liberty Ships, aircraft carriers, and the like. Now, Henry J. Kaiser had the problem: How to provide health care for this teeming mass of 30,000? Kaiser was convinced that Dr. Garfield could solve his problem, but it took some special wrangling—the surgeon was already scheduled to enter active duty with his U.S. Army Reserve unit in just a few weeks. But at Kaiser’s request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the present day.


Very good example of the free enterprise system at work, very little government intervention (FDR lifting the draft notice for the Doctor)
Today Henry Kaiser would be reviled as one of the hated 1%. How times have changed.

[Edited on 12-16-2013 by LancairDriver]

Bajaboy - 12-16-2013 at 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek
Just a perspective from another country with a very Obamacare-like system:

I lived in Switzerland, which required universal health insurance cover.

Switzerland is an extremely decentralized government; the federal government controls the military, post, monetary system and provides the minimum standards for health cover (must cover maternity, must cover hospitalization in semi-private rooms, etc.). Everyone must hold insurance. Insurance is not sold through the employer; you purchase it on your own, like auto or homeowner's insurance.

The federal rules state that everyone in an age group in the same commune (municipality) must be charged the same rate for the same plan... so if you have Plan A and you are 40 years old in Nyons, you pay the same as all other 40-year-olds in Nyons. Companies compete on benefits (some offer private rooms in hospital, for example) and on contribution. The most common plan has a 300 Fr. (about $340) deductible and a 10 percent co-insurance, with a 700 Fr. or 1000 Fr. ($780 or $1125) out-of-pocket maximum. Costs do rise, but not particularly quickly; in the early 90s they cost about 250 Fr. per month per adult, now they're more like 310 Fr. per month. Children have, by law, no "franchise" (deductible) and their plans tend to be far cheaper. Dental and vision are not covered.

If you cannot afford it (a means test), you are given a subsidy by the canton (like a state), which varies based on your income tax reporting.

If you show up in a hospital, clinic or physician's practice and you are uninsured (and not exempt, like foreigners on visitor visas), you are treated and then furnished with paperwork for enrollment based on your residence. You must enroll and pay your first premium; the bill is sent to your new insurance company, and you are fined for non-compliance.

The system works astoundingly well; everyone pays something (there are no completely "free" rides except for children who are wards of the state).

I'm not suggesting at all that this is indicative of how the U.S. system will work; just that it does work in other places.


Thanks for the first hand account. I'm sure plenty of people will not believe you because Fake News told them differently.

rts551 - 12-16-2013 at 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.


seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).

absinvestor - 12-16-2013 at 12:19 PM

oxxo- I don't like the ACA and you do. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. However, the feedback from Colorado Kaiser is much different than the feedback you received at your California Christmas party. In addition to our 2 Kaiser Dr's I spoke to a neighbor who recently had a colonoscopy and to his wife who had just gone in for a mamogram. Their Dr's feedback was similar to what our Dr said- fewer Dr's and hospitals. Summary of their opinions- bad deal. Your comment that just because our kids liked their plan doesn't mean it is a good plan is insulting. Both are highly educated, run successful businesses and have substantial earnings and assets. They elected to have plans that didn't cover day to day medical expenses but that would cover a catastrophic event. The 600/mo that they saved in premiums could be better invested elsewhere. Who are you or the ACA to say what is best for them?? When you take into account what will happen with the currently delayed employer mandate the President's misstatement will be untruthful for way more than the 90-95%. However, even at 10% the President was untruthful to 15-30million taxpayers. Rather than trying to reinvent our entire medical system he could have garnered majority support for a plan that helped underinsured and the non insured. Instead, we now have a program that the majority of US taxpayers don't agree with.

bajaguy - 12-16-2013 at 12:24 PM

"......... your employees should be willing to pick up the extra premium instead of paying $25000 out of pocket for the unplanned pregnancy of that 16 y.o. daughter......."

How about if the parents of the daughter, or better yet, the parents of the father be responsible for the costs of the "unplanned" pregnancy????........And pregnancy is never "unplanned", it should be expected when people engage in "those activities".

LancairDriver - 12-16-2013 at 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.


seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).


Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance.

rts551 - 12-16-2013 at 01:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.


seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).


Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance.


Jesus. I did not question your integrity. Take a chill pill and charge it to your A+ plan.

LancairDriver - 12-16-2013 at 01:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.


seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).


Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance.


Jesus. I did not question your integrity. Take a chill pill and charge it to your A+ plan.


Sorry RT, just the way I read it. We spend a lot of time beating up Insurance agents trying to pound out the best deal. Every year at renewal time it is the same game. We win some and loose some, but each year give up a little more in features or cash. This year it has been a lot, and we ran out of options for the first time.

rts551 - 12-16-2013 at 01:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job. No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also, however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market.


seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).


Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance.


Jesus. I did not question your integrity. Take a chill pill and charge it to your A+ plan.


Sorry RT, just the way I read it. We spend a lot of time beating up Insurance agents trying to pound out the best deal. Every year at renewal time it is the same game. We win some and loose some, but each year give up a little more in features or cash. This year it has been a lot, and we ran out of options for the first time.


Its been happening for a while. 5-6 years ago really took a jump. Thats why I do not think it is the ACA. It really hurts when you are on a fixed retirement income.

Unlike Barry, I think if you get sick you are not going to be able to crawl off and die. Hospice care is a reality for a lot of elderly with chronic diseases and someone has to pay. We have all probably had someone close to home die of cancer and you just don't fade away. Therefore some kind of insurance is a must for most of us or we live off the free care someone else funds.

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 01:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by absinvestor
oxxo- I don't like the ACA and you do. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.


To repeat myself......I think the ACA is a flawed and complex system when compared to a "socialized" system like in Canada or Switzerland where the feedback is overwhelmingly positive. I favor a "socialized" single payer system like the countries referenced rather than the ACA. So your presumptions are incorrect on a number of accounts.

So you don't like the ACA and you are going to do everything possible to see it doesn't work. You are not the only one with that mindset. I am not in favor of the ACA when compared to a single payer system, but I am going to do everything possible to see it does work!

Quote:
However, the feedback from Colorado Kaiser is much different than the feedback you received at your California Christmas party.


Your anecdotal evidence is no more reliable than mine. You completely missed my point, for every anecdote you provide, I can provide the opposite and vice versa. I have three immediate family members who are healthcare doctors (one of them applying to Kaiser). They are all wildly enthusiastic about the ACA as a first step toward a comprehensive health care system in the US. They say that thinking the ACA will reduce physicians and hospitals is a myth and not supported by AMA data. However, Kaiser is recognized as a leader in comprehensive health care by any measure. Let's see if we run out of doctors and hospitals before we ASSUME they will! They sure didn't in Canada and Switzerland.

Quote:
In addition to our 2 Kaiser Dr's I spoke to a neighbor who recently had a colonoscopy and to his wife who had just gone in for a mamogram. Their Dr's feedback was similar to what our Dr said- fewer Dr's and hospitals. Summary of their opinions- bad deal.


Yep, Kaiser mammogram = free. Kaiser colonoscopy = less than $100. How much would they have cost in the non-conforming Blue Cross plan?

Let me guess......your neighbor does not Like the ACA any better than you do, no matter what a doctor might say. His mind won't be changed either.

Quote:
Your comment that just because our kids liked their plan doesn't mean it is a good plan is insulting. Both are highly educated, run successful businesses and have substantial earnings and assets. They elected to have plans that didn't cover day to day medical expenses but that would cover a catastrophic event.


Your comment that highly educated people with substantial earnings and assets with pre-existing conditions, a pregnancy, and with children in need of dental care should not qualify for insurance is highly insulting! Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone was as wealthy as your kids and could afford to pay several thousand a month for health care if need be! We wouldn't need the ACA in that case.

Quote:
Rather than trying to reinvent our entire medical system he could have garnered majority support for a plan that helped underinsured and the non insured. Instead, we now have a program that the majority of US taxpayers don't agree with.


Is that what you said to Romney? The President asked the Republicans to come up with an alternate and they came up with............nothing! Whether Americans agree with ACA or not depends on whether you watch Faux Gnus.

[Edited on 12-16-2013 by oxxo]

dasubergeek - 12-16-2013 at 01:54 PM

Switzerland is not a single-payer system; everyone in Switzerland holds private insurance, and those who need assistance are given premium assistance; there is no government-run health plan, even for government employees.

Canada and the U.K. are single-payer system; France has a hybrid between the two.

I don't support a single-payer system. I trust (relatively speaking) the government to set minimum standards for coverage, but I do not trust the government to run a healthcare plan, Medicare notwithstanding.

measomsan - 12-16-2013 at 02:21 PM

It's not AcA..it is Obamacare. Pass by one party with the other not invited. No one read the dam thing. The speaker of the house said, well,you know. This is how the left does things. No one thinks it out. Just react with Feeling Good. What a heap of crap. Now it has to be cleaned up. And they don't care. Cause they Feel Good. I had 15 employees, paid ALL their insurance, 401k . And more. Now the government wants their stinky fingers on 401k plans. Never stops. I'm out, worked hard and made it. So happy people taking down the good old USA, proud you must be.

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 02:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
Very good example of the free enterprise system at work, very little government intervention (FDR lifting the draft notice for the Doctor)
Today Henry Kaiser would be reviled as one of the hated 1%. How times have changed


So if Kaiser is a "Very good example of the free enterprise system at work, very little government intervention," where was Blue Cross, United HealthCare, Magellan, Anthem, and all the others when they could have provided a good example of the free enterprise system? They were not being responsible and the government had to step in. I would have preferred that they be responsible and keep the government out, but they weren't.

Your rhetoric and hyperbole exceed the facts. No one reviles the hated one percent. The 1% are only reviled when they don't pay their fair share unlike Henry Kaiser, or Carnegie, or some contemporaries like Warren Buffet. Let's see....who was the Presidential candidate who hid his assets in offshore accounts to avoid his taxes?

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
How about if the parents of the daughter, or better yet, the parents of the father be responsible for the costs of the "unplanned" pregnancy????........And pregnancy is never "unplanned", it should be expected when people engage in "those activities".


That's who I am talking about, the parents of that 16 y.o. If the parents of that 16 y.o. don't have ACA qualified insurance they would say they could not afford to pay for the "planned" pregnancy (there does that make you feel better?), and it would be up to the taxpayer to provide healthcare for that 16 y.o. and her unemployed consort. There are many Republican controlled State legislatures that are wanting to ban insurance coverage of contraceptives. Thank you, you are making my argument for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriverWe spend a lot of time beating up Insurance agents trying to pound out the best deal. Every year at renewal time it is the same game. We win some and loose some, but each year give up a little more in features or cash. This year it has been a lot, and we ran out of options for the first time.


I applaud you and your company for your proactive policy of providing health care for your employees. You have done way more than most employers. However, health care needs have changed and it is only fair that you ask your employees to contribute about 33% of the health premiums for expanded coverage. You have done more than your share, it is now time for your employees to do their share. I think if push came to shove, you and I are not that far apart.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
oxxo, How would we know what the Repubs came up with. As far as I can tell their activities, if positive, are censured. We're only getting propaganda from the usual left wing sources. Sooner or later the facts will come out. Come on. Give it some thought. :?:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Another conspiracy theorist! Yeah, like someone is censoring Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Faux Gnus. John Boner is the only one who wants to censor those guys! :lol::lol::lol:

Okay, then YOU tell me what the Republican plan is for health care reform. I am all ears!

Quote:
Originally posted by measomsan
It's not AcA..it is Obamacare. Pass by one party with the other not invited.


Okay, if that's the way you want it, lets then call it RomneyCare because it is essentially his plan. And let's go even further, let's not call it Social Security, lets call it Franklin Roosevelt Security. And the biggest percentage deficit increase in the economy, let's call it Dubya Debt. Let's give credit where credit is due.

You want to call it ObamaCare now but in a few years when the thing is running smoothly and everyone loves it, you will want to call it the ACA.

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 02:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dasubergeek
Switzerland is not a single-payer system; everyone in Switzerland holds private insurance, ...................
I don't support a single-payer system. I trust (relatively speaking) the government to set minimum standards for coverage, but I do not trust the government to run a healthcare plan, Medicare notwithstanding.


Thanks Geek for your clarification, I am corrected. Does that mean that the Swiss system is somewhat similar to the ACA? I love my government Medicare program run by a private provider. The program runs to near perfection. I wish all Americans had access to the same plan I have.

absinvestor - 12-16-2013 at 04:24 PM

oxxo- Possibly I didn't explain my point. I think that something needs to be done for those with preexisting conditions etc- the point was that the kids had insurance to cover a catastrophic event and they had sufficient liquid assets to cover Dr visits, broken legs etc. It was a plan that they liked. The son-in-law had a preventative colonoscopy earlier this year. His insurance didn't cover it and he paid $854 for the procedure. (The Dr said the bill was normally $1100 but since the son-in-law paid immediately he was given a discount.) Our daughter had a preventative mammogram and paid about $400. The $1254 that they paid amounted to about two months of a "full coverage" policy premium. After retiring from a major corporation that didn't provide retirement health insurance my wife and I elected to get a high deductible "junk plan." That plan did not cover Dr visits etc but did cover a catastrophic event up to 5 million $. For the 6+ years that we had that policy we saved about $10,000/year in premiums. I don't have access to exact records but estimate we spent about $3000 in preventative colonoscopys, annual physicals etc. Granted we are healthy but up to the point we qualified for medicare we were about $57000 ahead. Again, our policy did cover a major event ie heart attack etc. I just think that we should have worked on the population that couldn't get insurance and reducing premiums vs denying those that had policies they liked.

mtgoat666 - 12-16-2013 at 04:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by measomsan
It's not AcA..it is Obamacare. Pass by one party with the other not invited.


it seems to me that the big issue is the exchanges and insurance coverage mandate -- silly complainers! The exchanges and requirements are basically Massachusetts RomneyCare system rolled out to other states :light::light:

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 05:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by absinvestor
oxxo- Possibly I didn't explain my point. I think that something needs to be done for those with preexisting conditions etc-


Amigo, we are in this together. I suspect we both want the same results. Yes, pre-existing conditions, maternity, pediatric dentistry, high premiums, etc. were something that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, private enterprise was not addressing it. The Republicans, other than Romney in MA, wouldn't address it. So the President had to step in and do something. Now we have something that I am not completely happy with, you will never be happy with, but it is a step in the right direction. I wish that private enterprise had been a responsible player like Kaiser, but they weren't.

Quote:
the point was that the kids had insurance to cover a catastrophic event and they had sufficient liquid assets to cover Dr visits, broken legs etc. It was a plan that they liked.


Great, I wish the Walmart worker had the same assets your children have. But let's consider the unthinkable - suppose your SIL came down with colon cancer and had to quit his job as a result. Suppose your daughter came down with breast cancer at the same time and had to quit her job. What happens to that insurance plan they liked but can no longer afford their premiums? Suppose they both thankfully recover and get new jobs but they can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions under the pre-ACA programs, ever again? ABS, your kids had junk plans.

Quote:
The son-in-law had a preventative colonoscopy earlier this year. His insurance didn't cover it and he paid $854 for the procedure. (The Dr said the bill was normally $1100 but since the son-in-law paid immediately he was given a discount.) Our daughter had a preventative mammogram and paid about $400. The $1254 that they paid amounted to about two months of a "full coverage" policy premium.


Again GREAT! But what about those people who can't afford $854 for colonoscopy or $400 for a mammogram? So they don't go to the doctor and they come down with colon cancer or breast cancer and then you and I, taxpayers, have to pick up the tab. Not so GREAT.

Quote:
After retiring from a major corporation that didn't provide retirement health insurance my wife and I elected to get a high deductible "junk plan." That plan did not cover Dr visits etc but did cover a catastrophic event up to 5 million $. For the 6+ years that we had that policy we saved about $10,000/year in premiums. I don't have access to exact records but estimate we spent about $3000 in preventative colonoscopys, annual physicals etc. Granted we are healthy but up to the point we qualified for medicare we were about $57000 ahead.


I don't doubt what you say, but that $57000 and $5M limit would have evaporated overnight if you had both come down with cancer or heart disease, or a stroke during those five years. You rolled the dice during that period and you came out ahead. I am a candidate for colon cancer as a result of genetics. Why aren't we men as concerned about what comes out the exit as we are about how good it tastes when it goes in the entrance? I get a colonoscopy every three years by doctors orders. Costs me less than $100 a pop. So far, so good. I wish everyone had the same health benefits I have.

Quote:
Again, our policy did cover a major event ie heart attack etc. I just think that we should have worked on the population that couldn't get insurance and reducing premiums vs denying those that had policies they liked.


The insurance industry had the opportunity to do that and they didn't. If you want to blame someone, blame them not Obama for trying to fix an industry wide problem.

Osprey - 12-16-2013 at 06:20 PM

What will the future hold: Headlines in all the major news outlets, Jan 4, 2014

A statement by the President: "If you like the ACA you can keep it, period."

tripledigitken - 12-16-2013 at 06:43 PM

Request to cut and pasters....

Please include author/poster identity in the quote boxes.

Pescador - 12-16-2013 at 06:54 PM

You know, the old adage of you can lead a horse to water. I spent my life helping people make smart decisions about how to wisely protect themselves aned their assets in the insurance maze. I went to Cuba to see the socialized medicine that was practiced there and it is a total disaster. Always chasing more medications and while it is easy to see a doctor, try real hard to find one Lithotrope machine in all of Cuba, while any small hospital in the US has one at ready. I have a dear friend in Canada who needs a hip replacement and only waited two years to get to see the specialist and then another 2 1/2 years to finally get the surgery done. You bet, that is a wonderful standard to hold up and spew the information that we have universal health care coverage.

I know it went over every ones head who is a little left leaning, but when I sold a good plan with a 2 million lifetime coverage, all I had to do was to move them to the state mandated plan if they were going to go over that because of a serious illness.

When we had a true free enterprise system of healthcare in the United States, we were the standard of the world and we developed systems, treatments and medicines that helped people treat illnesses that could not be treated anywhere else in the world.

But now, with a single swipe of the pen, we are pushed in to a health plan that less than half of the people in the United States support or agree with. We have literally driven a stake through the heart of the health care delivery system that was the standard of the world.

But we can be really proud, we have pushed together a system that does not function at all in terms of signing up, we have only begun to feel the pain with people who will be receiving substandard care in a system that can not have a glimmer of working, if you understand anything about qualitative care. And yet they threw lots of crap at Palin when she said they were going to be making end of life decisions based only on guidlines from Health and Human Services.

So, where we once were the standard of the world in terms of health care delivery, research and development, now we are turning into a third world country and working on ways to effeciently pass out pills and dispense medications. Thank goodness I am nearing my end of life and am comfortable with the idea that it was easier to move to Mexico where the system was substandard, but at least it was simple and I can choose whether to partake or not. The only sad point is that my offspring are stuck with a monster that may take years to straighten out, it ever. But when we have no problems leaving our next generation with unpaid debt and continued irresponsibility towards ever fixing the unpaid debt.

rts551 - 12-16-2013 at 07:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
You know, the old adage of you can lead a horse to water. I spent my life helping people make smart decisions about how to wisely protect themselves aned their assets in the insurance maze. I went to Cuba to see the socialized medicine that was practiced there and it is a total disaster. Always chasing more medications and while it is easy to see a doctor, try real hard to find one Lithotrope machine in all of Cuba, while any small hospital in the US has one at ready. I have a dear friend in Canada who needs a hip replacement and only waited two years to get to see the specialist and then another 2 1/2 years to finally get the surgery done. You bet, that is a wonderful standard to hold up and spew the information that we have universal health care coverage.

I know it went over every ones head who is a little left leaning, but when I sold a good plan with a 2 million lifetime coverage, all I had to do was to move them to the state mandated plan if they were going to go over that because of a serious illness.

When we had a true free enterprise system of healthcare in the United States, we were the standard of the world and we developed systems, treatments and medicines that helped people treat illnesses that could not be treated anywhere else in the world.

But now, with a single swipe of the pen, we are pushed in to a health plan that less than half of the people in the United States support or agree with. We have literally driven a stake through the heart of the health care delivery system that was the standard of the world.

But we can be really proud, we have pushed together a system that does not function at all in terms of signing up, we have only begun to feel the pain with people who will be receiving substandard care in a system that can not have a glimmer of working, if you understand anything about qualitative care. And yet they threw lots of crap at Palin when she said they were going to be making end of life decisions based only on guidlines from Health and Human Services.

So, where we once were the standard of the world in terms of health care delivery, research and development, now we are turning into a third world country and working on ways to effeciently pass out pills and dispense medications. Thank goodness I am nearing my end of life and am comfortable with the idea that it was easier to move to Mexico where the system was substandard, but at least it was simple and I can choose whether to partake or not. The only sad point is that my offspring are stuck with a monster that may take years to straighten out, it ever. But when we have no problems leaving our next generation with unpaid debt and continued irresponsibility towards ever fixing the unpaid debt.


from a right leaning group...we ranked very poorly overall in for health care systems

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-th...

another (little less right)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranki...

[Edited on 12-17-2013 by rts551]

oxxo - 12-16-2013 at 08:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
I spent my life helping people make smart decisions about how to wisely protect themselves aned their assets in the insurance maze.


Then why does your company, Blue Cross, rate so low in customer satisfaction?

Quote:
I went to Cuba to see the socialized medicine that was practiced there and it is a total disaster.


Did you go to Somalia where they have a "free enterprise" medical system and it is a total disaster?

Quote:
I have a dear friend in Canada who needs a hip replacement and only waited two years to get to see the specialist and then another 2 1/2 years to finally get the surgery done.


Probably true. My Mexican neighbor, a retired hospital chief executive in Canada said that non-essential and elective medical care is given a lower priority. They deal with emergencies first. BTW, she loves her Canadian socialized insurance.

Quote:
when I sold a good plan with a 2 million lifetime coverage, all I had to do was to move them to the state mandated plan if they were going to go over that because of a serious illness.


Push it off on the taxpayers. That would make sense to Blue Cross and their execs.

Quote:
When we had a true free enterprise system of healthcare in the United States, we were the standard of the world and we developed systems, treatments and medicines that helped people treat illnesses that could not be treated anywhere else in the world.


What century are we talking about here?

Quote:
We have literally driven a stake through the heart of the health care delivery system that was the standard of the world...........So, where we once were the standard of the world in terms of health care delivery, research and development, now we are turning into a third world country and working on ways to effeciently pass out pills and dispense medications.


You are out of touch. The US has not been the p****** of world health care in years. You are living a myth.

Quote:
But we can be really proud, we have pushed together a system that does not function at all in terms of signing up, we have only begun to feel the pain with people who will be receiving substandard care in a system that can not have a glimmer of working, if you understand anything about qualitative care.


Your crystal ball is a bit clouded. We need to give the ACA a chance to work before we condemn it.

Quote:
And yet they threw lots of crap at Palin when she said they were going to be making end of life decisions based only on guidlines from Health and Human Services.


:lol::lol::lol: Please Para Salin, run for national office again in 2016, I need more comedy in my life :lol::lol:

Quote:
Thank goodness I am nearing my end of life and am comfortable with the idea that it was easier to move to Mexico where the system was substandard, but at least it was simple and I can choose whether to partake or not.


If you become seriously ill you will be begging for medical care wherever you can get it - substandard or not.

Quote:
The only sad point is that my offspring are stuck with a monster that may take years to straighten out, it ever. But when we have no problems leaving our next generation with unpaid debt and continued irresponsibility towards ever fixing the unpaid debt.


We can fix the national debt, just raise Federal taxes. They have never been lower since the 1950's.

Paula - 12-16-2013 at 09:37 PM

Just want to say thank you to oxxo for his clarity and patience on this thread.
It isn't often that I agree with anyone 100%, let alone any Nomad:biggrin:

I'm not sure that the American health system has ever been the best in the world, and it certainly isn't today. Many people who aren't in favor of the ACA feel the way they do because it doesn't go far enough. My home state senator, Max Baucus has a lot to do with that, as he negotiated with great respect and consideration for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that own him.
So if you combine those who feel positive about the ACA and those who want a system that cuts out the middle man, the majority of Americans do favor major changes to our health care delivery system. And this is in spite of the talking points, or outright lies of the GOP and the not so liberal press.

dasubergeek - 12-16-2013 at 09:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Thanks Geek for your clarification, I am corrected. Does that mean that the Swiss system is somewhat similar to the ACA? I love my government Medicare program run by a private provider. The program runs to near perfection. I wish all Americans had access to the same plan I have.


The Swiss system is essentially identical to the ACA. Somewhere upthread, on page 4 or maybe the top of this page, is an explanation of the Swiss system that I wrote this morning.

dasubergeek - 12-16-2013 at 09:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
We can fix the national debt, just raise Federal taxes. They have never been lower since the 1950's.


This is something that bemuses me; I hear a lot of people moaning about the 1950s, when America was at her post-WWII peak of productivity. Well, there were tax brackets above 90% until the early 70s; then they went to about 75%. It wasn't until Reagan that the tax structure collapsed to two brackets, 15% and 28%.

When I hear conservatives calling for a return to the old ways, I assume they mean the social conservatism of the 1950s and the tax structure of the 1980s, except that one funded the other. We had fantastic educational systems, a good medical system, and the largest expansion of infrastructure since the railroads of the mid-19th century... all financed by taxes of 91% on people making the equivalent in 2013 dollars of $1.9M. If you made the 1950 equivalent of today's $500,000, you paid 75% federal income tax. If you made the equivalent of today's $250,000, you paid 62%; today's $100,000 paid 38%, and today's $50,000 paid 26%.

(Source: http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-incom... - second chart, seriously addicting to look at)

Also, just because I prefer full disclosure, I am a centrist; I believe the government has a role, and I don't like nanny states.

Timo1 - 12-16-2013 at 10:00 PM

I guess medical ins. in Canada isn't so bad after all

Barb and I are paid up till oct. 2014

The year cost us $1200 and covers a sprained ankle to brain sugeory(sp)

Waiting times are LONG for elective stuff though

Oh and it doesn't cover an ambulance ride

vgabndo - 12-16-2013 at 10:29 PM

Even in that, Tim, there is something telling about our system. Before I had Medicare I got cancer and my A+ private insurance was billed $2,999.00 for a 62 mile non-emergency ambulance transport between sister hospitals. $48. a mile! Is it any wonder my Union Health insurance is going broke? Had I known it was a hold up I could have driven myself and saved all that co-pay!:lol:
 Pages:  1