| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
7 |
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
| 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.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
| 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.
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
Paula
Super Nomad
Posts: 2219
Registered: 1-5-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
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. 
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.
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
My Vet has that beat
| 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]
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
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.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Super Nomad
Posts: 2137
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| 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
Super Nomad
Posts: 2137
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| 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.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 2137
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| 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! 
[Edited on 12-15-2013 by oxxo]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| 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!
[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
Super Nomad
Posts: 2137
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| 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
Super Nomad
Posts: 2137
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| 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.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Great stuff, Oxxo. Don't fully agree (naturally) but you DO make some good
points.
Barry
|
|
|
805gregg
Super Nomad
Posts: 1344
Registered: 5-21-2006
Location: Ojai, Ca
Member Is Offline
|
|
South Crolina has voted to opt out for Obummercare, hopefully others will follow
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1587
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
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.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
7 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
