Poll
![]() | 8 votes (33.33%) | ||
![]() | 11 votes (45.83%) | ||
![]() | 1 vote (4.16%) | ||
![]() | 1 vote (4.16%) | ||
![]() | 1 vote (4.16%) | ||
![]() | 2 votes (8.33%) |
24 members have voted
I personally have employer healthcare. Regardless of what the republicans do, i will still have health care insurance. I wonder how many here are on obamacare and are worried
Many policies mention coverage but don't mention 'caps'?
Some companies 're-calculate' rates every year thus insuring only the healty, which is what all companies want to do.
Obama care is an open-ended insuance auction system wherein health insurers "bid" for certain market share. Some of the bidding is like any other auction... very "friendly" bidders, no real competion.
Since exact coverage and limits are often unknown there is no real way to allocate costs except to 'future taxes and future premium hikes'.
Costs? Just this past week some Breast Cancer specialists called for more coverage while other experts said its become a politically motivated disease with far too much time and money spent mammogramming the healthy and the unlikely to get breast cancer women who are simply worried. This leads to worry, more testing, more costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service
Free treatment for 'necessities' albeit with long waiting times for some operations.
Free treatment for emergency treatment.
Free treatment by a General Practice Doctor, or nursing staff.
Prescribed drugs at fixed costs of about $10 per medication, with 'season ticket' pricing for those who need lots of different medication.
Prescribed drugs free to elderly and to those on very low income ( 'on benefits' )
Free basic Hearing aids too and free or almost free spectacles and eye tests.
Those who wish to pay to go private can do so, to get treated earlier or for non-essential treatments, but the hospital facilities might be the same or better.
Some companies offer 'BUPA' which is a private medical service as an additional benefit of employment contract.
We pay out of direct taxation and remarkably, hardly anyone complains about the cost. Some get upset about the long waiting times and some get upset at the 'non-contributors' who use and abuse the service. It also leads to some nationalistic ill will, because our service is available free to European visitors under reciprocal arrangements: A key factor in the Brexit vote.
Even if your employer provides 'BUPA' you still have to pay for the NHS through your salary, whether you use it or not.
NHS. We Brits love it. . . mostly.
(1) Medicare parts A&B,
(2) Part D coverage (through WellCare for 2017),
(3) Medigap Plan G (through Cigna for 2017), and
(4) neither Dem nor Rep.
I am "worried" in the senses that (1) there seems to be an extremely high attitude of entitlement such that too many folks expect someone else to pay for their medical expenses, (2) Obamacare seems to have created an even more outrageous bureaucracy than what existed before (which didn't seem possible), and (3) I suspect that whatever winds up being done about it will turn out to make things even worse.
Seriously, I have had five doctors since 2000; #1 stopped taking all insurance (besides Medicare), #2 switched from general practice to acute wounds, #3 retired, and #4 stopped taking my particular insurance.
It went to $360 with $10 co-pay, and free prescriptions.
Am I worried? Concerned would be a better word.
Right there with you. I switched from an individual silver plan to a gold plan this year (higher premiums, lower deductibles) because even though the premiums are higher, my CPA told me that premiums are a better write-off than expenses and with my usage overall I'll save money. But like basically everyone I know, we have some pre-existing conditions. If guaranteed coverage for individual and family plans ceases to be a thing, an awful lot of people are going be at risk for summary termination when the insurance companies decide they need to decrease their aggregate risk.Quote: DRichYou seem to have forgot the option "I pay for my own families healthcare and it is freaking expensive".
Quote: MathExtremistRight there with you. I switched from an individual silver plan to a gold plan this year (higher premiums, lower deductibles) because even though the premiums are higher, my CPA told me that premiums are a better write-off than expenses and with my usage overall I'll save money. But like basically everyone I know, we have some pre-existing conditions. If guaranteed coverage for individual and family plans ceases to be a thing, an awful lot of people are going be at risk for summary termination when the insurance companies decide they need to decrease their aggregate risk.
Yet if pre-existing conditions are allowed in the new law, why bother buying insurance when healthy? A typical thirty year old can buy insurance on the way to the ER.
Quote: billryanYet if pre-existing conditions are allowed in the new law, why bother buying insurance when healthy? A typical thirty year old can buy insurance on the way to the ER.
Bingo
$40 dollars a month taken out of my check.
$1500 deductible. $2500 yearly out of pocket maximum. My employer also provides $500 ($125 each quarter) in a HSA for those of us who choose this "high deductible" plan.
I think it's an amazing deal and I consider myself very lucky.
Quote: billryanYet if pre-existing conditions are allowed in the new law, why bother buying insurance when healthy? A typical thirty year old can buy insurance on the way to the ER.
Isn't there something like a six-month "waiting period" allowed before insurance actually takes effect, to prevent stunts like this?
No, that's not the way it works. "I was just in a car wreck" isn't a pre-existing condition. Diabetes is a pre-existing condition. The reason you need a mandate to force healthy people to buy insurance is so insurers will have the risk pool to cover the sick ones. If you want to get rid of the mandate, you'll either need to replace it with an actual tax (which is the right solution) or you'll need to punt and say that insurers don't actually need to issue guaranteed coverage. Then we'll be back to where we were before, with millions of small business owners like me unable to get insurance without paying a ton of money for it, so millions of people will go without coverage and go back to using the ER for basic care and avoiding preventive checkups. And all because someone decided corporate profits are more important than a healthy, productive citizenry.Quote: billryanYet if pre-existing conditions are allowed in the new law, why bother buying insurance when healthy? A typical thirty year old can buy insurance on the way to the ER.
I don't think corporate profits are more important than a healthy, productive citizenry, and economies around the world back me up. Many countries with state-run insurance have higher GDP growth than the U.S.
It's all fun and games to joke around with insurance coverage policy, but nobody is sensibly suggesting that magically, if Obamacare goes away, that insurers will be able to issue coverage in the time it takes an ambulance to get to the hospital. If you've never actually purchased an insurance plan, you probably don't appreciate this. If you've never actually been rejected for an insurance plan after waiting six weeks for an underwriting reply (I have), and then had to scramble to get high-risk-pool coverage at jacked up rates because your COBRA ran out (I have), then you *really* don't appreciate this. That whole process was utter bulls**t. It's ridiculous that we don't just have insurance coverage that just stays with you. We are spending more on health coverage and getting worse results precisely because the for-profit insurance companies are taking a rake. It is an absolute falsehood that the free market leads to efficient results, at least in the insurance marketplace.
![](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/theapothecary/files/2014/10/oecd-2012-public-expenditures.jpg?width=960)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think-tank-10-countries-with-universal-health-care-are-economically-freer-than-the-u-s/#d08065e9facd
We are doing it wrong, and I can't understand why more people don't understand this when the proof is literally in front of our faces.
It is an amazing deal. I have a similar deductible/OOP limit, except for the HSA part because my plan says $1500 is a low deductible, and also my premiums are 3000% what yours are. :(Quote: ams288Employer sponsored health care for me. We have three plans we can choose from. I chose the "high deductible" plan.
$40 dollars a month taken out of my check.
$1500 deductible. $2500 yearly out of pocket maximum. My employer also provides $500 ($125 each quarter) in a HSA for those of us who choose this "high deductible" plan.
I think it's an amazing deal and I consider myself very lucky.
Quote: DRichYou seem to have forgot the option "I pay for my own families healthcare and it is freaking expensive".
Same here, paying $1615 a month for wife and I. But in someminds, we should be happy because we are helping those " less fortunate than ourselves ".
The liberal thought process is so disgusting.
Quote: BozSame here, paying $1615 a month for wife and I. But in someminds, we should be happy because we are helping those " less fortunate than ourselves ".
The liberal thought process is so disgusting.
Pssst. Those rates aren't going down when Obamacare gets repealed. Who are you gonna blame then?
Quote: BozSame here, paying $1615 a month for wife and I. But in someminds, we should be happy because we are helping those " less fortunate than ourselves ".
The liberal thought process is so disgusting.
I concur. Are there not prisons? Are there no poorhouses?
Why should I be my brothers keeper?
Quote: MathExtremistThen we'll be back to where we were before, with millions of small business owners like me unable to get insurance without paying a ton of money for it, so millions of people will go without coverage and go back to using the ER for basic care and avoiding preventive checkups.
We are doing it wrong, and I can't understand why more people don't understand this when the proof is literally in front of our faces.
Small business owners are now paying a lot more than they did before. Before the scam I was paying $450 a month will less of a deductible than I am now. Besides this act was never for Small business owners, it was for the so called "poor" and to expand government on the way to Single Pay. Even you know that has always been the Dem plan. They just didn't realize the public was smarter than that and sent their asses packing from office all over the country.
Which brings us to where more people don't understand this when the "proof" is right there. You will never get it. You think you are smarter than the general public but you are not. Maybe in book smarts and solving equations but not in how people think and live. Your liberal thinking has made you believe the world needs people like you to run our lives. We don't but don't change a thing. As you say, the numbers don't lie and just look at how helpless the Dem party has become with you and Obama's type thinking. Keep it up!
Quote: MathExtremistNo, that's not the way it works. "I was just in a car wreck" isn't a pre-existing condition. Diabetes is a pre-existing condition. The reason you need a mandate to force healthy people to buy insurance is so insurers will have the risk pool to cover the sick ones. If you want to get rid of the mandate, you'll either need to replace it with an actual tax (which is the right solution) or you'll need to punt and say that insurers don't actually need to issue guaranteed coverage. Then we'll be back to where we were before, with millions of small business owners like me unable to get insurance without paying a ton of money for it, so millions of people will go without coverage and go back to using the ER for basic care and avoiding preventive checkups. And all because someone decided corporate profits are more important than a healthy, productive citizenry.
I don't think corporate profits are more important than a healthy, productive citizenry, and economies around the world back me up. Many countries with state-run insurance have higher GDP growth than the U.S.
It's all fun and games to joke around with insurance coverage policy, but nobody is sensibly suggesting that magically, if Obamacare goes away, that insurers will be able to issue coverage in the time it takes an ambulance to get to the hospital. If you've never actually purchased an insurance plan, you probably don't appreciate this. If you've never actually been rejected for an insurance plan after waiting six weeks for an underwriting reply (I have), and then had to scramble to get high-risk-pool coverage at jacked up rates because your COBRA ran out (I have), then you *really* don't appreciate this. That whole process was utter bulls**t. It's ridiculous that we don't just have insurance coverage that just stays with you. We are spending more on health coverage and getting worse results precisely because the for-profit insurance companies are taking a rake. It is an absolute falsehood that the free market leads to efficient results, at least in the insurance marketplace.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/27/conservative-think-tank-10-countries-with-universal-health-care-are-economically-freer-than-the-u-s/#d08065e9facd
We are doing it wrong, and I can't understand why more people don't understand this when the proof is literally in front of our faces.
But, but death panels.....
Quote: ams288Pssst. Those rates aren't going down when Obamacare gets repealed. Who are you gonna blame then?
Yes it will because I will be able to buy a Major Medical HSA policy a lot cheaper. I can afford a high deductible, am healthy and willing to gamble I that I won't have to drop $25k before the MM kicks in. And I can afford to put money in a HSA and be way ahead in less than 2 years.
You have this continued fixation with my intelligence, so let's set that aside for the moment by supposing I'm a drooling idiot. Does that change the fact that the US is spending more money on healthcare than all but two countries in that list?Quote: BozWhich brings us to where more people don't understand this when the "proof" is right there. You will never get it. You think you are smarter than the general public but you are not.
Are you okay with that? If you were trying to run the country, would you say "hey, let's be really, really inefficient with healthcare spending?"
Quote: MathExtremistYou have this continued fixation with my intelligence, so let's set that aside for the moment by supposing I'm a drooling idiot. Does that change the fact that the US is spending more money on healthcare than all but two countries in that list?
Because you are the one that is always putting it out there. Your right to do so, as it is mine to believe that your type of elite thinking is exactly why we have President Trump.
And we do spend too much on HC, Starting with Me. We also spend too much on Food Stamps and WIC. And we collect too much in taxes from people who have made the right decisions in life while rewarding those willing to scam the system.
And yet, the rest of the world is envious of us. After all even our "poor" have $700 cell phones.
I have health care, not through an employer or the ACA, although currently it's a short term policy that doesn't include pre existing conditions, of which I have none.
In the past 3 years I've gone from premiums of $314 a month to $468 a month to where the least expensive plan I have access to this year is $902. Instead I'm paying about $225 for my short term policy. This is for a single male.
There appears to be a rule that if your health care costs are over 8.16% of your income then you are exempt from the ACA penalties and you are eligible to purchase a "catastrophic" plan instead, but good luck finding out how to get that to work. Even healthcare.gov wasn't able to help much. And for anyone thinking of looking into this, it doesn't apply if you are approved to receive subsidies.
That catastrophic policy would "only" cost me about $538 a month, but it would cover pre existing conditions. While I don't have any, at least that I know of, I still fear the insurance companies will claim something is pre existing anyway just to get out of paying the bill.
I've been self employed for over 30 years and have had health care most of that time, often at great personal cost. In the past decade the lowest yearly rate increase I had was 17% and the highest was 46%, (or close to that, my memory is failing tonight). To avoid those increases I just changed policies, often every other year and to one that was almost exactly the same but with a slightly higher deductible but was at a much lower cost. But that is a luxury only the healthy can afford. Sick people won't be accepted into a new plan, so they have to stay in the old which gets more and more costly as healthy people drop out, which is how it was designed to be. It was a rigged system. We think of insurance as a way to spread the risk. Insurers design it thinking of ways to eliminate risk.
People that have employee health care don't know how good you have it. For a lot of us getting a decent policy that doesn't cost an arm and a leg is next to impossible, and there is constant worry that the insurer will drop you or deny your claims. Life shouldn't be like that.
After 30 years of dealing with it I believe some form of single payer is the only solution. We make choices about all kinds of things in life, many of those choices determining our lifestyle. If you want to be a philosopher by all means go for it, but don't expect to be driving a Jaguar and sleeping in a 10 bedroom abode, (unless it's Motel 6). But with health care you have no choice. If you fall on the ice and crack your skull open you can't just put a band aid on it. If you get cancer you can't take some Tylenol and hope it goes away. Why must an item that is non-negotiable be a commodity to be bought, sold and profited on?
Of course that alone won't solve things; costs have to come down too but for the providers there is no reason to do so. The higher the prices, the more they make.
Just about everywhere else in the world drug costs are drastically lower than here, often in the 50% range. Americans are subsidizing the drug costs for the rest of the world, where most nations have cost controls. I can get asthma inhalers at less than 20% of what they cost in the US by buying them from a South Pacific nation, and drugs from Canada are routinely 50% of what they are here.
Hospitals are no better, with bills often filled with erroneous and outrageous charges. About 8 years ago I had a knee problem and my doctor gave me an ace bandage. $24. I checked and the exact same thing at CVS was $6.
I don't know what the solution is, but as long as people don't see the "real" costs and burdens of health care nothing is going to change.
Quote: BozSame here, paying $1615 a month for wife and I. But in someminds, we should be happy because we are helping those " less fortunate than ourselves ".
The liberal thought process is so disgusting.
I don't know your families health situation but that plan to be insane. That's like 19k just to have insurance. How does the average American afford anything else if they have to pay that?
Quote: djatcI don't know your families health situation but that plan to be insane. That's like 19k just to have insurance. How does the average American afford anything else if they have to pay that?
Plus up to 14K in deductible per year. With no change in health my plan has went from less than $500 to $1615 in 4 years. This is what Trump is talking about and why you see such public opinion against it. The only ones supporting it are pansy ass rich liberals and those who are getting subsidized off of people like me.
No the average person cant afford it, but then again I am paying for stuff I would never need, all part of Obama's master plan.
DJATC asks how an average American can afford $19k a year for insurance. The answer is they don't have to. They can get a job that provides it to you, obviously at the cost of lower wages. The self employed person who makes $20 an hour compares to the employed person with benefits who makes $10 an hour. The self employed person who makes $20 an hour just doesnt want to consider himself a $10 an hour worker, but that is what he is.
So, for example, if you are an AP that makes $20 an hour, you compare to a minimum wage worker who has benefits.
Who do you think supports a 3x increase in premiums? That's just asinine, nobody is out there cheering for costs to go up. If you had read the article I linked, it showed that we are dramatically overspending our industrialized peers who do have national healthcare.Quote: BozPlus up to 14K in deductible per year. With no change in health my plan has went from less than $500 to $1615 in 4 years. This is what Trump is talking about and why you see such public opinion against it. The only ones supporting it are pansy ass rich liberals and those who are getting subsidized off of people like me.
Here's another showing that even after accounting for increased demand (that is, more people going to the doctor), the US could save $40B by switching to a national healthcare program:
http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/
Look at the cost share of healthcare in the US vs. everywhere else. Our public/government spending is mostly in line with other wealthy nations, but our private spending -- what comes out of your pocket -- is completely out of whack:
![](http://decisiondata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.png)
Is there really public opinion against saving money and having better access to healthcare? Why?
Quote: MathExtremist
Is there really public opinion against saving money and having better access to healthcare? Why?
YES, why YES there is. Why? Because most people don't trust the government to fix the problem. The assumption is they always make it worse. And when "access" comes with a cost to most to benefit a few, the choice is easy to be against it. Throw in the support of bleeding heart liberals and your side has no chance to change public opinion.
That's a mischaracterization -- the clear public policy is "cost to a few to benefit most". But I can see it's fruitless to engage your misanthropic social views here. You will continue to hold the mistaken belief that you achieved your vast wealth and stature all by yourself, without any benefit from society, and that as a result you owe society nothing.Quote: BozYES, why YES there is. Why? Because most people don't trust the government to fix the problem. The assumption is they always make it worse. And when "access" comes with a cost to most to benefit a few, the choice is easy to be against it. Throw in the support of bleeding heart liberals and your side has no chance to change public opinion.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's a mischaracterization -- the clear public policy is "cost to a few to benefit most". But I can see it's fruitless to engage your misanthropic social views here. You will continue to hold the mistaken belief that you achieved your vast wealth and stature all by yourself, without any benefit from society, and that as a result you owe society nothing.
And you and your kind will continue to say "You didn't build it". How did that work out for you guys?
Keep the intellectual insults coming, it's all you guys have left to maintain your superiority in your minds. And by you guys I don't mean the majority of intelligent people on here. Most don't come across as you do, as a know it all to say the least.
Perhaps it's time you take your wealth and any family to Europe, you would fit in much better. America will do fine with or without you and your kind. And knowing that has to hurt the most.
My kind? What kind is that? I'm a taxpayer, you're a taxpayer (I hope), we both built this society, just as our respective forebears did. One difference between us is that I acknowledge my social debt and you apparently don't. Another difference between us is that every time I bring up a social policy you disagree with, like universal health care, you evade the policy point and resort to a discussion of intelligence -- ironically, by suggesting that you're not as smart as I am. I made several posts referencing objective financial analyses, and in response you called me a pansy ass bleeding heart liberal know-it-all.Quote: BozAnd you and your kind will continue to say "You didn't build it". How did that work out for you guys?
Keep the intellectual insults coming, it's all you guys have left to maintain your superiority in your minds. And by you guys I don't mean the majority of intelligent people on here. Most don't come across as you do, as a know it all to say the least.
If you can't have a substantive debate on a policy position without attacking the person making it, why bother commenting?
Quote: RogerKintMy health plan consists of googling symptoms and webMD: "strange rash on stomach" "why does pee burn"
I'm on the same plan. It seems That NyQuil pretty much fixes anything and helps you get a good sleep in. Now for anything else... I just ignore the pain or get some Asian girl to massage where the pain is. If the pain gets too bad I'll just buy illegal pain medication. If that doesn't help I have a .45 Cal Auto that will take care of things as I watch my last sunrise over the mountains.
Another good plan is to go get what you need in the ER and tell them to bill you. California seems to love to give out free health care and if your ambitious you can go to Canada or some other foreign land.
A few years ago my wife kept telling me she has to buy Obamacare and I told her if you give those crooks your money I am not going to be happy. She said something about the IRS! I replied... You cheat the IRS out of 3500 cash per year and your worried about not having health insurance??
I don't pay taxes but I am forced to pay all sorts of hidden taxes and fees that I can't control but as for those letters they send me telling me I owe this and that... I'll never pay that.
Quote: MathExtremistWho do you think supports a 3x increase in premiums? That's just asinine, nobody is out there cheering for costs to go up. If you had read the article I linked, it showed that we are dramatically overspending our industrialized peers who do have national healthcare.
Here's another showing that even after accounting for increased demand (that is, more people going to the doctor), the US could save $40B by switching to a national healthcare program:
http://decisiondata.org/news/how-much-single-payer-uhc-would-cost-usa/
Look at the cost share of healthcare in the US vs. everywhere else. Our public/government spending is mostly in line with other wealthy nations, but our private spending -- what comes out of your pocket -- is completely out of whack:
Is there really public opinion against saving money and having better access to healthcare? Why?
So we're paying around 5% more, per GDP, than the next nearest country. It costs us $3,603.51 more per year than in the Netherlands. Find a better way to have drugs priced and normalize the fact that new drugs typically appear in the United States first, at much higher prices, and you'll have costs equivalent to other nations. It's in the drugs man. The drugs! In the meantime, it's much ado about nothing. People just need something to complain about....I guess.
I told him my favorite joke that goes ... knock knock... he says: who's there?
I give him the punch line: GO F&@$ YOURSELF!!!
I never go or pay for doctors anymore except those dental thieves on occasion.
Take care of the small stuff as it happens, it will be easier not to have big problems develop. Ya know?
I'm aware of 50+ failed votes to repeal the ACA. Not aware of a single one to amend it into something better. It was Republican Dogma that there was to be no effort at improving it, because it was political gold to leave it disfunctional. Party before People, always.
Nobody was happy with its implementation. Nobody. It did not do what it was intended to do, due to pandering and compromise, and they knew it when they passed it. They expected to continue working on it, improving it, fixing unintended consequences, evolving it into true coverage. They never got the chance. Party before People.
Short review, as I understand it: Republican think tank.product from early 90's . Pushed by Gingrich ' s coalition in the 90's against what HRC was developing. Implemented in MA by Romney as Repub gov. Federalized and pushed by Dems, opposed by big pharmacy and big health because it cut into their profit ventures, opposed by progressives because it didn't go far enough. Nicknamed Obamacare to stigmatize it for Joe Sixpack. Obama owned it.
Now problems are surfacing that were foreseen, but the fixes were blocked. Still MUCH cheaper than without it, based on cost projections, but much more expensive than intended, because it only went halfway. Repeal without coherent replacement would be a total disaster. But Party before People leads to disaster, so if they repeal it, they will own the disaster. So, finally, political revenge, but at the expense of 10s of millions of abandoned people, most without recourse.
Madness.
I'm tired of the country being a charity case and having to pay for everyone else!!
Ross Perot had the key to solving the rampant costs of health costs/insurance...get the user of the services financially invested in lower costs and shopping for medical service providers. Ask yourself a question, do you even know how much your doctor makes for a standard office visit as the sum or your co-pay and insurance payment? What else in your life do you consume and have no idea how much the item or service costs? My guess is nothing...isn't there something wrong with that set of facts?
One way to change this is to make individuals pay something significant out of their own pockets when they seek medical care and to cover them for chronic or catastrophic medical issues. $10 co-pays are ridiculous....you make the co-pay equal to 50% of the insurance company's negotiated rate for the service you are consuming. Do you think more folks are going to see if that sniffle or sprained joint or muscle heals by itself over the next week before going to see the doctor and forking out the $100 just to get checked?
The Health Savings Account concept does this brilliantly...or at least it used to before Obamacare changed the rules and put "preventive care" back into the black box of requiring no payment from the insured.
Without personal financial responsibility for the costs of health care services individuals consume, expect costs to continue to go up due to excess demand regardless of Obamacare, Trumpcare or some Single Payor National Health Care. The same goes for Medicare. It is going bankrupt in part because the users of services pay very little for the consumption of those services...well that and the fraud that has developed when a service provider knows he/she can bill for anything because the user of the services is never going to tell Medicare that they didn't receive this service or that device...why would the user monitor the physicians Medicare billing? It doesn't cost the patient any more if they don't check the bill and there are additional items listed on the bill sent to Medicare...it isn't like they are signing a document on the way out of the office saying, "yep, I really did get all of this and my portion of the bill looks like $150, it all checks out."
Think about this in the world of auto insurance...if there was no increase cost to your auto insurance for getting speeding tickets or getting into accidents, would you be more or less likely to speed and drive less carefully? More or less likely to roll through a few more red lights and stop signs? One deterrent to those actions is the fact that your auto insurance rates would go up if you drive poorly or recklessly and the result is traffic citations and at fault accidents. With enough "points" on your record, you may lose your right to drive altogether.
Transfer that to your personal health. If you knew you had unlimited access to free medical care, would you care less about being overweight or doing something about being pre-diabetic to ensure you don't develop full blown Type 2 Diabetes? Would you eat healthier and exercise more if you knew that if you developed a chronic condition, it would cost you more out of pocket expenses every year? What about smoking...if you knew that the National Health Insurance plan would take care of your smoking induced health care costs, would you be more or less likely to start or continue smoking? These are all personal choices that affect your health and people should be held accountable for the costs associated with making these lifestyle choices.
The problem that many conservatives have with a Single Payer Health Insurance Plan is that individuals that intentionally lead healthy lives tend to subsidize those individuals that don't. Throw out the health issues like cancer, mental health and other catastrophic health issues that can hit anyone regardless of their lifestyle...I am talking about the Type 2 Diabetes cases where individuals are overweight and continued to eat like crap and never exercised...same with cardiovascular diseases for the obese and sedentary. There are exceptions with these diseases and others, my point is this country was built on individuals working hard and being personally responsible for their actions...health care is no different.
There is a reason life insurance costs more for smokers than non-smokers...why should health insurance be different. People should be allowed to make their own choices in life, but those choices come with bearing associated costs.
If someone on the left or the right comes up with a plan that allows everyone to get insurance at a cost that aligns with their commitment to use services only when needed and holds them personally accountable for maintaining a healthy lifestyle (or pay more for the choice not to), then they may have a winner.
Here is a thought, Universal Health Care with mandatory annual physicals...everyone starts at the some standard base premium this year and your cost contribution to the plan next year is based on how close you come to hitting healthy lifestyle milestones next January 1st. If the grid says you need to lose 15lbs this year and get your BP/Cholesterol down 30 points or it is going to cost you an extra $75/month in 2018, do ya think you might be more motivated to do that? Keep in mind you will pay 100% of the first $3,600 in annual costs of services you use in the system regardless of your lifestyle health score. A universal health plan with incentives for personal responsibility to live healthier and a cost hurdle to using services...many could get behind a plan like that.
But just a blind, everyone gets access to health care without incurring any costs, everyone pays the same premiums (or tax) to fund healthcare costs that continue to spiral out of control due to a failure to connect the user of services to the payment of services and no incentive for personally responsibility...if you put that system in place you are destined to have a two tiered system with crappy common care for everyone except the wealthy that can afford optional private care. Just ask Once Dear about that UK system...I lived in London for 5 years and know about my experience there. And guess which system employs the best doctors who can make the most money...one clue, it ain't the Medicare/National Health Care hospitals and medical facilities. But I am sure Soopoo and our other resident MD members can speak to that.
Time for me to get back to work...I have my individual Blue Cross HSA "grandfathered from Obamacare" health insurance bill to pay for this month...my premium went down 2% in 2017...you see when you are part of a pool of insureds that limit their own access to care because it costs them something to use the healthcare system, costs for the pool go down and so do the premiums...funny how that works isn't it?
Quote: MathExtremistOne difference between us is that I acknowledge my social debt and you apparently don't.
I wonder if there's not more to this point. I wonder if it all boils down not to numbers, but to philosophy.
Rudeboyoi's comments, while an extreme that didn't receive total support (voluntarism), still garnered several comments in favor of pieces. Perhaps not everyone is full Leave Me The F#$% Alone, but it appears there are many that are at least LMTFA-lite.
You say that you recognize society's help, and believe you have a debt to that. That you are morally responsible to tote your share. Easily understandable. But what of us with more than a mote of LMTFA?
It's sort of why I found such interest in your sort of "a la carte" idea of governance. You found success in the system offered. You appear to like it, despite awareness that it could be better. But for us on the more extreme end of LMTFA, how does your idea resonate?
Society offers me much, sure. Chlorinated water, capped roads, these are things I am very grateful for and use often, at a cost I find to be laughably low for the benefit I receive. But what of the metric ton of stuff I never have and never will use? As one who I would describe as "spartan" when it comes to use of any resources, I don't appear to have an option that fits me. There is no way for me to cast off from society, no way to pay a la carte, no way to engage in a lifestyle that suits me or that I desire. Looking through that lens, the "boon of society" can quickly start to look along the lines of indentured servitude. Perhaps IS is an improper term, but hopefully you ken my meaning. Whether the system is good, bad, or ugly, we're still being forced to play a game we don't want to play. Hence the opposition, despite that your idea may be keen as hell for the system already in place (which we already don't dig).
I dunno, just a thought. Trying to break through the communication barriers between right and left.
On topic...
I now have employer healthcare, the only kind I've ever known besides weed and prayer. If I'm deciphering my pay stub correctly (federal nonsense, so I'm almost certainly not), looks like I pay ~$120 for self med and ~$36 self dental p/month.
I am very happy as I +EV'd the dental, getting on with a qualifying event, getting four figure work done, then dumping them weeks later during open enrollment. Got about a grand for $100, so I can say, one time, that I came out on top. But even that was a faff and a half, and the "win" obscures the fact that my insurance was garbage that left enough uncovered that the out of pocket work on just one tooth surpassed my total net worth.
I fortunately found an angel working the desk and she, a dental secretary who I'd never met, sat with me for 45min trying to translate the myriad plans available to me and find me one that fit me. And that's sort of a big deal. I dunno 'bout y'all, but having to purchase insurance yourself was a maddening task. I saw no place, no way, to get the info needed to make an informed decision. As it was, the dental lady had access to all that jazz, and could price everything out to me in real terms. Doing it myself? Flying on complete and utter ignorance? Well, there's thousands of dollars chewed up right there. Talking 3-4-5% of my total net income, lost to ignorance if not for that woman. Wonder how many others are pissing money away like I was?
Health I've not yet used, as I'm on the monet side of things. It, like everything else, has too many pitfalls for those without lawyer level knowledge of this s@#$. I too am tired of piecemeal work being done just to extend the copay gravy train, tired of pills being pushed on me without any other sort of path being discussed, tired of the pills I DO need being withheld without a hundred goddamn hoops to jump through to get them. I'll keep the insurance as my lifestyle makes it a necessity, but in practice I am most assuredly on the "Walk that s#$% off" plan.
Last person I want to stiff is medical care providers, so I now have Medicare and Supplement F. Like being able to go to any doctors anytime, without approval of any sort.
Plan F pays deductible and damn near everything except over a year in hospital or over a year in nursing home. In either of those cases I would hope I would have the courage to do the right thing, and check out.
I think in 20202 you will not be able to get a supplement plan that does not have a copay for dr visits. I will be grandfathered in.
Side bar : I dropped Aetna, went with AARP this year. Plans for age 65 in my area was $140 , sliding scale up on age. At age 75 AARP is two tier. Tier one is 200, tier two is $240, Heart attack last year meant tier 2 for me. AARP plans include Silver Sneakers for free. Means free membership for Gold's gym and like facilities.
New member here, soon as I can post links I will tell about my personal AP for Drugs system. Works for Medicare, Employer drug plans, and even no insurance. You wont find these AP plans on the web, especially the one for highest price drugs. Really
If you have some spare time this show THE FIFTH ESTATE has a good show
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2016-2017/the-high-cost-of-phamaceuticals-canadas-drug-problem
Like what? Give me an example.Quote: FaceSociety offers me much, sure. Chlorinated water, capped roads, these are things I am very grateful for and use often, at a cost I find to be laughably low for the benefit I receive. But what of the metric ton of stuff I never have and never will use?
No, you're not being forced to play the game, you're grudgingly accepting it because you don't like the alternative. One of the freedoms granted to Americans is the freedom to give up their freedoms. You can leave. Every day you don't leave, however, is another day where you wake up and implicitly accept the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen. You don't get to have one without the other, and you especially don't get to say "I demand my Constitutional rights" without acknowledging that that same Constitution directly called for a Congress to implement Laws for society that govern your conduct within that society. If you don't like those Laws, you can either agitate to change them or you can leave, but you don't get to break them. That's what I mean by acknowledging social debt. The ultimate example of a freeloader is someone who demands rights from a society but who does not acknowledge the responsibilities they owe to that society.Quote:As one who I would describe as "spartan" when it comes to use of any resources, I don't appear to have an option that fits me. There is no way for me to cast off from society, no way to pay a la carte, no way to engage in a lifestyle that suits me or that I desire. Looking through that lens, the "boon of society" can quickly start to look along the lines of indentured servitude. Perhaps IS is an improper term, but hopefully you ken my meaning. Whether the system is good, bad, or ugly, we're still being forced to play a game we don't want to play.
That's what disturbs me so much about this narrow-minded idea that people who are ruggedly individually successful got that way all by themselves, without any help from anyone else current or past. Nobody living in this country today built their existence from whole cloth. Every single one of us owes a debt to the society we live in, even if it's not immediately transparent why that's true. It's sometimes hard to see 3rd or 4th order effects, but they're there nonetheless. Give me an example of someone who doesn't owe a debt to society, and I'll show you someone who doesn't live in one.
Quote: MathExtremistLike what? Give me an example.
No, you're not being forced to play the game, you're grudgingly accepting it because you don't like the alternative. One of the freedoms granted to Americans is the freedom to give up their freedoms. You can leave. Every day you don't leave, however, is another day where you wake up and implicitly accept the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen. You don't get to have one without the other, and you especially don't get to say "I demand my Constitutional rights" without acknowledging that that same Constitution directly called for a Congress to implement Laws for society that govern your conduct within that society. If you don't like those Laws, you can either agitate to change them or you can leave, but you don't get to break them. That's what I mean by acknowledging social debt. The ultimate example of a freeloader is someone who demands rights from a society but who does not acknowledge the responsibilities they owe to that society.
That's what disturbs me so much about this narrow-minded idea that people who are ruggedly individually successful got that way all by themselves, without any help from anyone else current or past. Nobody living in this country today built their existence from whole cloth. Every single one of us owes a debt to the society we live in, even if it's not immediately transparent why that's true. It's sometimes hard to see 3rd or 4th order effects, but they're there nonetheless. Give me an example of someone who doesn't owe a debt to society, and I'll show you someone who doesn't live in one.
I only study history for fun. I certainly do not know enough to be some sort of expert. I do understand that it certainly seems to be the American Way to Beg, Borrow or Steal and when it comes time to pay up... the individual or Country refuses and goes to war in one way or the other. I certainly do not see any problem with a citizen acting the same way that our government acts. I am pretty sure as a Citizen in America you have the right that all individuals have no matter if you contribute or not. That does not matter when it comes to your rights.
This is the same way of thinking on this site that I see about Casinos. It is not only legal for them to exploit anything or anyone to make profit. However when a player posts up something about how they exploited the System or Casino I see the same people on this forum cry out how wrong that is and that they do not endorse nor approve of such behavior. I notice it is only the players on this site with loads of cash always sticking up for the Casinos and pointing the finger at the Hustler who is stealing from such Casino.
Nothing is going to change. It hasn't changed in thousands of years and it isn't going to no matter how much you all think you can change it. The strong will always take advantage of the weak no matter where you live on this planet. That is just a fact of life. The other major fact is that you and I are going to die very soon so get ready for that. No health care insurance will save you of this demise that will happen to all of us.
Months ago someone posted up about Pinatas and six year olds and how the bigger, faster six year olds will use this advantage to get most of the candy. Perfect analogy in my mind of how the world really works and always will work.
After that I will need to purchase for myself, since I run my own business.
I just bought a house, and I take an expensive medication, so I'm very concerned about what premiums/pre-existing condition situations will be in 2018.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-this-is-why-republicans-can-t-find-a-replacement-for-obamacare-20170106-story.html
Because of that, their opposition to the program, and the attemted sabotage of it, is because the democrats passed/implemented it, not the republicans. In other words, they were all for it when it was their idea.