PDA

View Full Version : Health care will cover more, cost more


Neezar
04-23-2010, 01:28 PM
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable,:scared0015: the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

(More medicare cuts?! So are we trading our senior's care for this?)

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

Neezar
04-23-2010, 01:34 PM
The more I hear about the bill the more shocked I am.

And some people still believe that they are getting free healthcare. This is a bill to require you to BUY health insurance just like the law to requires you to have car insurance. It is only free if you don't have a job and can't get one. If you have a job and don't buy health insurance then you get fined. If you don't pay the fine then the IRS (the new 17,000 employees they are hiring) will place a lien on and seize any property that you have.

How do the people who said that someone shouldn't lose their home over medical bills reconcile this? Oh, maybe it is okay that they should lose it because they can't buy health insurance?

I just don't get it.

NateR
04-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Yeah, this bill is as far from "free healthcare" as we're ever going to get.

TexasRN
04-23-2010, 03:46 PM
I've tried to explain this kind of thing to people in life and they just don't get it. We are going to bankrupt hospitals and long term care facilities. We are going to make it harder for people to pay their regular bills because they have to pay for insurance they may not even need and certainly don't want (NateR comes to mind as a single, healthy, younger man who doesn't need constant doctor visits).


~Amy

flo
04-23-2010, 05:46 PM
It's even worse than I thought. I guess on the positive side, there is some time to repeal this horrible bill. Once the changes are made it would be very difficult to do that so I'm praying that there is a big shakeup in Nov. and the pols follow through on their promises to put a stake in the heart of this bill.

On a related topic, our homeowner/auto ins. co. (that serves mainly military folks, I don't want to give the name on a public forum) sent us an email asking us to contact our senators regarding legislation that is under consideration as we speak. If passed, the companies financial arm would be impacted by govt. control and regulations unheard of in their 87 year history, which would in turn have a negative effect on us as customers. In our 38 years as members we've never been asked to contact our representatives so I know it is a dire situation and this is one of the best companies I've ever dealt with. I'm outraged at this administration's effort to regulate private sector and lump all financial institutions together (except for the big contributors, apparently). I hope our senators are listening.

TexasRN
04-23-2010, 06:25 PM
It's even worse than I thought. I guess on the positive side, there is some time to repeal this horrible bill. Once the changes are made it would be very difficult to do that so I'm praying that there is a big shakeup in Nov. and the pols follow through on their promises to put a stake in the heart of this bill.

On a related topic, our homeowner/auto ins. co. (that serves mainly military folks, I don't want to give the name on a public forum) sent us an email asking us to contact our senators regarding legislation that is under consideration as we speak. If passed, the companies financial arm would be impacted by govt. control and regulations unheard of in their 87 year history, which would in turn have a negative effect on us as customers. In our 38 years as members we've never been asked to contact our representatives so I know it is a dire situation and this is one of the best companies I've ever dealt with. I'm outraged at this administration's effort to regulate private sector and lump all financial institutions together (except for the big contributors, apparently). I hope our senators are listening.

We have the same insurance company.....:ninja::laugh:

And I will go on record to say that I LOVE them.

~Amy

flo
04-23-2010, 06:32 PM
Me too, Amy, they are awesome.

Hands off, Obama and co.! :angry:

TexasRN
04-23-2010, 07:38 PM
Me too, Amy, they are awesome.

Hands off, Obama and co.! :angry:

How long have you been with them? I have been with them since I was 16 and I remember the days of getting checks every year from them for $100 or so because they made a profit and shared it with us. This year I got a check but it was small. I use them for all kinds of stuff, not just insurance.


~Amy

flo
04-23-2010, 10:48 PM
38 years! :unsure-1: :laugh:

Yes, it's always nice to get those checks, even if they're small they come in handy (and we always get ours shortly before Christmas).

We also use their other services, we even booked a Caribbean cruise with them in '96 (it was wonderful).

TexasRN
04-23-2010, 10:52 PM
38 years! :unsure-1: :laugh:

Yes, it's always nice to get those checks, even if they're small they come in handy (and we always get ours shortly before Christmas).

We also use their other services, we even booked a Caribbean cruise with them in '96 (it was wonderful).

I was grandfathered in through my grandfather who was an officer in the Army in WWII. Ahhh, it's good to know someone else who reaps the benefit of this great company. I seriously brag about them all the time.


~Amy

Buzzard
04-24-2010, 05:00 AM
I've tried to explain this kind of thing to people in life and they just don't get it. We are going to bankrupt hospitals and long term care facilities. We are going to make it harder for people to pay their regular bills because they have to pay for insurance they may not even need and certainly don't want (NateR comes to mind as a single, healthy, younger man who doesn't need constant doctor visits).


~Amy

NateR has health care through the VA if he so chooses to use it.

I want health care reform, not too pleased with what has gone through. It needs tweaking.

NateR
04-24-2010, 05:08 AM
NateR has health care through the VA if he so chooses to use it.

Even then the VA will only cover service related health issues. If I get into a car accident and break my leg next week, then I get nothing from the VA in relation to that injury.

However, if I get diagnosed with cancer, chances are the VA will most likely assume that the military was responsible for it... which is kind of scary if you think about it. :unsure-1:

Buzzard
04-24-2010, 05:37 AM
Even then the VA will only cover service related health issues. If I get into a car accident and break my leg next week, then I get nothing from the VA in relation to that injury.

However, if I get diagnosed with cancer, chances are the VA will most likely assume that the military was responsible for it... which is kind of scary if you think about it. :unsure-1:

I think that you are wrong. My brother uses the VA for non-service related issues. If he makes under X amount of dollars, he pays nothing. If he makes between X+1 and Y, he pays an amount in proportion to his earnings.

I would check that out more if I were you. His friend also is going to the VA for non-service related issues. Good luck.

TexasRN
04-24-2010, 12:08 PM
NateR has health care through the VA if he so chooses to use it.

I want health care reform, not too pleased with what has gone through. It needs tweaking.


I am at the VA hospital with my dad at least 6-7 times a year and spent the first 25 years of my life with VA coverage. Nate's right. Unless there is a disability issue that was service related. My dad is 100% disabled from his service so he gets ALL healthcare there. My mom gets it because he gets it, even after he dies. My brother gets service related assistance (PTSD issues) but has to use his civilian insurance if he gets sick and goes to see a doctor. Vets do not automatically get all their healthcare free for life, dude.

I am fine with real health care reform and would welcome it. Unfortunately, this plan that Obama came up with is not health care reform and it will do serious damage to a lot of doctors, hospitals, long term care facilities, Americans, etc.

Edited to add:
In addition combat veterans returning from active military service may be eligible to receive free health care services and nursing home care for up to two years, beginning on the date of separation from active military service. This benefit covers all illnesses and injuries except those clearly unrelated to military service (common colds, injuries from accidents that occurred after discharge, disorders that existed before joining the military). Dental services are not included. If you want treatment for health conditions you claim are related to combat operations, you will be physically examined

From the website: http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care


~Amy

Buzzard
04-24-2010, 03:40 PM
I am at the VA hospital with my dad at least 6-7 times a year and spent the first 25 years of my life with VA coverage. Nate's right. Unless there is a disability issue that was service related. My dad is 100% disabled from his service so he gets ALL healthcare there. My mom gets it because he gets it, even after he dies. My brother gets service related assistance (PTSD issues) but has to use his civilian insurance if he gets sick and goes to see a doctor. Vets do not automatically get all their healthcare free for life, dude.

I never said they automatically get all their health-care free for life, dudette.

If you read what I posted, you will see that I stated information about income limits and benefits received. I stated that off the top of my head. Below please find the link that shows the information I alluded to in my previous post. If you have private insurance, the VA uses it to offset the costs, if you don't, the information about what you receive is shown again in the link below.

With regard to my comment about NateR's benefits, I made a statement without knowing what his yearly income is. I won't ask and don't need to know his income, but if he makes less than a certain amount and has no other insurance, I believe he is eligible for free or income proportionate health-care through the VA.

http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/VAIncomeThresholds/VAIncomeThresholds.pdf


I am fine with real health care reform and would welcome it. Unfortunately, this plan that Obama came up with is not health care reform and it will do serious damage to a lot of doctors, hospitals, long term care facilities, Americans, etc.

Edited to add:
In addition combat veterans returning from active military service may be eligible to receive free health care services and nursing home care for up to two years, beginning on the date of separation from active military service. This benefit covers all illnesses and injuries except those clearly unrelated to military service (common colds, injuries from accidents that occurred after discharge, disorders that existed before joining the military). Dental services are not included. If you want treatment for health conditions you claim are related to combat operations, you will be physically examined

From the website: http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care


~Amy

More info here.

http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/va-health-care-eligibility

TexasRN
04-24-2010, 10:30 PM
I never said they automatically get all their health-care free for life, dudette.

If you read what I posted, you will see that I stated information about income limits and benefits received. I stated that off the top of my head. Below please find the link that shows the information I alluded to in my previous post. If you have private insurance, the VA uses it to offset the costs, if you don't, the information about what you receive is shown again in the link below.

With regard to my comment about NateR's benefits, I made a statement without knowing what his yearly income is. I won't ask and don't need to know his income, but if he makes less than a certain amount and has no other insurance, I believe he is eligible for free or income proportionate health-care through the VA.

http://www4.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/VAIncomeThresholds/VAIncomeThresholds.pdf



More info here.

http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/va-health-care-eligibility


I posted based on your first post about Nate being able to have VA care if he chose to use it. That's why my post read like it did. Your second post clarified your point more and I just didn't bother to respond to that one. I was busy cleaning instead. :laugh:

There's more to it than you realize and it really, really depends on what VA facilities are close to you and what condition they are in. Some places are great and have great services and others don't give a flying crap about anyone and are falling apart. Remember just recently they announced the appalling conditions at Walter Reed in DC? I believe they condemned parts of it. It is very inconsistent.

Oh, and I call everyone dude.


~Amy

Buzzard
04-25-2010, 07:45 AM
I posted based on your first post about Nate being able to have VA care if he chose to use it. That's why my post read like it did. Your second post clarified your point more and I just didn't bother to respond to that one. I was busy cleaning instead. :laugh:

There's more to it than you realize and it really, really depends on what VA facilities are close to you and what condition they are in. Some places are great and have great services and others don't give a flying crap about anyone and are falling apart. Remember just recently they announced the appalling conditions at Walter Reed in DC? I believe they condemned parts of it. It is very inconsistent.

Oh, and I call everyone dude.


~Amy

I thought I was the only one who called people dude still.:laugh:

It's all good, I wasn't trying to argue with you.............this time.:wink: My posts always seem to sound argumentative though.

The Walter Reed fiasco was horrible. I'm definitely not an expert on the VA issues, just relating my knowledge of my brother's experience with it. You on the other hand have had some first hand experiences.

Tyburn
04-25-2010, 02:41 PM
Hang on....did Obama think he could include more people...and cut costs at the same time?

Hasnt he looked at ANY Country that runs a National Health Service?

The more medical care you want, for the more people free AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY The more expensive it will be, the higher whichever tax, or insurance company those who can afford to pay, must, in order to cover those who...well...cant :ninja:

Thats what happens when you ellect at public speaker...wonderful ideologist...but in practise everyone knows the more people you cover...the higher the cost.

...So in answer to that he cuts services to the most needy?? Doesnt that totally remove the point of extending more health care to more people in the first place.

He's like a Liberal Democrat who forgot to mention how exactly he plans to pay for what he's done. Money....your money...its not rocket science :laugh: all he needed to do was look at ANY other country with a health care system and see. :rolleyes:

But of course...the Helath Care reform appeared to me to consist of very little in the way of health care at all...it appeared to me to be about the money and the constraints on insurance which is supposed to reign back for the Government the money that was probably spent on the Bank Bailout...under the guise of extending coverage to more...because that seems a stereotypical democrat thing to do. The alarm bell which should have sounded in your ears was how the hell Barack considers Student Loans anything to do with Health Care?? to include something like that in the bill, which was basically, cut out the middleman and save yourself cash...should explain to you what his views on health care reform actually were. Save the Federal Government as much money as possible. In Short.

Dont you dare let him be ellected for a second term :angry: I live in a Centrist Country...and whilst I dont mind it personally, ive been brought up in it. BUT I dont think America was ever supposed to be Centrist. It was always conceived a littler Right of Centre...I like it like that and I think that You want to move away from Barack Obama, not because his policies are dangerous...but because they move America closer to the rest of the World...and I dont think that is appropriate. Who actually want the United States to end up like Europe or The Commonwealth :huh: Neither of which are bad...but each should stick to its own framework of being....and America shouldnt be compatable, its not built on the same framework. This is about diversity...someone should ask Obama why he feels "change" involves moving towards the global norm? Doesnt he realize that America already is "changed" it was "Changed" after the War of Independance...

Its so bizzare...because whilst the UK politicians piss off the British by emulating the Americans...the Americans ellect a European Centrist by political standards...WTF is this "country swap" or something? So now BOTH countries NEED real Change...to reverse course :laugh:

We're going to have a go next month...you try and squash the democrats in the Mid Terms...and hopefully we can prevent some sort of horrible meeting in the Centre...lets keep The United States Centre Right and patriotic, and lets keep Europe Centre Left and Nationalistic...and we'll all get on fine...either that or you may aswell surrender your East Coast to England, your Mid West back to France, and your Pacific back to the Spanish and Dutch..because you'll have more in common politically speaking with Europe then you will with your own Constitution.

You know I used to think it was crap that Americans were forced to pay for health care...but all the nurses here told me if you couldnt afford it, there were still clinics that would treat you. Thats sounds like everything was cool...the person who can afford his bill pays, the person who cant gets it paid by the Government...thats fair...sorry...thats more fair then the Tax system which runs every other health care system that says...you all pay for health care, and those who cant afford it get it paid for by other citizens who give more (often against their wishes)

So...its not Reform at all...its introduction of a Centristic Left view of taxes for health care...and no Barack Obama is going to tern round and what...pretend he didnt realize that his "change" is called "from bad to worse" :huh:

Tyburn
04-25-2010, 02:53 PM
I dont get it.

If you buy medical insurance (which is the same as paying a tax) doesnt that mean you dont have to pay any medical bills...because otherwise...what exactly is the medical insurance paying for????

You all seem worried that you would have to pay bills ontop of insurance...but the whole idea of insuranc (which is better then a tax if it can only be used for you I suppose) is that the money you pay in all the time you dont need it, is payed back to you when you do...the same as if you were to set up a bank account and pay a small sum in every month to cover your bills.

Surely...he isnt proposing you pay bills on top of insurance...whats the point in that exactly...and more to the point...where does the money you pay on insurance go :blink:

Can someone answer this for dumb Englishman please :ashamed::unsure-1::ashamed:

TexasRN
04-25-2010, 03:07 PM
I dont get it.

If you buy medical insurance (which is the same as paying a tax) doesnt that mean you dont have to pay any medical bills...because otherwise...what exactly is the medical insurance paying for????

You all seem worried that you would have to pay bills ontop of insurance...but the whole idea of insuranc (which is better then a tax if it can only be used for you I suppose) is that the money you pay in all the time you dont need it, is payed back to you when you do...the same as if you were to set up a bank account and pay a small sum in every month to cover your bills.

Surely...he isnt proposing you pay bills on top of insurance...whats the point in that exactly...and more to the point...where does the money you pay on insurance go :blink:

Can someone answer this for dumb Englishman please :ashamed::unsure-1::ashamed:


Here in America insurance coverage pays AND you pay. I have a copay every time I go to the Dr. It's different with each insurance company and each plan for each person. Mine is that I pay at the time of my visit $20 for my regular doc, $45 for any specialty docs, $50 for urgent care, and $250 for the ER unless I am admitted to the hospital in which case the ER copay is waived since I'll be paying a percentage of my hospital bill. Your insurance will pay a set amount to the hospital or doctor and you may be responsible for the rest depending on your coverage plan. It really hits you hard if you have to have surgery because anesthesia costs a buttload of money. And you pay each doctor AND the hospital where you had the services. So Dave, insurance doesn't pay 100% of your bills. It pays the bulk of it but you are responsible for some of it as well. And insurance companies get to make rules about what they will cover and when. Some companies will not cover certain meds or certain procedures or will only cover a very small amount. So if your doc says you need say lovenox (a blood thinner) that doesn't have a generic equivalent on the market you may pay $1000 for your meds if your company decides they don't pay for that drug. I see this a lot with my patients. I end up having to fight with their medical director and then my office doc has to get involved and sometimes the companies still refuse to pay. It sucks.

My son had to have surgery at age 4. I forget what his total bill was but we ended up paying about $5000 after all was said and done and that was with insurance.


~Amy

TexasRN
04-25-2010, 03:08 PM
I thought I was the only one who called people dude still.:laugh:

It's all good, I wasn't trying to argue with you.............this time.:wink: My posts always seem to sound argumentative though.

The Walter Reed fiasco was horrible. I'm definitely not an expert on the VA issues, just relating my knowledge of my brother's experience with it. You on the other hand have had some first hand experiences.


Am I the only one here on the forum you haven't argued with? :huh::laugh:


~Amy

Tyburn
04-25-2010, 03:23 PM
Here in America insurance coverage pays AND you pay. I have a copay every time I go to the Dr. It's different with each insurance company and each plan for each person. Mine is that I pay at the time of my visit $20 for my regular doc, $45 for any specialty docs, $50 for urgent care, and $250 for the ER unless I am admitted to the hospital in which case the ER copay is waived since I'll be paying a percentage of my hospital bill. Your insurance will pay a set amount to the hospital or doctor and you may be responsible for the rest depending on your coverage plan. It really hits you hard if you have to have surgery because anesthesia costs a buttload of money. And you pay each doctor AND the hospital where you had the services. So Dave, insurance doesn't pay 100% of your bills. It pays the bulk of it but you are responsible for some of it as well. And insurance companies get to make rules about what they will cover and when. Some companies will not cover certain meds or certain procedures or will only cover a very small amount. So if your doc says you need say lovenox (a blood thinner) that doesn't have a generic equivalent on the market you may pay $1000 for your meds if your company decides they don't pay for that drug. I see this a lot with my patients. I end up having to fight with their medical director and then my office doc has to get involved and sometimes the companies still refuse to pay. It sucks.

My son had to have surgery at age 4. I forget what his total bill was but we ended up paying about $5000 after all was said and done and that was with insurance.


~Amy

:blink: thats OUTRAGEOUS :blink:

Like I think we sometimes have to part pay...on things like contents insurance...but its only for say the first 50 or hundred pounds...and the company will pay the rest...and the total could be thousands.

Tell me Amy...where does that money...you know..the money you payed to the insurance company...if you never claim...or your claim is deamed by them as not in accordance with something they cover...WHERE does that money go :angry:

At least with Taxes..we may not like it, but I do know where the money actually goes. Now there are a few drugs..mainly cancer drugs which are sometimes not available on the NHS..or are...but only in certain parts of the country...thats caused an uproar...when someone pays taxes for a certain part of the population to get the drug...but when they need it they arent allowed it free because they dont live in the right area...


Naturally there are many loopholes I think and they try not to pay if they can...so if you burned down the house and it was proven to be you who started it by neglect...they might refuse...but in England its a big thing...Life Insurance and the likes...there was the famous case of the man who dissapeared on a canoe...assumed dead, the life insurance was paid out in full to his Wife...thousands...to pay off debt and the likes...then a few years later, her Husband shows up and turns himself in saying he cant remember a thing...just long enough after the payout for it to be okay for the Wife not to have to pay the money back.

All went to plan.

That is...until a photograph turned up in Panama, where the Wife had planed on starting a new life...and she was..OMG...with her dead Husband the two were jailed for Fraud believe it or not :laugh:

TexasRN
04-25-2010, 09:15 PM
:blink: thats OUTRAGEOUS :blink:

Like I think we sometimes have to part pay...on things like contents insurance...but its only for say the first 50 or hundred pounds...and the company will pay the rest...and the total could be thousands.

Tell me Amy...where does that money...you know..the money you payed to the insurance company...if you never claim...or your claim is deamed by them as not in accordance with something they cover...WHERE does that money go :angry:

At least with Taxes..we may not like it, but I do know where the money actually goes. Now there are a few drugs..mainly cancer drugs which are sometimes not available on the NHS..or are...but only in certain parts of the country...thats caused an uproar...when someone pays taxes for a certain part of the population to get the drug...but when they need it they arent allowed it free because they dont live in the right area...


Naturally there are many loopholes I think and they try not to pay if they can...so if you burned down the house and it was proven to be you who started it by neglect...they might refuse...but in England its a big thing...Life Insurance and the likes...there was the famous case of the man who dissapeared on a canoe...assumed dead, the life insurance was paid out in full to his Wife...thousands...to pay off debt and the likes...then a few years later, her Husband shows up and turns himself in saying he cant remember a thing...just long enough after the payout for it to be okay for the Wife not to have to pay the money back.

All went to plan.

That is...until a photograph turned up in Panama, where the Wife had planed on starting a new life...and she was..OMG...with her dead Husband the two were jailed for Fraud believe it or not :laugh:


We aren't paying them like a savings plan for them to use the money to offset our bills that we submit. We pay them for the possibility that we may need care. It's a gamble game they play. They can even turn a person down for coverage if they have medical problems existing before the coverage. Say a person has cancer and has to change jobs and needs to buy insurance through the new job. The company will say they won't cover that person because they have pre existing conditions. Or they'll cover them for anything that doesn't have to do with the cancer. It is all outrageous and I am all for real health care reform. I'm just against government run healthcare. Big difference.


~Amy

Tyburn
04-25-2010, 09:28 PM
We aren't paying them like a savings plan for them to use the money to offset our bills that we submit. We pay them for the possibility that we may need care. It's a gamble game they play. They can even turn a person down for coverage if they have medical problems existing before the coverage. Say a person has cancer and has to change jobs and needs to buy insurance through the new job. The company will say they won't cover that person because they have pre existing conditions. Or they'll cover them for anything that doesn't have to do with the cancer. It is all outrageous and I am all for real health care reform. I'm just against government run healthcare. Big difference.


~Amy

I think with the exemption of having to pay an excess on something (reasonably small in size) most of our insurance works like a savings account more or less...although I wouldnt know really because I dont like have any :laugh: (I dont drive, so I dont need Car Insurance, I dont own anything valuable and cant afford contents insurance anyway, I dont own the house I live in so I dont need building insurance...and all others are based with me on the savings...like for the computer or whatever :laugh: )

You still havent answered...where does the excess money that the insurance companies get go to?? what do they spend it on??

What Health reform would you like to see? from what you told me in the past...your country, from my perspective, wasnt in need of a health reform to begin with :blink:

TexasRN
04-25-2010, 09:45 PM
I think with the exemption of having to pay an excess on something (reasonably small in size) most of our insurance works like a savings account more or less...although I wouldnt know really because I dont like have any :laugh: (I dont drive, so I dont need Car Insurance, I dont own anything valuable and cant afford contents insurance anyway, I dont own the house I live in so I dont need building insurance...and all others are based with me on the savings...like for the computer or whatever :laugh: )

You still havent answered...where does the excess money that the insurance companies get go to?? what do they spend it on??

What Health reform would you like to see? from what you told me in the past...your country, from my perspective, wasnt in need of a health reform to begin with :blink:


As far as I know, the company makes a profit and they keep the money they don't use to pay out to their policies. That's been part of the problem.

I would like to see insurance companies actually pay for what patients need. I am sick and tired of fighting these big companies to get them to pay for services or meds that are absolutely necessary and aren't experimental in nature. They are tried and true protocols accepted by every single hospital in the country. Every company gets to pick and choose what they want to cover.

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the medicare/medicaide system. We need to have them actually pay for the services rendered within a reasonable time frame, not 6 months later.

I'd like to see all companies answer to an oversight agency of some sort in order to make them behave. There is so much waste and corruption in those companies that it makes me ill. This company should also investigate claims of fraudulent billling by doctors and hospitals since that is also part of the problem.

There's just so much and my answers aren't great. There are people here who can come up with much more eloquent posts than I ever could on the subject. I just know that my patients are having a hard time paying for test strips for the glucometers because their insurance companies have decided that if you aren't on insulin, you shouldn't have to test your blood sugar. So screw the girls who are doing it with a very careful diet and exercise program to keep their unborn babies healthy and need to know what their blood glucose level is after meals. Seems like a bunch of bull crap to me. That's just one example of a hundred I could give you.


~Amy

Tyburn
04-25-2010, 10:28 PM
As far as I know, the company makes a profit and they keep the money they don't use to pay out to their policies. That's been part of the problem.

I would like to see insurance companies actually pay for what patients need. I am sick and tired of fighting these big companies to get them to pay for services or meds that are absolutely necessary and aren't experimental in nature. They are tried and true protocols accepted by every single hospital in the country. Every company gets to pick and choose what they want to cover.

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the medicare/medicaide system. We need to have them actually pay for the services rendered within a reasonable time frame, not 6 months later.

I'd like to see all companies answer to an oversight agency of some sort in order to make them behave. There is so much waste and corruption in those companies that it makes me ill. This company should also investigate claims of fraudulent billling by doctors and hospitals since that is also part of the problem.

There's just so much and my answers aren't great. There are people here who can come up with much more eloquent posts than I ever could on the subject. I just know that my patients are having a hard time paying for test strips for the glucometers because their insurance companies have decided that if you aren't on insulin, you shouldn't have to test your blood sugar. So screw the girls who are doing it with a very careful diet and exercise program to keep their unborn babies healthy and need to know what their blood glucose level is after meals. Seems like a bunch of bull crap to me. That's just one example of a hundred I could give you.


~Amy


Whats the full title for the American responsible for the Health Care of the Nation?

We have a Secretary Of State For Health (Health Secretary for short :laugh: ) its a Cabinate position...or at least it was...I think.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 03:01 AM
"The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care,
far more per person than any other developed nation"

Why do we spend more when we do not have "free" or "social" health care?
Universal health care WORKS, Obama doesn't seem to have the best plan,
but the argument that universal health care doesn't work is a losing one.

IMO, if you're in college, or you're a tax paying American you DESERVE health care.

If you think your kids DESERVE an education,
or, you DESERVE to drive on roads,
or you DESERVE postal service, fire protection, forestry service, etc...
and you're against health care you're a hypocrite.
Plenty of people pay for those things for YOU.

Now, I am all for finding a better way of doing healthcare,
but I think you're crazy if you're against the idea all together.

Neezar
04-26-2010, 03:21 AM
"The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care,
far more per person than any other developed nation"

Why do we spend more when we do not have "free" or "social" health care?
Universal health care WORKS, Obama doesn't seem to have the best plan,
but the argument that universal health care doesn't work is a losing one.

IMO, if you're in college, or you're a tax paying American you DESERVE health care.

If you think your kids DESERVE an education,
or, you DESERVE to drive on roads,
or you DESERVE postal service, fire protection, forestry service, etc...
and you're against health care you're a hypocrite.
Plenty of people pay for those things for YOU.

Now, I am all for finding a better way of doing healthcare,
but I think you're crazy if you're against the idea all together.

What does any of that have to do with this health care bill?

This bill isn't about Universal health care.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 04:28 AM
What does any of that have to do with this health care bill?

This bill isn't about Universal health care.

Its suppose to be.

Tyburn
04-26-2010, 10:40 AM
IMO, if you're in college, or you're a tax paying American you DESERVE health care.

If you think your kids DESERVE an education,
or, you DESERVE to drive on roads,
or you DESERVE postal service, fire protection, forestry service, etc...
and you're against health care you're a hypocrite.
Plenty of people pay for those things for YOU.


Well...that fits nicely into a European Framework, but does not fit nicely into an American Framework.

Europeans pay Tax so that they have things free at the point of delivery. They still pay for it all, education, refuse collection, emergency services, health...it comes directly out of their pay as tax.

There are two issues that stop this fitting nicely into an American System..Firstly I do not think Americans regard access to health care as being a GOD given right...I'm not sure they consider Education...or any of the other things you mention as a GOD given right. People in Europe absolutely do.

Secondly there is the issue of tax itself. America can be seen in many ways as whats known as Decentralization of Government. In England the Government does a lot of things for the people, it does this through tax. the American system is designed to throw that responsibility back on the individual. Its called "The American Dream"

Here is the catch. You may only look after yourself, but you wont get no help from the Government if you cant look after yourself. Whereas with the Europeans, you look after everyone as a collective bassically...and then the Government take almost full responsibility for making sure the money given them in taxes covers everything.

Finally. As I understood it, America already had an unofficial universal health care system. Clinics to help those who couldnt pay everywhere, and hospitals for everyone who could. Forcing Insurance onto people is a way of stealing money from them...its worse then a tax...at least you know why and where your money is going in a tax....its all needed by the government...whereas this looks like a way for the Government just to make extra money it didnt have before...NO Government is supposed to be a Capitalist Organisation like that...cutting costs is one thing...MAKING MONEY for the sake of making money...thats quite different.

Again...you simply cant call Student Loans in a Health Reform Bill...thats when I fell off the Obamacare bandwagon. :laugh:

NateR
04-26-2010, 12:09 PM
If you think your kids DESERVE an education,
or, you DESERVE to drive on roads,
or you DESERVE postal service, fire protection, forestry service, etc...
and you're against health care you're a hypocrite.
Plenty of people pay for those things for YOU.

I would say that we don't DESERVE any of that stuff.

Of course, kids need an education, but it shouldn't be the job of the government to provide it. Look at how far the quality of our public school education has sunk since the federal government took it over in the 1970s.

The Postal Service is billions of dollars in debt and horribly mismanaged. Unfortunately, it has a federally mandated monopoly on mail delivery. Do you seriously believe that making hospitals run as efficiently as the Post Office would be in every Americans best interest?

Fire departments are local services and really have nothing to do with the federal government. Those could probably run just as efficiently on a donation-based system instead of taxes.

I don't even know where the forestry service comes in since all that did was allow the federal government to justify stealing land from private citizens for "conservation purposes." I would definitely not consider that something that we are entitled to.

J.B.
04-26-2010, 12:17 PM
Its suppose to be.

Did Obama tell you that? :laugh:

NateR
04-26-2010, 12:20 PM
What does any of that have to do with this health care bill?

This bill isn't about Universal health care.

Yeah, this is an insurance company bailout, not a healthcare bill.

J.B.
04-26-2010, 12:20 PM
I would say that we don't DESERVE any of that stuff.


Of course we don't...

I actually think there is a part of this whole health care debate that exists solely because people are afraid to die.

Personally, I welcome judgement day.

NateR
04-26-2010, 12:23 PM
Of course we don't...

I actually think there is a part of this whole health care debate that exists solely because people are afraid to die.

Personally, I welcome judgement day.

I agree; but I think people also fear discomfort of any kind. They're basically trying to turn everyone into hypochondriacs so that we think that we NEED doctors and hospitals before we take our next step. Well, it's totally possible for someone to live a long, healthy and happy life without ever setting foot inside a hospital or seeing a doctor. So healthcare is not a necessity for life.

J.B.
04-26-2010, 12:34 PM
I agree; but I think people also fear discomfort of any kind. They're basically trying to turn everyone into hypochondriacs so that we think that we NEED doctors and hospitals before we take our next step. Well, it's totally possible for someone to live a long, healthy and happy life without ever setting foot inside a hospital or seeing a doctor. So healthcare is not a necessity for life.

I hear ya.

I think it's nothing more than a business, with Obama being the Dana White, or pitchman if you will.

I don't care if you get modern medical treatment or not when you are ill, your fate rests in the hands of ONE....and we know who that is. :wink:

It may sound like a cold way to put it, but it's the truth, and it's something I take comfort in because I know where I am going when I leave this place. :)

Neezar
04-26-2010, 01:53 PM
What does any of that have to do with this health care bill?

This bill isn't about Universal health care.

Its suppose to be.


Exactly.


Do you have ANY idea of how many people STILL believe that this bill has in it what was promised in the political race? :huh: They believe that this bill is going to provide them with free healthcare.


The political arena has a whole new generation of young 'uns to play with.

Neezar
04-26-2010, 02:03 PM
Atom, do you own a car? Do you have car insurance? Does the government pay for your car insurance? No. But the government requires you to purchase car insurance.

This bill is no different except that you have to purchase health insurance. Oh wait, another difference is that you can choose not to have a car and so avoid the money for car insurance. You won't have that option here. You can't opt out. Oh but wait there is more.....If you choose NOT to buy health insurance the extra taxes that you will be paying for this bill is going to 17,000 new IRS workers that it is their JOB to fine you for violating the LAW. You are now a criminal if you don't purchase health insurance.

Is THIS you definition of Universal Health Care?

If you are indigent and can't afford to purchase health insurance then you can sign up for medicaid. The same medicaid that you could sign up for BEFORE this bill was passed. Oh but wait.....Medicaid doesn't cover as much as it did before BECAUSE they cut some of the benefits to help pay the SALARY of the 17,000 IRS workers who will see that you are following the guidelines of this LAW.


If I am wrong in any of this PLEASE someone correct me. Because the more I think about it the sicker I get.

Neezar
04-26-2010, 02:09 PM
The silver lining in all of this is.....

The government is going to provide an affordable insurance for you based on your salary. This will be much more affordable than any private insurance and it will be just as good coverage.

:rolleyes:

Well except for the things that Obama has already said that aren't necessary such as pacemakers after a certain age, tonsils removed if you can just take antibotics for it (regardless of how many infections the child gets a year), or hip replacements if the person really couldn't get around good to start with, etc, etc, etc.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 03:29 PM
I would say that we don't DESERVE any of that stuff.

Of course, kids need an education, but it shouldn't be the job of the government to provide it. Look at how far the quality of our public school education has sunk since the federal government took it over in the 1970s.

The Postal Service is billions of dollars in debt and horribly mismanaged. Unfortunately, it has a federally mandated monopoly on mail delivery. Do you seriously believe that making hospitals run as efficiently as the Post Office would be in every Americans best interest?

Fire departments are local services and really have nothing to do with the federal government. Those could probably run just as efficiently on a donation-based system instead of taxes.

I don't even know where the forestry service comes in since all that did was allow the federal government to justify stealing land from private citizens for "conservation purposes." I would definitely not consider that something that we are entitled to.

Right, you say that on here, but you gladly use those services....
If you don't deserve any of it, and want the government to save money,
lobby to have those services pulled?

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 03:32 PM
Atom, do you own a car? Do you have car insurance? Does the government pay for your car insurance? No. But the government requires you to purchase car insurance.

This bill is no different except that you have to purchase health insurance. Oh wait, another difference is that you can choose not to have a car and so avoid the money for car insurance. You won't have that option here. You can't opt out. Oh but wait there is more.....If you choose NOT to buy health insurance the extra taxes that you will be paying for this bill is going to 17,000 new IRS workers that it is their JOB to fine you for violating the LAW. You are now a criminal if you don't purchase health insurance.

Is THIS you definition of Universal Health Care?

If you are indigent and can't afford to purchase health insurance then you can sign up for medicaid. The same medicaid that you could sign up for BEFORE this bill was passed. Oh but wait.....Medicaid doesn't cover as much as it did before BECAUSE they cut some of the benefits to help pay the SALARY of the 17,000 IRS workers who will see that you are following the guidelines of this LAW.


If I am wrong in any of this PLEASE someone correct me. Because the more I think about it the sicker I get.

I didn't say THIS was the perfect idea,
I said.

"Universal health care WORKS, Obama doesn't seem to have the best plan"
and
"Now, I am all for finding a better way of doing healthcare,
but I think you're crazy if you're against the idea all together."

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 03:34 PM
I would also like you to show me where anybody is eligible for Medicaid?

Twinsmama
04-26-2010, 04:06 PM
"

IMO, if you're in college, or you're a tax paying American you DESERVE health care.

If you think your kids DESERVE an education,
or, you DESERVE to drive on roads,
or you DESERVE postal service, fire protection, forestry service, etc...
and you're against health care you're a hypocrite.
Plenty of people pay for those things for YOU.



I'm confused by this part of your statement. It seems like things are done differently down here. If your kids are in college aren't they paying the college for their education? (either their money or scholarships) Wouldn't the money the schools get go towards taxes to pay for roads, fire protection, etc? Do the colleges not pay taxes for those things? (I'm really not sure if they do or not)

I believe my kids NEED an education but do not believe every kids deserves one. My property taxes require I pay toward the schools. Even a person that doesn't own property would have to live somewhere. Whoever owns that "somewhere" pays property taxes for these things too.

Not trying to be personal but if you own your own house do you know what is being paid for out of your property taxes. Or even if you are renting the place you are renting should have property taxes being paid with part of your rent.

I also wanted to see if you know anything about the colleges offering health insurance on their plans. I've heard some of the colleges here offer health insurance for their students and most even have a nurse at the school for simple things like colds, etc. I don't know much about that though.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 05:30 PM
I'm confused by this part of your statement. It seems like things are done differently down here. If your kids are in college aren't they paying the college for their education? (either their money or scholarships) Wouldn't the money the schools get go towards taxes to pay for roads, fire protection, etc? Do the colleges not pay taxes for those things? (I'm really not sure if they do or not)

I believe my kids NEED an education but do not believe every kids deserves one. My property taxes require I pay toward the schools. Even a person that doesn't own property would have to live somewhere. Whoever owns that "somewhere" pays property taxes for these things too.

Not trying to be personal but if you own your own house do you know what is being paid for out of your property taxes. Or even if you are renting the place you are renting should have property taxes being paid with part of your rent.


I wasn't talking about college.
I was talking about K - 12. People without kids pay school taxes.
Same principal as people saying they don't want to pay in to others healthcare.
But since you mentioned it, you DO pay tax that funds financial aid for students.
So, in a way, even at a college level we pay for others education.

NateR
04-26-2010, 08:34 PM
Right, you say that on here, but you gladly use those services....
If you don't deserve any of it, and want the government to save money,
lobby to have those services pulled?

Who said anything about "gladly?" :huh:

I use the Post Office because there aren't any other options for mailing letters or small packages. Like I said, it's a government mandated monopoly.

My brother and I went to public schools, but the education we received there was so poor that my parents had to essentially home school us, in addition to going to school 5 days a week, to make sure that we were learning what we needed.

Thankfully, I've never personally needed the fire department, but if I did, I would be thankful to the men who volunteered of their time and put their lives in danger to protect me or my property, not the government. But fire departments are more locally funded than anything else. I have no problem with local or state governments, I just don't want an all-powerful, centralized, federal government controlling everything. That's just too much power concentrated in one place.

NateR
04-26-2010, 08:40 PM
I wasn't talking about college.
I was talking about K - 12. People without kids pay school taxes.
Same principal as people saying they don't want to pay in to others healthcare.
But since you mentioned it, you DO pay tax that funds financial aid for students.
So, in a way, even at a college level we pay for others education.

Overall, your logic seems to be "Well, since we're already paying for all this other stuff that's completely unrelated to healthcare, then we might as well be paying for healthcare as well." That's like going out shopping and saying, "Well, I need milk, eggs, deodorant and a new pair of pants; but since I'm buying all of that stuff, I might as well buy a new car as well."

The simple fact is, whether we "need" free healthcare or not, we simply can't afford it.

Neezar
04-26-2010, 09:32 PM
I didn't say THIS was the perfect idea,
I said.

"Universal health care WORKS, Obama doesn't seem to have the best plan"
and
"Now, I am all for finding a better way of doing healthcare,
but I think you're crazy if you're against the idea all together."

What do you think Obama's plan is?

Neezar
04-26-2010, 09:42 PM
Atom, do you realize that you are going to have to pay in these taxes for this bill and STILL have to purchase insurance?

Black Mamba
04-26-2010, 10:49 PM
I agree; but I think people also fear discomfort of any kind. They're basically trying to turn everyone into hypochondriacs so that we think that we NEED doctors and hospitals before we take our next step. Well, it's totally possible for someone to live a long, healthy and happy life without ever setting foot inside a hospital or seeing a doctor. So healthcare is not a necessity for life.

Hmmmmm. Happy I agree with. Long and healthy? I don't. Genetics can play a big part and no matter how healthy you are, you can't stop genes. You can excerise, eat right, and still come down with high blood pressure for instance (happened to me). And then your environment. 2nd or 3rd hand smoke...peeps are getting and dying from lung cancer who don't even smoke!

People die from diseases than can be prevented. Prostate cancer for example. All you need to do is visit the doc, have him/her do the ole finger up the butt. That's it. But how many people CHOOSE not to go the docs who've died from it? Hundreds. It's ashame to be seeing people dying from diseases that could have been caught in the earlier stages.

And you're getting at the age Nate where you should be having regular prostate screenings.



I also wanted to see if you know anything about the colleges offering health insurance on their plans. I've heard some of the colleges here offer health insurance for their students and most even have a nurse at the school for simple things like colds, etc. I don't know much about that though.

At my college, we have a full blown health program that we are REQUIRED to pay for each semester (fall, spring, and summer) even if we don't use it. It's a great program, (ER, a few specialty docs, great pharamcist from what I've been told), but it really irks the crap out of me that I have to pay for services that I don't even use on top of rising tuition costs.

But once I'm 23, I'll be more than happy to use their facilities.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 11:08 PM
Overall, your logic seems to be "Well, since we're already paying for all this other stuff that's completely unrelated to healthcare, then we might as well be paying for healthcare as well." That's like going out shopping and saying, "Well, I need milk, eggs, deodorant and a new pair of pants; but since I'm buying all of that stuff, I might as well buy a new car as well."

The simple fact is, whether we "need" free healthcare or not, we simply can't afford it.

My thinking is that, if we aren't ok with paying for healthcare,
we need to re think paying for other things as well.

SO, my opinion is that if you're against healthcare,
you should be pro cutting other things, I guess is what I am trying to say.

atomdanger
04-26-2010, 11:09 PM
Atom, do you realize that you are going to have to pay in these taxes for this bill and STILL have to purchase insurance?

I was under the impression that You can either
a. Buy the public option.
or
b. obtain private insurance

IS that not the case?

Are you telling me I am going to have to pay for this twice? O_O

NateR
04-27-2010, 01:57 AM
you should be pro cutting other things, I guess is what I am trying to say.

I agree and I am all for cutting funding to those other things, especially the public schools. The government should not have it's hand in our schools, because then it become more indoctrination than education.

Neezar
04-27-2010, 03:40 AM
I was under the impression that You can either
a. Buy the public option.
or
b. obtain private insurance

IS that not the case?

Are you telling me I am going to have to pay for this twice? O_O

NO, I meant you will have to pay in the taxes to fund this and PAY for the public option.

And if the gov't wants to create this public option, why not just add the tax and offer it? Why make it a law that you HAVE to purchase it? Do you really believe they have our best interests at heart?

They are creating something and making it a LAW that we purchase it. AND they have total control over it. There will be NO one to regulate them. You will have NO recourse if you are wronged. You can't sue the gov't.


If you think that is fair or a good idea then.....well, I just don't know what to think about that.

Neezar
04-27-2010, 03:44 AM
Someone asked me:
What percentage of your paycheck goes to the govt for taxes now? Are you comfortable with that? How much are we willing to go up? Why not just let them have the whole check and let them divvy it out as they see fit?

Is this really where we are going? :unsure-1:

Chuck
04-27-2010, 03:56 AM
Yeah, this is an insurance company bailout, not a healthcare bill.

If you really believe this then you don't understand this legislation any more than the morons who voted for it.

This bill is the exact opposite of a bailout. If the insurance companies are as greedy and profitable as people say... why would they need bailing out? :huh:

This bill has nothing to do with a bailout.. it's the exact opposite.

Neezar
04-27-2010, 04:01 AM
If you really believe this then you don't understand this legislation any more than the morons who voted for it.

This bill is the exact opposite of a bailout. If the insurance companies are as greedy and profitable as people say... why would they need bailing out? :huh:

This bill has nothing to do with a bailout.. it's the exact opposite.

I don't know what is wrong with you, Chuck. You used to have a much better manner of speaking. lol


However as bad as I hate to say it, I agree with you. (That took forever to type.) I think this will put private insurance companies out of business.

Chuck
04-27-2010, 04:03 AM
I don't know what is wrong with you, Chuck. You used to have a much better manner of speaking. lol


However as bad as I hate to say it, I agree with you. (That took forever to type.) I think this will put private insurance companies out of business.

:laugh: Because I called the people who supported this morons??????

I can think of quite a few other things to call them.. :ninja:

atomdanger
04-27-2010, 04:15 AM
NO, I meant you will have to pay in the taxes to fund this and PAY for the public option.

And if the gov't wants to create this public option, why not just add the tax and offer it? Why make it a law that you HAVE to purchase it? Do you really believe they have our best interests at heart?

They are creating something and making it a LAW that we purchase it. AND they have total control over it. There will be NO one to regulate them. You will have NO recourse if you are wronged. You can't sue the gov't.


If you think that is fair or a good idea then.....well, I just don't know what to think about that.

You're wrong though aren't you?
You don't HAVE to have the government insurance,
you just have to have SOME insurance,
can you not still have your own choice of private insurance?

Neezar
04-27-2010, 01:01 PM
You're wrong though aren't you?
You don't HAVE to have the government insurance,
you just have to have SOME insurance,
can you not still have your own choice of private insurance?

Of course you can buy private insurance. But how long do you think private insurance will be able to compete with the gov't?

And you are still paying taxes for the govt option AND purchasing private insurance -OR- paying taxes for the govt option AND purchasing the govt option. So in that case, you are funding what you are buying back.

NateR
04-27-2010, 01:10 PM
I was under the impression that You can either
a. Buy the public option.
or
b. obtain private insurance

IS that not the case?

Are you telling me I am going to have to pay for this twice? O_O

You'll have to pay the taxes that are going to be required to fund this bill, then you will have to pay monthly premiums for your insurance policy, and if you actually get sick, you will have to pay a deductable before the insurance company even pays for your treatment. So you will have to pay for it three times, unless you just never get sick or injured, then you will only have to pay for it twice. :huh:

Still sound like a good idea?

Neezar
04-27-2010, 01:12 PM
And will cost more than private insurance does now.

NateR
04-27-2010, 01:19 PM
And will cost more than private insurance does now.

Yeah, once the government gets a monopoly on healthcare, prices will go up, coverage will go down and we'll be worse off than ever before. Because we will then be living in a nation where our government has the ultimate control over life and death for all of its citizens. Under that system you can pretty much kiss freedom and liberty goodbye.

But at least people will have free healthcare. :rolleyes:

Neezar
04-27-2010, 01:25 PM
But at least people will have free healthcare. :rolleyes:

Well the ones who won't work will have it free.

NateR
04-27-2010, 02:28 PM
Well the ones who won't work will have it free.

Then people will start to figure out that they'd be better off unemployed and living off the government dime. And when the number of people leaching off the government outnumbers the number of people paying money to the government, then the entire system comes crashing down.

atomdanger
04-27-2010, 03:34 PM
You'll have to pay the taxes that are going to be required to fund this bill, then you will have to pay monthly premiums for your insurance policy, and if you actually get sick, you will have to pay a deductable before the insurance company even pays for your treatment. So you will have to pay for it three times, unless you just never get sick or injured, then you will only have to pay for it twice. :huh:

Still sound like a good idea?

It sounds like a horrible idea when you word it that way.