# How does anyone afford health care :(



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

I just have to ask-

How in the world does anyone afford health care anymore?

Maybe I have had my head under a rock the past few years because hubby has been handling the bills and paperwork, but I suspect it is more than that.

Our situation-

Hubby and I are retired, but we have a decent income from a combination of retirement distributions and payments on contracts for deed. We aren't rich, but we're not poor, either. At least, we did not think we were poor until recently. Not sure how hubby feels about it, but I am feeling downright destitute 

We have Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance with a $6000 deductible. The policy pays 100% for our toddler's wellness checks and routine care. For everything else, we pay out of pocket until we hit the $6k deductible. 

Most years our health care costs are pretty minimal and we just pay for everything out of pocket. But this year we got started with a bang. Our daughter swallowed a penny a couple of weeks ago, on a Saturday morning. The penny got stuck in her esophagus and after spending all day Saturday and part of Sunday morning in the emergency room, we wound up having to take her down to the Twin Cities to the Children's Hospital for emergency surgery.

The baby is fine, btw. But, we just started getting the bills 
On top of all of that, I am scheduled to have surgery for trigger finger in about 10 days. I got an estimate from the hospital for that today and it is going to cost over $8,000, just for an outpatient surgery which is estimated to take about 6 minutes.

So this year, in addition to paying $8,800.00 for insurance for two adults and a toddler, we will hit our deductible. We will have spent $14,800 before the insurance pays for anything other than our daughter's checkups.

Maybe I am old fashioned, but $14,800 is a LOT of money to me. It's actually a staggering amount of money. I recall someone posted recently asking if other posters could live on $10k a year. I knew we couldn't, simply because of our health care costs. 

So, maybe I am just old fashioned and cheap, but I don't see how a middle class family with 3 or 4, or more, kids can afford to pay for health care. 

Is there something I am missing?


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Kids are expensive. They get sick, they sometimes need to see the doctor NOW. Take another look at your insurance, you probably need to make some changes, for a few years.

Mon


----------



## chickenmommy (Aug 24, 2004)

This is why I buy the higher priced plan so there is no deductible to pay and better coverage for specialists, which is a need I saw coming down the pike. Glad I made that choice. And my employer starts paying whichever plan I chose after 3 years employed. No sense them paying the lesser coverage one.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Elizabeth said:


> I just have to ask-
> 
> How in the world does anyone afford health care anymore?


Honestly, if not connected to a group plan at work, most/many people can't afford it. Over 50 million people are uninsured.


----------



## flowergurl (Feb 27, 2007)

Are these 50 million people going to be fined in the near future?


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Here we do without everything else in order to pour all $'s towards medical. I budget $600 a month for medical. So far for the year we're at $3,800+ with another $2,000 over budget due next month. So, minimial food, no clothes, no repairs, no recreation, no--well you get the idea.


----------



## OUVickie (Mar 8, 2003)

I understand and I have insurance on myself and DH here at work. It costs me nearly $400 per month to insure him on our "HMO" and we now have a $300 deductible - plus I pay either $25 or $35 for every visit - and that's just to the MD - not the Dentist or Vision.
So, that's nearly $5000 IF we don't get sick or need surgery. We're considered middle class and can't afford to get sick. So I have no idea how poor people without any coverage can manage or how people on fixed retirement incomes can manage to eat or live. Pretty sad since the US is supposed to be the wealthiest nation in the world. I guess we're wealthy, if you compare us to 3rd world countries.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

Maybe you retired young, and forgot to consider medical insurance. That's what keeps most people working  
It is very very expensive. DH and I both work, and the portion we pay (employer pays part) comes to about $400 per month, and we have a $3000 deductible and 80/20 up to out of pocket max . Last year, I had an emergency appendectomy, and we hit our max, and am still paying the bills (probably will for years to come). Honestly, if it weren't for medical, I probably wouldn't have to work.


----------



## aftermidnite (Dec 8, 2005)

I haven't had insurance for over 10 yrs .It is offered at work but for me it is more than I can afford ...I make just above min wage ..I am not on the street or under a bridge but am like many an just a few paychecks away from homelessness ..I see my Dr every 6 months and pay cash for the office call and get my meds on the $4 Walmart plan .My pain meds are discounted thru a indigent county plan that no longer accepts new clients ..Last year I had an ER visit and even with refusing tests and an IV and shots it still cost $2000 which when I tried to set up what I could afford to pay monthly the amount was refused outright and was turned over to a collection agency after 60 days ...I I know for me health care is a big constant worry ..


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> So, maybe I am just old fashioned and cheap, but I don't see how a middle class family with 3 or 4, or more, kids can afford to pay for health care.


They don't. And of course this is why every first world nation on the planet now has some sort of government sponsored/subsidized system. 



> Are these 50 million people going to be fined in the near future?


Probably not. Well, unless they're bad at math that is.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Don't forget, you also have an Out of Pocket maximum too.

That's the only thing that saved me last year: 1 ER visit, 2 out patient operations and a 5 day hospital stay = close to $80,000 I have a lower deductible and a $6,000 maximum out of pocket a year, meaning once I pay $6,000 everything else is paid at 100% (of course you have to fight them for months to get them to actually pay).


----------



## Vosey (Dec 8, 2012)

Elizabeth, it sounds like you would be eligible for a HSA (Health Savings Account). Most people with high deductible plans are. You can put money into the HSA pre-tax (if coming out of a paycheck) or take a deduction at tax time. You still have to pay the $6000 deductible, but it feels a little less painful. And you get in the habit of saving towards healthcare emergencies.

I'm waiting to see what the cost of the new healthcare exchanges are going to be, maybe I'll be able to go to part time sooner than I thought!


----------



## GrannyG (Mar 26, 2005)

It is hard..my premiums keep increasing...over $200 now on me, more on hubby......I am forced to have a drug plan but it will not cover any of the med I took, so I pay almost six hundred dollars a year for NOTHING plus with O care, I am now saddled with a three hundred fifty deductible on top of that....we can barely manage the insurance on our fixed incomes....I Quit taking meds....just take aspirin and a few vitamins....DH get his meds from the VA but we still pay some on them....My daughter has lost her job...she has a college degree in teaching, but new teachers are cheaper to hire than those with experience....she just had her taxes done...they told her she would be charged three hundred dollars next year for not having any insurance and nine hundred the next...but she told them...I have NO JOB, NO MONEY, does not qualify for anything....very hard....


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> You can put money into the HSA pre-tax (if coming out of a paycheck) or take a deduction at tax time.


HSAs were worthless for most of us. If we can't afford the premiums, we sure can't afford to SAVE more on top of it!


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

My insurance is covered by my husband's SubChapter S corporation, but it's still $400 a month out of our pocket. Just a different pocket.

The prescription part of the plan stinks, as I just paid $90 for ONE month's hormone replacement med.

The plan does not have an HSA as an option. Having an HSA means significantly higher premiums.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I could retire in 4 or 5 years if it were not for the high cost of insurance, instead I'll work for at least 10 - maybe more due to the economy, God willing.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Even if you have insurance the deductibles and co-pays still add up to a lot of money. My son-in-laws work for the local coal mine and have excellent health insurance. They literally do not have to pay a penny for anything, they never see a bill. On their W-2's this year the cost to their employer for their insurance was listed and it was over $17,000. 

Have you considered an HMO? Sometimes they have better covereages, but you might have to switch doctors to one that is under their plans.


----------



## homemaid (Apr 26, 2011)

You both must be very young to be retired if you have a toddler. My hubby worked 44 years before he retired at age 65. Maybe if you are both young you should look for a job that offers an insurance plan. Just my opinion. Not wanting to step on anyone's toes...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

We are doing without health insurance at the moment. We hope we get coverage when DH gets back to work. Applied for a policy that we could afford the premiums but they wanted me to get a full physical and blood work before they would process the application further. I had been to the doctor a year ago with normal blood pressure and so forth, no ongoing health problems whatsoever. And gee folks, if I could afford a $1000 physical I wouldn't be applying for the el cheapo insurance plan, now would I? It is a ridiculous situation and only going to get worse as more of O-care rolls out. If the government hadn't meddled and let everything work on the free market it would be better. But the hybrid of government control and corporate greed that we have now is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

No paychecks, so no HSA.

We retired in our mid-40's, and we are now in our mid-50's. We have a toddler because a couple of years ago I decided to go to school to study photography. The second semester I was there, one of my young (barely 18yo) classmates confided to me that she was pregnant and asked if hubby and I would adopt her baby. We married in our mid-40's and never had kids. I became a mom at the age of 50 :happy2:

So, now I am a stay at home mom and going back to work is not an option for me, at least not for a good long while, as we intend to home school our daughter.

Anyway, we have been paying for the health care and will continue to do so. It just hurts to realize that, with the medical and just our routine dental care (which is not covered at all by our insurance), we are paying 24+% of our NET income. That sounds crazy to me. We can _afford_ it only because we have no debt and everything we own is paid for. We also live pretty frugally, grow a lot of our own food, drive older vehicles, shop garage sales, etc. But, if we had a mortgage and a bunch of bills to pay we would likely be in rough shape financially. 

We DID consider the cost of health care when we retired, and even allowed for inflation, but the costs have increased dramatically more than we ever imagined that they would.

We are fortunate in that we both worked really, really hard when we were younger, and saved/invested a good chunk of our incomes so that we _could_ retire early and enjoy doing things that we could not do when we were working all the time because we were working all the time. If we have to make adjustments to cover higher costs of things like fuel and health care, we will, but unless we really have to, we would both prefer to be at home with our daughter, on the farm, as much as possible. I may earn some income from my photography work eventually, and if so I would be able to work around DD's schedule, but I am not at the point where I am ready to start doing that yet.

Oh? Did someone ask to see a photo of our Little Claire Bear? of course!!!!!!
I may have already posted this elsewhere, but it is one of my favorite pictures of her, so here it is (again?). Claire at 19 months


----------



## nancy237 (May 29, 2008)

It is hard..I could probably retire except for $600/month health insurance.
Instead I will be working mainly because of health insurance..


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I posted this article last month. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06...-help-you-retire-earlier-or-destroy-itself-t/

It seems to say the Obama Care will subsidise the health care premimum for those making less than 4 times the federal poverty level. This kicks in 1/1/14. 

It seems to say that the only consideration is income, not what you have in assetts. This means that you can quailfy even if you have some assetts, unlike medicaid which requires you to be destitute. Anyone know for sure if this is how it's going to work?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> It is a ridiculous situation and only going to get worse as more of O-care rolls out. If the government hadn't meddled and let everything work on the free market it would be better.


Have you investigated what insurance is going to cost you once ObamaCare goes into action? 
From what I've seen, _most_ people bemoaning the "terrible situation" of ObamaCare really don't know how it's going to affect them...


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

No, Erin. I'm not even sure where I would go to look for that information.
Do you happen to know?


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Most people cannot afford to retire with a toddler in the house. Most people must work until eligible for Medicare. To my way of thinking, if you cannot afford the cost of medical care/insurance, you cannot afford to retire. It sounds as if one of you will either have to get a job with health insurance or a job that pays enough to cover your $15K worth of bills. I'm not trying to sound insensitive at all. There are a whole lot of people out there who complain about not being able to retire early because of the cost of health care. Those people need to keep working. 

People have no idea how much new laws such as HIPPA cost _us_. Obamacare is just making costs go up and up and up and up and...... I will be surprised if many additional people will be covered. 

My husband was a self employed commercial photographer for thirty years. I never wanted to work. When his business started going downhill (thank you, digital photography), I had to go back to school. DH was in his 60s so it was really too late for him to get another job. I was 40 when I graduated with a BSN. Thank goodness I went back to school. Thankfully, God told me to get disability insurance. We would be homeless without it. I understand that you want to homeschool but that just may not be possible. I homeschooled for several years while working full time. I know that Beccachow homeschools while working full time at a very demanding job. 

Congratulations on your little girl! If she likes to play games, I would recommend Time4Learning. It is a wonderful program. You can use it a game source, an entire curriculum, or as a supplement. Up To Ten is a site my daughter loved when she was little.

Medicare was intended as coverage for the last couple of years before death. I am disabled and have Medicare. Medicare isn't going to be much better. It costs more to cover just me than it cost to cover my entire family under my commercial insurance. It takes me two or three months to get into the drug doughnut hole. After that, I pay $500 per month in drug costs. Try to afford that on a fixed income. We were just getting out from under debt. Now,our credit cards are going up due to my high medicine costs. All in all, our medical costs are around 25% of our net income. 

We have an almost 15 year old daughter. I've been disabled since she was 11. She doesn't really remember that I worked 40+ hours a week or that her dad worked up to 60 hours of week during the holidays. She knows parents who don't have jobs. She doesn't get that we cannot work. I can honestly say that she would be better off if one of her parents were able to work. She doesn't see the correlation between working and eating. That's a very important correlation that children need to learn. It may be best for your daughter if one of you go back to work. 

The older you get to be the more expensive your health insurance will be. It goes up way more than just inflation. It's an age related increase. That may very well be part of what you're seeing with your costs right now.


----------



## Vosey (Dec 8, 2012)

Nimrod said:


> I posted this article last month. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06...-help-you-retire-earlier-or-destroy-itself-t/
> 
> It seems to say the Obama Care will subsidise the health care premimum for those making less than 4 times the federal poverty level. This kicks in 1/1/14.
> 
> It seems to say that the only consideration is income, not what you have in assetts. This means that you can quailfy even if you have some assetts, unlike medicaid which requires you to be destitute. Anyone know for sure if this is how it's going to work?


I'm unsure anyone truly knows. I work in a FQHC (federally qualified health center) where 50% of our patients are uninsured, many of the rest are Medicaid. I'm well aware of the impossibility of insurance at the lower end of the income scale and especially for the self-employed. The numbers I saw 2 years ago showed it to be pretty affordable at the lower end of the sliding scale but quickly getting expensive. I suspect it will benefit the just above the line for Medicaid and those who have already been paying astronomical amounts for $6000 deductibles (they should be able to pay less than they currently do). I think many in the middle will end up staying uninsured. It may really help those who are working just for health benefits and those of us who would like to go part time some day but would lose their health insurance doing so.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

Joshie- You have to realize that when we retired we never imagined that we would ever become parents. It was a complete fluke that it even happened. We had thought about adopting a sibling group through foster care, but we were still in the thinking stage when my classmate asked us to adopt her baby. For a lot of reasons, we jumped at the chance, but it definitely was not something we planned for or budgeted for. No regrets, Claire is the light of our lives and we would do it again in a heartbeat. 

As far as expenses, her insurance only adds $1580 a year to our premium, it is the other $14k+ that hurts.

But, as I said, we can afford (relative term) to pay for it, at least for the time being. Obviously, if the time came when we could not, we would have to make adjustments, and we realize that.

But our income would be considered pretty healthy for our area- some folks are doing well around here, but many, many more are not, and when I see the percentage of our income that goes to pay for health care I just have to wonder how others make do, especially middle class families.


----------



## pattycake (May 16, 2010)

Elizabeth, I have instantly fell in love with little Claire Bear!!!! I pray that things will work out for you and your family. Would Claire be eligible for Medicaid? Lots of adoptions go thru because of this. Just a thought.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Elizabeth said:


> No, Erin. I'm not even sure where I would go to look for that information.
> Do you happen to know?


Here is one place: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/


----------



## opportunity (Mar 31, 2012)

My husband works so that we have good insurance $350 deductable and $1000 max out of pocket per person then $750 is the most we have to pay for prescriptions. He has cancer so this is the third year in a row we have gotten him to the 1750 right off the bat.
His dad has to keep working to provide healthcare befits for his mother. My mom works to keep insurance for her and my dad
I don't know anyone personally that can retire and pay for insurance it costs a lot. Although we have had many family members with $100000 plus bills the incurance has taken care of it we only owe a few thousand.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

also, Joshie- I realize full well that it is a luxury for us to be able to retire at a young age. But, we both made a LOT of sacrifices in order to be able to do so. 
And, for many, many years my _average_ work week was 126 hours, during which time I was on salary and made no overtime.

Even before hubby and I met (in our 40's) we both had a desire to quit our jobs and move to a farm. It seems we were both just waiting to meet someone to do it with.

We also expected to have a lot more income from the farm than we actually ended up with. Some plans did not work out and that income did not materialize.
But we are okay, and like I said, if one of us ever HAS to get a job, we will.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

If you are Christians, consider one of the many Christian health sharing ministries. They work similar to insurance but are comprised of Christians who band together to cover each other's medical needs. Don't let the disclaimers about no guarantee disuade you from looking at them as the ones I've been a part of have always met all the medical needs of their members. Two I have been a part of and was very happy with both are Christian Care Medi-Share, and Christian Heathcare Ministries. The former would probably be a better bet for families as there is one deductible per family unit, whereas the latter met my needs better once I hit 60 since the member shares do not increase with age. In both, the member share (ie premium) would run around $400-600.00 for a family of 3 with adults in their 50's. The first has either a $1250.00 or $2500.00 annual family deductible and 100% pay after that, whereas the second has a $500.00 deductible per family member, so $1500. for your family.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

:happy2: pattycake. I fall more in love with her every single day, if that is possible!

Yes, I believe that Claire is eligible for Medicaid, but as her parents, we feel that we are responsible for her care. Hopefully nothing will ever happen that would keep us from providing for her. I posted in an earlier thread that her care has only added $1580 to our bill (so far). Of course, when she needs braces that will be another story, lol. Maybe we should start a fund now just in case. sigh.


----------



## pattycake (May 16, 2010)

Elizabeth, I am so glad that this precious child is in your care. It would be so worth it if you would swallow your pride and take advantage of what she would be eligilbe for. You need to think of her future. Medicaid should just not be for dead beat parents. It should be there for people like you. If you could put that $1580 in a savings account for her it would certainly help with braces, college , etc.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> We are doing without health insurance at the moment. We hope we get coverage when DH gets back to work. Applied for a policy that we could afford the premiums but they wanted me to get a full physical and blood work before they would process the application further. I had been to the doctor a year ago with normal blood pressure and so forth, no ongoing health problems whatsoever. And gee folks, if I could afford a $1000 physical I wouldn't be applying for the el cheapo insurance plan, now would I?


Why would it cost you $1,000 to get a physical? Check to see if there's a place that does school physicals cheaply. I know a local (quack) doctor who graduated medical school but didn't go through a residency. He does cheap physicals. Unfortunately, he also does have some patients. I've heard he tells his patients that he wants them to have specialists while they're in the hospital to explain why he doesn't have hospital privileges. Anyway, you should be able to get a physical and blood work for much less than that ($250 to $500 total).




Elizabeth said:


> also, Joshie- I realize full well that it is a luxury for us to be able to retire at a young age. But, we both made a LOT of sacrifices in order to be able to do so.
> And, for many, many years my _average_ work week was 126 hours, during which time I was on salary and made no overtime.
> 
> Even before hubby and I met (in our 40's) we both had a desire to quit our jobs and move to a farm. It seems we were both just waiting to meet someone to do it with.
> ...


I hope you don't think I was suggesting that you didn't work hard to get where you are. Unless you came from huge money, I don't see how anyone could retire so early without working very, very hard. Farms <sigh> are often not dependable sources of income. I have a feeling that your husband may well need to go back to work. I hope that doesn't disappoint you too much. From my experience, I wish that our daughter saw her daddy working. At his age, it just isn't possible.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

Did anyone else see the economist that Charlie Rose interviewed this week?

The economist said that he believed that health care costs were the single thing that is crippling growth in our economy.


----------



## dndweeks (Jan 17, 2013)

Elizabeth said:


> No paychecks, so no HSA.
> 
> We retired in our mid-40's, and we are now in our mid-50's. We have a toddler because a couple of years ago I decided to go to school to study photography. The second semester I was there, one of my young (barely 18yo) classmates confided to me that she was pregnant and asked if hubby and I would adopt her baby. We married in our mid-40's and never had kids. I became a mom at the age of 50 :happy2:
> 
> ...


I really have no answer regarding the affordability of health care. We're fortunate that hubby is working and has good benefits. However, I wanted to say that Claire Bear is a "doll" and let you know that I too am an older mom with little ones at home (5 yr old and 3 yr old). While I know many who would not choose to become at parent in their 40's or 50's, it has been an amazing experience and I can't imagine my life playing out any other way. Like you, I too wonder how some are coping with health care, especially those with kids at home.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

A while back I had to look long and hard at the whole health insurance / cost of care thing. As late as 1998 I was (barely) able to afford good health insurance. What they don't tell you when you are younger is - not only do health care costs go up faster than inflation, but as you are get older the premiums get bumped simply because of age - to the point that reaching the medicare medicare advantage plan age seems like that long stretch in sports before you know you have safely made the goal. Those last three years of private insurance can be brutal.

As someone who is self-employed, I had to make decisions. Being healthy overall, this was a simplified version of my thinking. I could buy a plan that has decent coverage, but with co-pays. If I worked hard and long, I _might_ be able to keep it for a couple of years before it became too expensive. Just for round figures, I'll say it would cost $900/mo. Alternatively, I could buy a high deductible policy covering 100% after the deductible of $7,0000 is met for $300/mo. The difference is $600/mo or $7,200 per year. If I am deathly ill, I end up paying the same $10,800 in insurance +-, but with the regular plan, I am STILL on the hook for the co-pays up until the total OOP limit. 

So it becomes a little table of costs per year with different scenarios:
Health Standard plan High Deductible NO insurance at all
Seriously
Ill .......$13,000 .........$10,800.......... $80,000 - 200,000 (approx)
Fair ....$11,500 ...........$5,600............ $2,000
Good .$10,800........... $4,000............... $400

In all three cases, if I have insurance I am better off with the high deductible plan. Now, again just for example, say I have three years until medicare / advantage plans. I have at most a 1 in 3 chance of serious major illness over that period without even glancing at the actuarial tables. If my net worth and attachable assets are more than about $20,000, _and I can afford it_, it makes sense to pay the high deductible policy.

So how can I keep my health care costs down? The first thing I do is contact the local doctors and find out the price of their services. You may remember I made the error of going to a hospital lab to have some simple x-rays done and got charged a _discounted_ $800 until I talked with billing. I have since found a doctor where I would pay $200 cash and be done with it.

My wife and I both know how to use supplements and herbs as preventatives and first line of defense cures for common ills.

In short, because diabetes, heart disease, and long-term illnesses need not be considered as ongoing costs, being proactive and staying away from doctors as much as possible stands the best chance of being the least expensive course - WITH protection of assets.

Each situation is different. Not everyone can get a doctor visit for $100 or less. Not everyone has access to inexpensive labs and xrays. Some health conditions require ongoing monitoring. The above is just one situation that might help some people make decisions.


----------



## countrysunshine (Jul 3, 2008)

We did not have insurance for several years. At that time we didn't go to the doctor unless it was an emergency. I recall having a baby and 17 months later a baby that hadn't peed in 18 hours. Eventually my husband "took a job in town". We also decided that one of us would have to always work for the insurance. That is what we have done for the past 28 years or so.

I have insurance now and I am fortunate that it is quite good. I now have a couple of chronic illnesses that have to be managed. It still requires a tremendous amount of management on my part. In December I spent over an hour during three different phone calls to get the bill back down from $900 to $100. Today I called to pay a bill that was $125 and they offered me a 20% discount to to pay in full - which I intended. Medical bills are a constant source of stress for even those of us that have insurance.

On the flip side, I have watched what my DIL has invested financially and personally to become an ENT doctor. I don't begrudge them the money they make. It isn't as great as you might think. The doctor gets less than 50% of what is finally paid. I had a bill today that was $200 for a visit with my gyno onco (talk about a specialty!). The insurance paid $94 and I paid $20. So, the doctor probably got $55 out of that. 

All of this is to say, it is very difficult for everyone. Even those of us with insurance AND it requires sacrifices for us to get it. My husband and I would be happy to only farm but that is not realistic for us.


----------



## SilverFlame819 (Aug 24, 2010)

I have no idea how they afford it, aside from working high-paying jobs or having jobs that cover them at a low cost. Our company offers it... at a price I could never afford if I wanted to pay my rent.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

We had to go with an HMO to afford our healthcare. You might want to check into that for your family.


----------



## Huntinfamily (Aug 14, 2010)

After my company dropped our healthcare we went for a while without. I use the VA for mine and have a blue cross/blue shield policy for my children. Unfortunately adding my wife to that policy would have made it unafforable for us due to previous injuries she has had. Two weeks ago while slicing veggies for dinner she slipped with the knife and cut one of her fingers off. We just got the hospital bill today for the attempted surgery to reattach it and all the other crap they add on to the bills. $18,000 is her total bill! I will be paying on that for the next ten years. The policy I have for my children is around $600 per month but with three teenage boys is worth every penny.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

What I would like to see is every one eligible for those lower group rates. I am self employed and could afford a $60 a week plan. But all i can get is a $150 a week with real crumby benefits and large co-pay and deductible.

Also Medicaid is income only. They do not take assets into account at least not in VT or NY.


----------



## Sculkrusha (Feb 10, 2013)

Just laying on the couch with my little 'puter. This is not a subject that I would normally participate in. But I must say, It made me sad.
I thought our (Aus) healthcare system was in a mess, but wow, you people are really copping it.....

I will not say this is better and that is better 'cause I am not informed enough on the subject.
I will say this, my wife and I retired at 50 a decade ago, so we are "Self Funded Retires".
It was only last year that we decided to cancel our private insurance. Our dog still has private ins.
The only difference that we can see is that we cant go in and have a knee/hip replacement straight away and may have to wait some mths.
If we have a heart attack and need bypass surgery, obviously you go in straight away. You would not receive a bill. If you dont have private ins you may not get a private room. We have a free (not asset tested) health care card, we do not get charged for Drs Visits.
So I guess there is always someone worse off.
Thank you for sharing.

Scul


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

What is truly sad is the number of people who scream at the idea of a universal health care. Usually it is the well off who already can pay for theirs who wish the rest of us to have to pay extremely high premiums.
My son has Diabetes and without some type of insurance his life would be miserable. I mentioned this to a BIL over the holidays and his response was " well that is unfortunate" Now this BIL had insurance through his work and pays like $50 a week. 
How very compassionate some in this country have gotten.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

We retired in our late 40s as well and have excellent medical and dental ins but we still got nailed in 2011 when I had back surgery and the lengthy surgery, PT and various followup testing stretched over 2 years. I ended up going back to work for a year to pay off the medical bills and that may be something to consider; just getting a full or part time job for a period of time long enough to pay off your bills.

Saying you will just avoid the Dr and be healthy is a great thought but you never know what will happen and no amount of herbal supplements will regenerate a diseased organ, heal your heart, or mend a broken bone. I do agree that you can mitigate many health issues by proper diet and exercise but your really hanging out there financially IMO with little or no insurance.

My neighbor works at a fairly low paying (I think) mind numbing and soul sucking factory job almost exclusively for the medical insurance and he will have to keep at it (if the job will still be there) until he is eligible for Medicaid. Its just a sad reflection on the current state of affairs and I am very doubtful Obamacare will change much for most folks.

On the flip side, being able to stay home with your daughter is worth sucking it up and living a more austere existence for awhile. Like you guys, my wife and I worked 80+ hours a week for decades to be able to retire early but with all of our kids now long gone from the nest I often regret the lost family time and would likely have changed things if I could get a redo.


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

flowergurl said:


> Are these 50 million people going to be fined in the near future?


 
That's their plan. :flame:


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Most everyone has insurance through their employer thats why they really don't understand how expensive it is. Its only when they try to be independent and leave their job that they realize the incredible cost. Its not only paying premiums but its also paying everything out of pocket that the policy doesn't cover. They seemed to me to deny about 50% of the claims I put in when I had insurance. I was paying 500 per month for premiums and then I had to pick up all the bills out of pocket anyway. It didn't take long for me to conclude that it was cheaper to dump the insurance and just pay out of pocket.

When you pay out of pocket 90% of the time they will lower the price for you if they know you dont have insurance. I had an emergency room bill of $750, that they lowered to $250 for paying cash out of pocket.

Of course, I have no kids and I am pretty self reliant with the ability to pay out of pocket for pretty much anything if I had to. Not everyone can do this. My 'health insurance' is the lifestyle I lead, exercise, good diet, and my bank account.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Always had ins thru employers but also had to pay & was getting to be a lot of $$$ even tho co. paid a lot. 
When I retired I was not yet eligible for medicare & DH is 8 yrs younger than me! So we went w/his ins & was $500/mo to add me. Then the co. went bankrupt!
We were w/o ins for 3 yrs b/4 I was eligible for medicare. Whew.

But DH was w/o til a few mo. ago when he just got too afraid that something catastrophic could happen & wipe us out. So he went w/Blue Cross. I think its 350/mo (no dr coverage & 5K deductable) but will go up about 50 soon & as the wonderfoul obamacare goes into effect it will go up more & more.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Claire is a very pretty child, I can understand how much you want to stay home with her!

As far as insurance goes, I have BCBSA and Tri-Care Prime. I pay a lot in premiums each month for the BCBSA for myself and my son. I work primarily to keep insurance and hopefully in about five years, I too, will retire while I am still young enough to do something in life.

Obama Care has created it's own problems and is not a panacea for health care costs. 

More people are learning that:

1. It is cheaper and easier for employers to lay off or cut hours than to provide health care;

2. Hospitals are now seeing the effects of people who used to have health care insurance through employers - those people are beginning to use the ER of public hospitals as a doctor's office and increase the costs of running the hospital. 

3. Costs are being passed along to the paying consumers by the medical care providers.

4. States are refusing to set up exchanges so the feds will have to do that for them;

5. The taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for this new program in some fashion or another - there is no free lunch.

We would have been better off with a single payer system, but the insurance companies are not going to let that happen so what we have now is a bandaid on patient that is slowly bleeding to death. Eventually either the patient dies or gets a blood transfusion.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Just a point...there have ALWAYS been people without insurance...and those WITH it...that use the ER instead of just going to a doctor for their cold :< Those same people often call an ambulance, instead of a cab, to take them to the hospital.

Mon


----------



## "SPIKE" (Dec 7, 2011)

If you are a "regular ole working person" here in the south, you pretty much CAN NOT AFFORD TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE.
If you do not get it through an employer you just about have to do without it or do without something else you need, like housing, food, utilities. (I do know the difference between needs and wants!)

I have always lived a health and active life. I have been responsible for my health and by bill when I needed medical care. I have always been financially responsible and lived below my income levels so I could save money. (Never been able to save a lot, but I do not waste)

The only time I had insurance was through employers. A few months before my layoff in 2008, my employer had the secretary call me and tell me them were droping insurance coverage for me. There is not much the employee can do. You suck it up or you get a new job.
After the layoff, I drew unemployment for 6 months while looking for a comparable job. I did not sign up for extended unemployment.
Decided to spend my savings, that the government was steady making less valuable, to build a homestead I could at least survive on if nothing else. I can provide most of what I need to live a healthy life, but would like to soon have insurance again. My SO has been paying basic bills to pay me back for putting her through medical transcriptionist school several years ago. Now new government/medical policies are even eleminating the need for her job. She has lost part of her income as a results.

Government policies have not made it easier for construction workers in the south to get and keep good employment unless you are willing to travel. 

Living a health lifestyle and being responsible for myself is important to me. I will never be a leech or moocher! 
Insurance is more like a luxury. If I get a tramatic, life threatning medical problem; then I will probably just die before I become a burden upon anyone. We humans were never ment to live forever.

:rock: LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!


SPIKE


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

I have a higher deductible insurance plan, I see it as a safety net. I can eventually pay off the deductible if the need arises and I have some protection against a medical bill wiping me out financially.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Most everyone has insurance through their employer thats why they really don't understand how expensive it is. Its only when they try to be independent and leave their job that they realize the incredible cost. Its not only paying premiums but its also paying everything out of pocket that the policy doesn't cover. They seemed to me to deny about 50% of the claims I put in when I had insurance. I was paying 500 per month for premiums and then I had to pick up all the bills out of pocket anyway. It didn't take long for me to conclude that it was cheaper to dump the insurance and just pay out of pocket.


Years ago, I had Blue Cross/Blue Shield (considered to be very good insurance) but found I could go across the border into Canada and pay cash for entire procedures, and it would be cheaper than paying my insurance co-pays.

If you happen to live in a border state, you might want to check out that option. I found the care I received in Canada to be every bit as good as that provided by U.S. doctors.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I think its 350/mo (no dr coverage & 5K deductable) but will go up about 50 soon & as the wonderfoul obamacare goes into effect it will go up more & more.


Actually, it's because of Obamacare that it's going up _SO LITTLE_. Obamacare has set a rule that seniors can no longer be charged such a disproportionate amount for their health insurance (like they used to be).



> 2. Hospitals are now seeing the effects of people who used to have health care insurance through employers - those people are beginning to use the ER of public hospitals as a doctor's office and increase the costs of running the hospital.


Just as an FYI, the ONLY way people would ever use the ER instead of a doctor's office is if they are _on Medicaid/Medicare_. 

The rest of us _still_ would still have to pay out of pocket but now we would pay an ER visit instead of a doctor's visit.


----------



## oldmania (Jan 25, 2007)

Much of life is about choices. You know: you can't spend your money and save it too. Somehow, insurance in this country became connected to employment. So, I always considered the benefits offered by an employer as much as the salary. I will say that, as an adult who is eligible for Medicare (though I didn't opt for Medicare Part B), i have only been without insurance coverage for a few months many years ago, and that only happened because of major life transitions and moving from one coast to the other. There were times when my employment provided the coverage and times when my husband's employment provided it. We do have excellent coverage, though it is not cheap, and planned for that when planning and timing our retirement. While i would have loved to quit my job and paint (pictures, not houses), I had to be realistic and therefore chose to stay employed.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

For those who think when you get Medicare your problems will be solved, our medicare premium is about 110. 00/mo, medicare supplement is 130.00, and rx coverage is another 30.00. That is 270.00 each for fair coverage or 540.00 for both of us plus the medicare tax we paid for years. You can skip the supplement insurance, however I have RA and without it the meds are not affordable. Medicare is not the free ride the politicians are trying to make us believe it is.


----------



## Nomad (Dec 19, 2002)

I have Medicare part A&B, no prescription plan. I am fortunate that most of my medication is $7.99 or less per month and the expensive one I get overseas at a fraction the the US cost. And yes it works. My oldest daughter has Medicare because she is disabled, and since we are poor she also just qualified to have Medicaid pick up anything Medicare doesn't pay including the monthly premium and prescription coverage. The younger daughter has Medicaid, but the wife has no coverage. She has been putting off going to the doctor but has to now so she can get some prescription refills. Office calls are $140, but I'm hoping they charge less for cash. She may also need blood work which will run a few hundred. I'm very thankful she is pretty healthy and doesn't have to go to the doctor often.

Nomad


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Molly Mckee said:


> For those who think when you get Medicare your problems will be solved, our medicare premium is about 110. 00/mo, medicare supplement is 130.00, and rx coverage is another 30.00. That is 270.00 each for fair coverage or 540.00 for both of us plus the medicare tax we paid for years. You can skip the supplement insurance, however I have RA and without it the meds are not affordable. Medicare is not the free ride the politicians are trying to make us believe it is.


That varies. Around here, Healthspring and Humana have plans where they get the medicare premium paid to them and charge nothing to the individual. The medication insurance is a real toss-up. DW has found it better NOT to have it, and to be selective in where drugs are purchased. An advantage is that by purchasing cash, there is no limitation of only being able to get a 30 day supply at a time. Each trip into town is an expense of around $15, so those trips add up - especially if a pharmacy shorts the number of pills and you have to go back a second time.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Sometimes you can get by without insurance and I have found that the hospital and doctors were very accomodating and understanding. HOWEVER, if you need expensive prescriptions, the pharmacies want paid. The medication I was taking was about $250 a day. That is a huge amount of money to self-pay for any length of time...


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Joshie said:


> Most people cannot afford to retire with a toddler in the house. Most people must work until eligible for Medicare. *To my way of thinking, if you cannot afford the cost of medical care/insurance, you cannot afford to retire*. It sounds as if one of you will either have to get a job with health insurance or a job that pays enough to cover your $15K worth of bills. I'm not trying to sound insensitive at all. There are a whole lot of people out there who complain about not being able to retire early because of the cost of health care. Those people need to keep working.
> 
> People have no idea how much new laws such as HIPPA cost _us_. Obamacare is just making costs go up and up and up and up and...... I will be surprised if many additional people will be covered.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you ought to read her posts again. It isn't a matter of not being able to afford it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Harry Chickpea said:


> That varies. Around here, Healthspring and Humana have plans where they get the medicare premium paid to them and charge nothing to the individual. The medication insurance is a real toss-up. DW has found it better NOT to have it, and to be selective in where drugs are purchased. An advantage is that by purchasing cash, there is no limitation of only being able to get a 30 day supply at a time. Each trip into town is an expense of around $15, so those trips add up - especially if a pharmacy shorts the number of pills and you have to go back a second time.


Humana in my case is 54 a month which includes a *18 dollar a month penalty for NOT getting Drug Coverage for 18 months*. A Advantage Program from Humana which includes drug coverage. Those that are getting by now without Schedule D maybe nice now but when it DOES come that you NEED to pick up Medicare's Drug coverage you WILL BE Fined each and every month like 1% a month. And the Government WILL find out about at some point in time if and when you finally decide to go with Schedule D~!
But I only pay 2.65 per script for 3 months supply of meds through Humana, and if I would order them by mail I would not be any co-pay through Humana.


----------



## mike3367 (Dec 15, 2004)

Whats bad everyone talking health insurance, i was talking to the insurance lady next door to my shop and she said the company's she works for are already trying to double there home insurance policies to cover health care. we are just in trouble and no way out as i see it


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have always been pretty much a below poverty level earner so I knew if I ever had any serious medical issues I would not be able to afford to pay out of pocket. I opted to buy insurance to pay those kinds of expenses for me. I have always managed to pay my premiums, although I have recently had to change companies to get a plan that suits my needs. Carrying medical insurance isnt cheap.... but its cheaper than paying major medical bills out of pocket.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Erin posted;
2. Hospitals are now seeing the effects of people who used to have health care insurance through employers - those people are beginning to use the ER of public hospitals as a doctor's office and increase the costs of running the hospital. 
Just as an FYI, the ONLY way people would ever use the ER instead of a doctor's office is if they are _on Medicaid/Medicare_. 

The rest of us _still_ would still have to pay out of pocket but now we would pay an ER visit instead of a doctor's visit.









If you go into an emergency room they have to treat you. If you can't or won't pay they eat it. It has nothing to do with whether you are on medicare or not. Wall Mart workers, illeagle aliens, and poor folks do this all the time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> If you go into an emergency room they have to treat you. *If you can't or won't pay they eat it. *It has nothing to do with whether you are on medicare or not. Wall Mart workers, illeagle aliens, and poor folks do this all the time.


:umno: Sorry but if they "ate" those bills they would be out of business in a hurry. Those costs are passed on to those of us who do pay in the form of higher bills, just like the costs incurred by stores when people shoplift.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

Kazahleenah said:


> That's their plan. :flame:


Not necessarily
The Medicaid income eligibility will go up 400%. So many of those currently unable to get insurance will be covered by Medcaid. The rest that make too much for even that but do not have access through work will get tax credits to offset the cost of insurance.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nimrod said:


> If you go into an emergency room they have to treat you. If you can't or won't pay they eat it. It has nothing to do with whether you are on medicare or not. Wall Mart workers, illeagle aliens, and poor folks do this all the time. [/COLOR]


Precisely my point. 
Anyone who makes too much to qualify for Medicaid will be expected to pay their own bill. 
In which case, they wont use the ER because it'll cost them too much.


----------



## champ7ac (Sep 7, 2010)

Just finished reading a book, that was snagged in the free kindle book section.

http://www.amazon.com/Advice-How-Re...e=UTF8&qid=1361052215&sr=1-31&keywords=retire

In it, the author talks about having health insurance with a high deductible, along with a health savings plan. He did not work, yet was still able to have the HSA. 
He listed sources where one could go to purchase the insurance. As well as setting up 
the HSA.

I am not advocating the authors method for retirement, but was fascinated how he bought health insurance for $139 a month. Perhaps this ebook could work as a health insurance resource for you.


----------



## ronbre (Apr 26, 2009)

with just my husband and I and him on disability and I can't work out of the house with him not well, half of all of our income goes for insurances..but without it we would have had thousands and thousands of debt when I had my hernia surgery


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

steff bugielski said:


> Not necessarily
> The Medicaid income eligibility will go up 400%. So many of those currently unable to get insurance will be covered by Medcaid. The rest that make too much for even that but do not have access through work will get tax credits to offset the cost of insurance.


This is not true. Medicaid eligibility will go to 133% of the poverty level if the state extends coverage. Subsidies to pay for insurance will go to 400% of the poverty level.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Erin wrote,

Precisely my point. 
Anyone who makes too much to qualify for Medicaid will be expected to pay their own bill. 
In which case, they wont use the ER because it'll cost them too much. 

They may expect you to pay the bill yourself but they have no recourse if you don't. If you don't plan to pay the bill you will go to the ER necause you don't have to pay.

If you don't have insurance and go to a doctor or a clinic they will sue you if you don't pay. In addition you won't recieve treatment at other doctors or clinics if you stiff one. 

I don't get why you think the ER will cost folks anything if they don't want to pay. Millions of uninsured go to the ER every year. 

Maybe you are talking about folks that plan to pay? In that case they won't go to the ER unless it's an emergency because they are charged more that a doctor or clinic will charge.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> That varies. Around here, Healthspring and Humana have plans where they get the medicare premium paid to them and charge nothing to the individual. The medication insurance is a real toss-up. DW has found it better NOT to have it, and to be selective in where drugs are purchased. An advantage is that by purchasing cash, there is no limitation of only being able to get a 30 day supply at a time. Each trip into town is an expense of around $15, so those trips add up - especially if a pharmacy shorts the number of pills and you have to go back a second time.


We have companies that do that here too, and it's a good deal if you are healthy with no major problems. Unfortunately, I have spent the last 20+ years taking most of the arthritis medications available trying to get my RA under control. I'm on IV infusions now, every six weeks. They have to be done in the doctors' office or hospital and cost almost 5000.00 with the lab tests and doctors charges. Not affordable without good insurance but necessary if I am going to be productive at all. 

Many of the doctors here are no longer taking patients that have only Medicare or the replacement insurance because it costs them too much. None of the Rheumatologists will take the insurance that you can get instead of Medicare, and if you don't have a supplemental plan you will pay 20% of your bill. I don't know what the answer is but I think Obamacare is going to make things worse. The doctors and hospitals cannot absorb the added costs, and no one seems to be volunteering to pay them. One of my doctors is retiring the end of this year, as are others that are nearing retirement age. They simply don't want to put up with all the costs and demands the changes call for.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nimrod said:


> If you don't have insurance and go to a doctor or a clinic they will sue you if you don't pay. In addition you won't recieve treatment at other doctors or clinics if you stiff one.


The hospital attached to the ER that treats you will ALSO sue if you try to stiff them.


----------



## Mulegirl (Oct 6, 2010)

Elizabeth, speaking from someone who's been in a similar place, I'm going to urge you to use the Medicaid your daughter is eligible for--there's really no reason not to. I can understand wanting to stand on your own, but remember that it's a system your tax money went into while you were working. You contributed to the safety net, so use it! That's what it's for. 

My son was on Medicaid for the first 6 months or so of his life because DH and I were both graduate students, and our university did not offer affordable family health care plans for students (graduates and undergraduates were offered the exact same plans, despite our very different situations, and changing from our individual student plans to the family plan would have tripled our premium, and meant that about half of one of our teaching salaries would have been eaten by health care). As a result, we used Medicaid for DS until I was offered a full-time position with a different university where I was teaching part-time. Now that we've both got full-time work, we figure we're putting back in through our taxes what we used when we needed it so that others can make use of that. You put in already, so there's no shame in making use of the system, especially when it comes to helping your beautiful little girl get a good start!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Nimrod said:


> Erin wrote,
> 
> Precisely my point.
> Anyone who makes too much to qualify for Medicaid will be expected to pay their own bill.
> ...


 That is actually not true at all. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals to provide treatment in life-threatening emergencies and when patients are in active labor, and even then they will send you a bill.

This is a common misunderstanding and has been put forth repeatedly as if poor people can just get their medical care by showing up at the hospital ER; they cant. The hospital will bill you, if you dont pay (or make arrangements to make payments) you will usually be turned over to collections and reported to the credit bureaus. 

Their collection rate may not be all that high but they dont just give out free medical care and more and more hospitals are just refusing to treat illness not considered life threatening.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

salmonslayer said:


> That is actually not true at all. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals to provide treatment in life-threatening emergencies and when patients are in active labor, and even then they will send you a bill.
> 
> This is a common misunderstanding and has been put forth repeatedly as if poor people can just get their medical care by showing up at the hospital ER; they cant. The hospital will bill you,* if you dont pay (or make arrangements to make payments) you will usually be turned over to collections and reported to the credit bureaus. *
> 
> Their collection rate may not be all that high but they dont just give out free medical care and more and more hospitals are just refusing to treat illness not considered life threatening.


Ummmm sending a patient a bill who has no intention of paying it does little to defray the costs of treating them. You make it sound almost like those people really care about paying their bills. They dont pay for anything else, will stiff anyone foolish enough to extend them credit, they fail to pay their rent, utility bills and everything else... what makes you think they are going to pay the docs or hospitals, or that they care one whit about a credit rating or collection agency? :shrug:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

ErinP said:


> The hospital attached to the ER that treats you will ALSO sue if you try to stiff them.


Which means absolutely nothing if the people have no money or assets.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

We have paid our own insurance since dh became disabled in 2001. In the beginning we had COBRA which was very expensive but was excellent coverage. We gave up everything except necessities in order to pay for the insurance. After COBRA ended we had to go with BCBS which, of course, did not cover pre-existing so was pretty much money out the window on top of which we had to pay medical bills. When dh finally qualified for Social Security disability it became somewhat easier to pay our medical and when he qualified for Medicare things improved again. However, I continued working until the end of 2012 (I'll be 70 in March) in order to build some savings to replace all that we'd lost due to dh's disability. 

We currently pay for Medicare $104.90 x 2 plus BCBS $158.10 + $162.30 plus $37.60 + $34.10 for prescription insurance none of which pays for dental or eye glasses. So far this year we have had $2600 in dental with another $2000 being put off until I can pay off the first $2600. Even with insurance we pay for prescriptions -- dh with a $365 deductible then $2 (or more for each RX and he takes a boatload of meds). I fortunately do not have many RX and what I do take are mostly under the $4 plan at the pharmacy. I usually do not meet my deductible until mid December so my insurance is useless but necessary because who know what tomorrow will bring.

I've had many people tell me that they can't afford health insurance while I'm preparing their bankruptcy for filing. Personally, I do not think anyone can afford to NOT have insurance. When you don't pay the doctor/hospital, they will sue and start garnishing your bank accounts and/or wages, then how do you pay your mortgage? Without insurance you potentially could lose everything. Worst case scenario you could lose your life because you cannot get the medical care you need. 

We cannot afford medical insurance on our income but we do it anyway. We've sacrificed a lot in order to have insurance and to pay medical bills not covered by insurance and I do not anticipate that situation improving. Its down right terrifying now that I'm retired.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> We have paid our own insurance since dh became disabled in 2001. In the beginning we had COBRA which was very expensive but was excellent coverage. We gave up everything except necessities in order to pay for the insurance. After COBRA ended we had to go with BCBS which, of course, did not cover pre-existing so was pretty much money out the window on top of which we had to pay medical bills. When dh finally qualified for Social Security disability it became somewhat easier to pay our medical and when he qualified for Medicare things improved again. However, I continued working until the end of 2012 (I'll be 70 in March) in order to build some savings to replace all that we'd lost due to dh's disability.
> 
> We currently pay for Medicare $104.90 x 2 plus BCBS $158.10 + $162.30 plus $37.60 + $34.10 for prescription insurance none of which pays for dental or eye glasses. So far this year we have had $2600 in dental with another $2000 being put off until I can pay off the first $2600. Even with insurance we pay for prescriptions -- dh with a $365 deductible then $2 (or more for each RX and he takes a boatload of meds). I fortunately do not have many RX and what I do take are mostly under the $4 plan at the pharmacy. I usually do not meet my deductible until mid December so my insurance is useless but necessary because who know what tomorrow will bring.
> 
> ...


Yeppers, We cant afford our medical insurance either... but we do continue finding places to cut out other things to keep it. My situation is somewhat similar to your hubbys... disabled in 03, found the money somehow every month to pay those premiums to BCBS, finally got on SS disability a couple years back, with medicare, opted for part b and d via humana (they had a better plan for my needs than BCBS) I also opted for the mail order scripts, so far my meds are all in the basic category so cost me nothing other than the monthly part d premium. Everything gets deducted from my disability payment so its simpler for me. Fortunately for me I lost all my teeth after the radiation treatments (BCBS paid big bucks for that, something like 35k) so I have no dental worries. 

I agree with you on another major point.... nope, I cant afford my insurance.... but I can afford it a whole lot better than I can afford to be without it!!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmm sending a patient a bill who has no intention of paying it does little to defray the costs of treating them. You make it sound almost like those people really care about paying their bills. They dont pay for anything else, will stiff anyone foolish enough to extend them credit, they fail to pay their rent, utility bills and everything else... what makes you think they are going to pay the docs or hospitals, or that they care one whit about a credit rating or collection agency? :shrug:


 Unless lots of people on this board are fibbing, it seems to me there are a lot of folks who dont have a lot of money who are homesteading and that hardly makes them the deadbeats some of you like to portray. 

The audience for this forum is homesteaders and the constant portrayal of poor people as bums seems a bit misplaced here since lots of homesteaders could be portrayed as poor in the traditional sense but that hardly means they have no intention of paying their bills or that they dont care about their credit rating or having things sent to a collection agency. 

My response was to a poster who said you can get "free" healthcare at the ER which is not true from a medical services stand point and it certainly isnt free. Maybe some of you are correct and these lower income homesteaders are just bums looking for a free handout...but I doubt it.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Actually a publicly run hospital *MUST* take anyone at the ER regardless of ability to pay, whether they are on Medicare or Medicaid is not even considered. Of course the admissions staff will ask regarding insurance or whether you have the ability to pay, but in the end, if you say no, the hospital MUST treat you, even if it is just to stabilize you and send you home.

Public hospitals (those that are not privately owned for profit only) are chartered in such a way as there has to be so much "charity" or "serving the public good" which means that they are expected to accept a certain amount of true charity cases which they know they will never be paid for.

What my friend told me is that while the budget may be for 10 MILLION dollars for a fiscal year and that is set aside in order to cover those that cannot pay - due to O Care passing, that amount will be surpassed by 30 MILLION additional dollars as those that are now coming in USED to have insurance through their employers, but now do not. 

And there are many who use the ER as their doctor's office with no intention of EVER paying their bills. Hospitals have a "set aside" for this and cover it by passing costs on to patients who do have insurance or do have a means to pay. The hospital cannot exist if it just "gives away" services, so the "free" medical care is not free, it is being recovered to some extent by the patients who do pay. While this sort of thing has been going on for a long time, many people do not understand that there are many people who do use the ER as their "doctor's office", my deceased husband was a paramedic and I got to know many people who were administrators of the local hospital. We had this discussion years ago, what makes a difference now is that people who used to be able to pay their deductible or bill who used to have insurance, no longer have a deductible because they no longer have insurance or have had their hours cut to the point where they do not qualify for insurance. These people are starting to come into the hospital for things that they used to use their doctor's office for. Doctors do not have to treat someone without insurance at their office but a hospital ER does if it is a public hospital. So you see people at the ER for all sorts of things that might have been a minor annoyance had it been treated months before, but now has turned into something worse due to inattention.

I know there are people here that cannot conceive of folks who have to live like this. Or choose to live like this (and there are some that do). But it is real, it is the way things are in some areas of the country. There are many loopholes in Obama Care and those that think that "everyone is covered" have not been exposed to those that aren't, especially those in the southern states. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/gop-obamacare-medicaid_n_2347933.html

I_n 2010, hospitals nationwide delivered $39.3 billion in health care services for which they received no payment, according to the American Hospital Association, citing the last year for which data is available. Some of these costs are covered by taxpayer-funded programs that reimburse hospitals that have especially high rates of unpaid bills. The rest gets absorbed by the health care system, yeilding higher prices for patients.
Were the Obamacare expansion enacted today, some 17 million people would gain the right to coverage under Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance program, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Laura Johnson would be among them. But the policy does not take effect until 2014. And in several states, including Louisiana, it increasingly appears the policy may not take effect at all.

This is in large part because of a landmark Supreme Court decision earlier this year. The court affirmed Obamacare&#8217;s key mechanism -- the authority of the federal government to mandate that people buy some form of health insurance or pay penalties -- but the justices overturned another crucial provision: They decreed that states have the right to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, a step that would deprive people like Johnson of care.

Though Medicaid is jointly run and financed by the states and the federal government, Washington is obligated to cover the full costs of expanding the Medicaid rolls over the first three years. Even as the federal share gradually declines over subsequent years, by 2022 Washington would still be on the hook for 90 percent of the additional costs. But the court said states could turn down that federal money and continue to run their Medicaid programs as they do now, setting their own standards for eligibility.

Since that ruling, Republican governors in nine states -- Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Maine and Louisiana -- have indicated that this is what they intend to do.
_

So what does that mean?

The state in which you live in can determine if you qualify for Medicaid. And in many southern states, the poverty level set by Federal Government is too high to qualify so no Medicaid for the poor. 

So that means hit the exchanges? Well not if the exchanges do not exist. Currently there are 25 states which are not participating and the Federal Government has not yet set up anything in those states for people to get insurance.

_According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, as of now, 17 states and the District have said they are planning on running their own exchanges; 26 states are defaulting to the federal government, and seven will jointly run the exchanges with the federal government.

Those decisions clarify the scope of the federal government&#8217;s work in advance of Oct. 1, when the exchanges will begin enrolling people for coverage beginning in January._

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...954ede-7796-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

Personally I think that a single payer system would have been better than what is now coming down the pike. I have insurance but I pay a lot for it. I rarely use it and even when I do, I have bills to pay for things that aren't covered. I cannot afford to be without though as I have assets that could be attached if I could not pay the medical bills, so I continue to work.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Which means absolutely nothing if the people have no money or assets.


Uh _yeah_.... 

Which is why I've been _very_ specific that people who qualify for Medicaid are about the only ones that can get "free" medical care at an ER. 
Everyone else is going to be expected to pay.

I don't know where this confused idea comes from that ERs don't collect their bills, but they DO. 
Either a patient will qualify, and be required to enroll in, Medicaid. OR, they will be sued through collections. Either way, the ER will do their best to collect. Just because they write-off a certain amount every year for deadbeats, doesn't mean that they won't try everything possible to collect.


sidepasser, your friend either isn't telling you the whole story, or you're not hearing it because it doesn't fit with the view you want. But I _guarantee_, that hospital is not just letting people run up bills and then just washing their hands of it and saying, "Oh well. Better luck next time."


ETA: I see you completely changed the wording of your comments, twenty minutes after I posted the first part of this. 
THIS makes sense:


> people who used to be able to pay their deductible or bill who used to have insurance, no longer have a deductible because they no longer have insurance or have had their hours cut to the point where they do not qualify for insurance. These people are starting to come into the hospital for things that they used to use their doctor's office for. Doctors do not have to treat someone without insurance at their office but a hospital ER does if it is a public hospital. *So you see people at the ER for all sorts of things that might have been a minor annoyance had it been treated months before, but now has turned into something worse due to inattention*.


But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial statement that people use the ER as a "doctor's office." This is because what wasn't an emergency now IS. 
The doctor's office is completely out of the equation. 
Ironically, this was actually one of the arguments FOR Obamacare--The fact that too many people can't afford more basic medical care and so take a gamble that it won't somehow become worse. But now and again, they lose the gamble and are now in real trouble.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> We are doing without health insurance at the moment. We hope we get coverage when DH gets back to work. Applied for a policy that we could afford the premiums but they wanted me to get a full physical and blood work before they would process the application further. I had been to the doctor a year ago with normal blood pressure and so forth, no ongoing health problems whatsoever. And gee folks, if I could afford a $1000 physical I wouldn't be applying for the el cheapo insurance plan, now would I? It is a ridiculous situation and only going to get worse as more of O-care rolls out. If the government hadn't meddled and let everything work on the free market it would be better. But the hybrid of government control and corporate greed that we have now is a recipe for disaster.


 DH didn't have to get a physical for his.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Huntinfamily said:


> After my company dropped our healthcare we went for a while without. I use the VA for mine and have a blue cross/blue shield policy for my children. Unfortunately adding my wife to that policy would have made it unafforable for us due to previous injuries she has had. Two weeks ago while slicing veggies for dinner she slipped with the knife and cut one of her fingers off. We just got the hospital bill today for the attempted surgery to reattach it and all the other crap they add on to the bills. $18,000 is her total bill! I will be paying on that for the next ten years. The policy I have for my children is around $600 per month but with three teenage boys is worth every penny.


ACK! So sorry to hear this! Prayers & good thoughts for recovery.

The way I think about HC costs is, 18K for a car seems to be ok for some & they pay the payments w/o too much griping. Soooo, if its for your health, its more important.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Actually, it's because of Obamacare that it's going up _SO LITTLE_. Obamacare has set a rule that seniors can no longer be charged such a disproportionate amount for their health insurance (like they used to be).
> 
> 
> Just as an FYI, the ONLY way people would ever use the ER instead of a doctor's office is if they are _on Medicaid/Medicare_.
> ...


Obama told us our ins premiums would DROP 3000%. He's on tape.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Considering it's not fully in effect for another _year_, there's no way to know yet. 
But looking at the online calculators, my premiums won't drop 3000% percent, but they _are_ going to drop.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I just saw where the Obamacare Pre-existing Health Insurance is now closed to new enrllees because it ran out of money. It blamed the Congress for no authorizing enough money- as if there is enough. People with insurance can be very expensive.
But if Obamacare is supposed to be the solution, there will be an unpleasant surprise.
The only things that make it the least bit viable is spreading the premiums over healthy people (who object to paying for others now in the expectaion that they will be covered in the future, like Social Security,) limiting what providers can charge and limiting what is covered under various plans. All of those things have lobby groups to oppose them.
And the public will find objectionable.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmm sending a patient a bill who has no intention of paying it does little to defray the costs of treating them. You make it sound almost like those people really care about paying their bills. They dont pay for anything else, will stiff anyone foolish enough to extend them credit, they fail to pay their rent, utility bills and everything else... what makes you think they are going to pay the docs or hospitals, or that they care one whit about a credit rating or collection agency? :shrug:


There was a very short period where we did not have health insurance during the recent recession. Being fairly young and healthy we had rarely used insurance during the subsequent 20 years, so we did take a chance and did not have any. And that is when I was diagnosed with leukemia- which started with a doctor visit (that I paid for before being seen that day) and escalated to an Emergency Room Visit- which came to over $700, that we paid for within a few months, and ended up being a 30 day hospital stay which came to over $140,000, which was discounted heavily (this was a private hospital with donations to help those who did not have insurance) and took us a few years to pay off. We have never not paid a bill in our lives. When we rented we paid our rent, we have never had a late utility bill, we have never not paid a doctor or anyone else. So your little theory is not correct in a lot of cases. I know many hard-working people who pay all of their bills. It might take a little while, but they are good people.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

salmonslayer said:


> Unless lots of people on this board are fibbing, it seems to me there are a lot of folks who dont have a lot of money who are homesteading and that hardly makes them the deadbeats some of you like to portray.
> 
> The audience for this forum is homesteaders and the constant portrayal of poor people as bums seems a bit misplaced here since lots of homesteaders could be portrayed as poor in the traditional sense but that hardly means they have no intention of paying their bills or that they dont care about their credit rating or having things sent to a collection agency.
> 
> My response was to a poster who said you can get "free" healthcare at the ER which is not true from a medical services stand point and it certainly isnt free. Maybe some of you are correct and these lower income homesteaders are just bums looking for a free handout...but I doubt it.


I am sorry if you feel somehow offended, but I live in the real world... the one that has deadbeats and bums in it along with the poor but proud crowd. In my part of the world hospitals are required by law to treat those without the ability to pay their bills in the ER just like those who have insurance or cash reserves. Nowhere have I ever said that all folks who are poor are deadbeats and bums.... but that group of people do exist and they do use the emergency rooms to obtain free (to them) medical care. No, its not free.... those of us who do pay our bills end up picking up their tab. 

BTW I happen to be in that "poor but proud" crowd myself... I pay my bills, and I am also one of those lower income homesteaders. As to my lower income homesteading neighbors here on HT... I am almost positive that the majority of them are kinda like me... they do without a lot, and make a lot of sacrifices in order to pay their bills. I am pretty sure they understand the difference between low income and deadbeat.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Melissa said:


> We have never not paid a bill in our lives. When we rented we paid our rent, we have never had a late utility bill, we have never not paid a doctor or anyone else. So your little theory is not correct in a lot of cases. I know many hard-working people who pay all of their bills. It might take a little while, but they are good people.


I wonder if this part of my comment isnt showing up on some peoples screens: *"who has no intention of paying it"*? Must be some kind of script error or something. :shrug:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Melissa said:


> There was a very short period where we did not have health insurance during the recent recession. Being fairly young and healthy we had rarely used insurance during the subsequent 20 years, so we did take a chance and did not have any. And that is when I was diagnosed with leukemia- which started with a doctor visit (that I paid for before being seen that day) and escalated to an Emergency Room Visit- which came to over $700, that we paid for within a few months, and ended up being a 30 day hospital stay which came to over $140,000, which was discounted heavily (this was a private hospital with donations to help those who did not have insurance) and took us a few years to pay off. We have never not paid a bill in our lives. When we rented we paid our rent, we have never had a late utility bill, we have never not paid a doctor or anyone else. So your little theory is not correct in a lot of cases. I know many hard-working people who pay all of their bills. It might take a little while, but they are good people.


Totally admirable- and how unfortunate to have taken such a reasonable action and have it come back to bite you. 
I think that there will be people here who will say that you should not have had to be inconvenienced so by money issues for your illness, but it really warms my heart to think that you respect yourself and others to the extent that you did what you can for yourself, thus allowing more resources for others when they have needs too. 
I wish you good health and happiness.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well believe me, we are doing everything we can to make sure we have insurance now! And it still costs a lot even after the insurance pays their share...


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wonder if this part of my comment isnt showing up on some peoples screens: *"who has no intention of paying it"*? Must be some kind of script error or something. :shrug:


Considering the post you quoted when you made your statement it did appear that your intention was that anyone who went to the ER without insurance most likely had no intention of paying the bill. And probably some don't, but a lot do...


----------



## "SPIKE" (Dec 7, 2011)

salmonslayer said:


> Unless lots of people on this board are fibbing, it seems to me there are a lot of folks who dont have a lot of money who are homesteading and that hardly makes them the deadbeats some of you like to portray.
> 
> The audience for this forum is homesteaders and the constant portrayal of poor people as bums seems a bit misplaced here since lots of homesteaders could be portrayed as poor in the traditional sense but that hardly means they have no intention of paying their bills or that they dont care about their credit rating or having things sent to a collection agency.
> 
> My response was to a poster who said you can get "free" healthcare at the ER which is not true from a medical services stand point and it certainly isnt free. Maybe some of you are correct and these lower income homesteaders are just bums looking for a free handout...but I doubt it.


Thank you for the above post.

I have never been and shall never be a leech/moocher. It is not a crime to be poor and it is not a crime yet to be without medical insurance.
I have worked hard my whole life, even when I did not have a job! I have lived below my means and do not owe anyone anything! I saved my money and paid 
cash for my 10 1/2 acres. I paid cash for the mobile home I got at an auction. I have paid cash for all the fence and everything else I needed to 
build my homestead.
It is a gamble to not have insurance the way the world is now. I am healthy because I choose to live a healthy life. I am not a goody goody.
I have done a lot of things for fun, but moderation is the key to some of it. I have enjoyed my life.

I do not smoke, drink, do drugs, do not like taking any medications, and I get plenty of exercise on a regular basis just by the way I live.
I have helped people more than I have ever asked for help.
I have no problem helping those that are trying to live right and help thierself.
I should not be forced to provide the junky with clean needles so they do not kill theirself using dirty needles.
I should not have to help the smoker that got lung cancer because they chose to not quit smoking.
I should not have to pay for the alcoholic that drank until their liver was ruined.
I should not have to pay for the medical problems of the obese, who choose to not take control of their diet.
I should not have to pay for medicl problems created by big corporation.

The way of the modern world has created a lot of the modern medical problems. We polute our entire environment. The land, the air, the water.
We fill our world with chemicals. Most of the damage to our world is done only in the persuit of the all mighty dollar.
For the dollar, corporation ignore the damage they are doing to the world and citizens.
Basic medical care should not cost what it does. We need to stop creating an environment that is not good for life.
The medical field should not be run by insurance companies and lawyers. Doctors should not have to worry about some of the crazy 
lawsiut payments the courts award. We do need some regulations and watchdogs of the medical field. 
But what we really need is good old fashion doctors. People that want to help keep you healthy. A clean place for them to practice.
Not necessarily the giant monument buildings we now have for the medical profession. Not someone to just give you the next big pill 
developed by big pharmacy. 
When a cheaper xray would be good enough, they now want to give you a catscan or MRI. 
Why, mainly because they are scared some lawyer will get involved.

As you may be able to tell, I may not think like a lot of others. If/when I can no longer take care of myself(at least to some degree)
and I am no longer a positive person to the world, then I do not want you to spend a large amout of resourses to "keep my body alive" 
so I may live miserably for a short period of time. This is not living and is sometime cruel. 
I have always heard about the old indian that knew when it was a good day to die. They had contributed to the tribe and
it was now time to move on and not burden it!

(Sorry for the rant. Not really, I would rant more but I have other things to do.)
SPIKE


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Melissa said:


> Considering the post you quoted when you made your statement it did appear that your intention was that anyone who went to the ER without insurance most likely had no intention of paying the bill. And probably some don't, but a lot do...


That is exactly why (to avoid any confusion) I purposely identified the group I was referring to. They do exist, at least in my area, I know quite a few of them all too well.


----------



## 1sttimemom (Mar 1, 2005)

A lot of folks tell the OP that they need to find a job with health benefits. That doesn't always work out to be better benefits than what she has right now. I pay nearly $500 for medical for myself, hubby, and our 2 kids. There is NO co-pay for visits or any kind. It's a straight 80/20% plan with us paying 20% for even simple office visits. They are supposed to cover well child visits/vaccines at 100% but it is a major fight. If you combine a simgle visit for well child and say having the Dr look at a wart on our son's thumb it gets billed as something other than well child and all the sudden insurance won't pay. I have been fighting for nearly a yr to get them to pay a $400 bill for a simple well child check exactly like as above. And other than the well child stuff the deductable is $3000 so they won't cover anything till we hit that amount (other than the well child which we cannot seem to get them to pay). Insurance is a NIGHTMARE full of loopholes for the insurance companies. 

I sure do remember the good old days when I paid a $25 copay for any office visit. At least I could budget for that type of payment. Now we never know what we will be hit with until the bill comes, then it is endless phone calls, resubmitting bills, etc to try and get them to pay their share.


----------



## mamita (May 19, 2008)

I always say we'd be rolling in the moola if it weren't for health insurance. we've always paid our own, as hub is self-employed. as much as we wish it weren't so high, we'd never be without it. that means after retiring, hub will still continue to work part-time. at least we know what it cost, as my sis now is trying to recover from shock from having her hub's company pay for top notch insurance, but now he's retired. she's still walking around in a daze. lol yes, some folks don't realize the huge benefit it is when your company picks up almost all the cost. I've listened to people complain about wages, and I try to tell them that health benefit alone bops it up a lot. until you pay yourself, you don't get the full pleasure of the pain.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Never mind. Folks are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of the information readily available to them. Perhaps we can all agree that the current system is a mess?


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Sounds like you're not asking how people can afford health care but "how can people afford health insurance?" The two questions are totally different.

Health care costs so much because too many people have insurance. Since they have insurance they don't see the real costs and want everything done. If all people had to pay for health care directly then the cost of health care would drop because people would question the ridiculously high prices and spend less on health care. This would create competition and drive down the cost of health care.

Health insurance costs so much because almost all people get their health insurance through their employer and don't actually see the cost of the health insurance and because it is taken out pre-taxes. If health insurance was not provided as a benny and everyone had to pay for it after taxes out of their own pocket where they saw the bill then they would question the prices more and buy less health insurance. This would create competition and drive down the cost of health insurance.

There are, of course, some other reasons such as over application of medications, too much surgery, defensive medicine and the malpractice lawsuit lottery mentality that also drive up the costs of health care and of insurance. Nothing's simple.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

My take on it is that if there was no health insurance the cost of treatment would be substantially lower. I believe that the health care providers started increasing the cost of care once a lot of people had insurance. They get away with it because the patients are less likely to question the rates as long as they don't have to pay for it out of pocket, and the insurance companies are a) making so much profit that they don't care, and b) in bed with the rest of the health care industry.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

salmonslayer said:


> Never mind. Folks are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of the information readily available to them. Perhaps we can all agree that the current system is a mess?


I was never one of those who had a problem with our system. At least not until our federal government stepped in and made messes. I have noticed a gradual deterioration of things the more they get involved. I remember when I was a young lad doctors would make house calls, charged reasonable rates, and most of them drove a ford or chevy. As time went on and the feds got involved docs quit making house calls, and their rates started climbing, In 1975 I spent 8 days in the hospital in a semi private room... total bill for hospital, docs, tests, lab work, meds, all of it... a hair under 600 bucks... I went to the bank, borrowed $500 to go with the other hundred I had in my pocket and paid the bill. In the early eighties I broke my leg. I was turned away from 3 hospitals because I couldnt afford, nor did I feel the need, for surgery to have a screw put in it. Whatever happened to a simple cast? It was a clean break that any veterinary worth his salt could have casted. I was told that thanks to our fed government, that was not an option. I wound up in a 22 bed ward in a university hospital as a charity case, assured by admissions (in writing thank heavens) that I would not be charged more than the couple hundred bucks I had at the time. I went home a week later with a 3 1/2 inch screw in my leg and a bill for 16K! I was still quite young and basically healthy but that was my wake up call. It had been made quite clear to me that I needed medical insurance. Broke as I was, I proceeded to shop around and find "affordable" insurance, (it only cost me about a fourth of my meager income) and have been covered ever since. In the early nineties I found myself spending one night in a hospital again.... with good insurance who paid every dime they were supposed to, my part came to a bit over 3K... Then again in 03, no hospital stay at all but my cancer treatments (30 radiation, 2 chemo) along with the tests and miscellaneous went well over 140k. A year or so later, oral surgery to remove my remaining teeth... another 30k. Good thing I kept paying those ins premiums. The problem is NOT with the insurance companies, at least not the better ones, the problem is with outrageous billing by the medical professionals to cover their costs thanks to all the federal governments interference, regulations, and general bungling. It doesnt help that a GP today no longer drives a Chevy... them Lexus and Mercedes are nice though arent they?


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

Here's an example of one of my pet peeves-

I went to my doctor in January to have my hand checked. I have trigger finger and need surgery. That was January 31st.

In early Feb (Super Bowl Sunday) we had to take Claire Bear down to the Twin Cities to the Children's Hospital there for an emergency esophagoscopy. While we were in the emergency room waiting for the on call surgeon to arrive we watched a steady stream of parents with sick kids. Many of those kids had colds and should have been taken to a doctor earlier in the week, but it was apparent that at least some of the parents fit into the category of those who have no insurance so use the emergency room instead. 

We got Claire taken care of and headed home as fast as we could. On Tuesday night I went to bed with a scratchy throat. Woke up on Wednesday with a swelling on one side of my jaw/throat, so I went in to my doctor to get checked for strep throat. Turns out that I actually had parotitus (infection of the parotid gland- didn't even know I had a parotid gland). 

Last week I had to go back to the hospital to see the surgeon who will be working on my hand. After I finished with him I was sent to scheduling, where a date was set for the surgery. I was about to get up to leave, thinking we were finished, when the woman told me that I needed another appointment for a pre-surgical check up. When I asked what that involved she said that basically they would be checking my pulse, blood pressure, etc to make sure I was okay to be sedated.

When I heard that, right away I mentioned that I had just been in the week before and the nurse had taken all of my vitals then. The woman told me that the doctor I had seen for the parotitus had not "dictated" the results of those tests, whatever that means. So apparently, they did not appear on my record. I reminded her that I had also seen my regular doctor in January and again, all of my vitals were taken at that time. She said "well, it has to be within 30 days of the surgery". Well, I saw the doctor on Jan 31, and my surgery will be on Feb 26- within 30 days by my calendar. Then she told me that my regular doctor had not "dictated" the results either. Crimey- so am I to believe that every time I get my pulse and blood pressure checked they are not recorded on my records?

So, I have to go back this week to get my pulse and blood pressure taken. Again. Then they will take them yet again on the 26th when I go for the actual surgery.

At this point, it really doesn't matter to me because we have already met our $6K deductible for the year, so one more visit is not going to make a difference to me either way, other than the inconvenience of having to drive 20 miles each way to and from the hospital.

You can be sure that from now on, whenever I go to the doctor for _anything_, I will make sure that my vitals are "dictated", whatever that means!

By the way, there is a sign posted at the reception desks at the hospital clinic and the emergency room which states that no one will be denied treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

eta- I guess that was two pet peeves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Elizabeth said:


> My take on it is that if there was no health insurance the cost of treatment would be substantially lower. *I believe that the health care providers started increasing the cost of care once a lot of people had insurance.* They get away with it because the patients are less likely to question the rates as long as they don't have to pay for it out of pocket, and the insurance companies are a) making so much profit that they don't care, and b) in bed with the rest of the health care industry.


I agree with you about costs rising because a lot of people suddenly had insurance to pay big bills. It didnt take the docs and hospitals long to figure out that medicare, and medicaid would pay whatever charges were billed. That is when the tide shifted in our medical service world. That policy was later changed... but it was kinda like closing the barn door after the horses are loose.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Elizabeth said:


> They get away with it because the patients are less likely to question the rates as long as they don't have to pay for it out of pocket


Hmmmm



Elizabeth said:


> At this point, it really doesn't matter to me because we have already met our $6K deductible for the year


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm


Hey, I did question it. I gave the woman a lot of grief over it. I will also be giving my doctor a lot of grief over it when I see her again on Tuesday.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I don't believe it's all that hard to define what the problems are with the health care system in this country, or why it's so expensive. Heck a lot of you right here on this little ol forum have outlined them in this thread. 

The hard part is getting anything done about it. Our "leaders" are not only ineffectual in addressing this malady, they seem to make it worse every time they tackle it.


----------



## mamita (May 19, 2008)

had to mention to anyone thinking you can get away without paying at the ER...several years ago my son was ill. I didn't realize at the time he hit his head and had a concussion. all I knew is that he was always too dizzy to stand. I took him to the regular doc, who diagnosed flu. no way. took him to a friend that is a ENT specialist thinking it was inner ear infection. nope. took him to Childrens's hospital. realized I forgot our insurance card with hub's info on it. I swear to you that before they would see him I got directed to the payment office. since I didn't remember hub's info, I told them to take my SS number and anything else they needed. I worked, so I said I would pay. take MY info for billing. the lady sat back in her chair and folded her arms. I about died as she was considering him not being seen. he couldn't even stand up! the sign right beside my head read 'no child shall ever be turned away due to inability to pay'. what a crock. only because I became too upset for words did they take us. he had scans and had a concussion. it gets better.....because he wasn't diagnosed within 24 hours my then insurance wouldn't cover. I paid for it, of course, out of pocket. (he was 10 and hadn't told me he hit his head til way later. kids...lol) I imagine now things are even worse if you don't have insurance. they don't have to take you. they simply would have referred me elsewhere if they truly thought there was any chance they weren't getting paid.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Elizabeth said:


> I just have to ask-
> 
> How in the world does anyone afford health care anymore?
> 
> ...


 You may be underinsured for your situation.Two thousand dollars more in premium may give you much more coverage.You should check out the insurance exchange when Obamacare kicks in.


----------



## Grandmotherbear (May 15, 2002)

Someone said Medicaid is only ased on income not assets. (Don't have time to go back & look it up) In Florida and Virginia it is based on both.
A lot of statements about working to pay for health care. What if your work is literally killing you?? My mother's almost killed her (she at least had TriCare) mine eas killing me. Am still working per diem but not often, aged off Cobra, haven't been accepted for any other healthcare insurance, and can tell when I've worked a little too much because I start getting symptoms again. Should I have worked till I died prematurely??
To the poster who said he shouldn't have to pay for smokers who got lung cancer- Dana Reeves, the wife the late Superman star, died of lung cancer even tho she never smoked a day in her life. She was one of many. What about an adult who didn't smoke, but his parents were 4 pack a day smokers and he was exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke?? Will you refuse to pay for his lung cancer tx because he should've chosen his parents better??
As John Donne said, No man is an island, entire of himself, we are all parts of a whole. 
Even rugged individualists attended school (up till the birth of the home school movement) drive on roads paid for by federal funds, benefit from police, fire rescue, military provided by different government entities. A lot of us have benefited from hospitals built w/federal funds. _No body ever made it tot_ally _on their own in this world._
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Grandmotherbear said:


> Someone said Medicaid is only ased on income not assets. (Don't have time to go back & look it up) In Florida and Virginia it is based on both.


And in WI. Medicaid is also based on Both.
So in order to get Medicaid help you pretty much have to be poor and destitute. The amount is $1,999.99.
You can't have ANY tangible assets Over that amount and income has to be a lot lower then that.
That <2000 means money in the bank checking savings, stocks Cashable Life Insurance polices value of your car things like that. 
And if a person is on disability in WI. there IS a program in WI that you can BUY YOUR WAY IN. Called MAPP. ( Medicaid Assistance Purchase Plan )
Meaning you can "work" a few hours a month. You do not have to get cash but you have to receive something of "value" for your services.
Doing this will then Raise the amount to $15,000. AND even exempts one vehicle~! Still have to be of low income (Have an adjusted family income of less than 250% of the federal poverty level)


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> Personally, I do not think anyone can afford to NOT have insurance. When you don't pay the doctor/hospital, they will sue and start garnishing your bank accounts and/or wages, then how do you pay your mortgage? Without insurance you potentially could lose everything. Worst case scenario you could lose your life because you cannot get the medical care you need.
> .



WITH insurance you could lose everything. How long can the average person pay out 500-700 hundred dollars every month until their income and savings are wiped out? If they get sick and insurance denies their claims the can have what little is left wiped right out. Happens everyday.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> WITH insurance you could lose everything. How long can the average person pay out 500-700 hundred dollars every month until their income and savings are wiped out? If they get sick and insurance denies their claims the can have what little is left wiped right out. Happens everyday.


I suppose that could happen... but "most" insurance companies pay the claims like they are supposed to. Life is indeed a gamble, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Me? I pay the premiums, and the insurance company has always payed just like they are supposed to.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

FWIW, I tried to cancel today's appointment, thinking they just wanted to check my vitals again. 

Turns out, I had to have bloodwork done, plus an EKG, plus a chest x-ray. sigh.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Every time one of these health care threads comes up I just shake my head as I read the posts about people shelling out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance, not being able to retire because of needing to make insurance payments, people paying for years on huge medical bills. We definitely have issues with our health care system up here but we don't have the stress of worrying about how we're going to pay for it.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

ErinP said:


> HSAs were worthless for most of us. If we can't afford the premiums, we sure can't afford to SAVE more on top of it!


In our HSA, we can add money whenever we want to so I get a bill, see what it is, transfer the money into it and pay the bill out of the HSA. That way, when tax time comes, I have a record of all medical bills and it is then figured out as pre-tax income rather than after tax income. It works out pretty well. I never have an automatic amount come out.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

That is a good idea, I need to check into that. 

I can see how, even if you have insurance, that the bills can be overwhelming. I had to have some in-depth genetic blood testing done. The cost was over $2000 and after the insurance paid, we still had to pay about $600. I was having this test done every two months. Thankfully I don't have to have it any longer. And that was just one test...


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

My sister in law and nephew both have a genetic immune system deficiency for which they get infusions once a month. When they started, the procedure cost $5000 each. The last time I visited, a few months ago, my sil told me that it now costs $20,000 EACH, and they still get it done once every month. ouch.

My nephew, who turned 21 last week, has to find himself a job where he can get health insurance which will cover his pre-existing condition. What he really wants to do is to go to Colorado and become a snowboard instructor, but that is not going to happen for him as long as he needs insurance.


----------



## Kellkell (Nov 19, 2004)

Elizabeth, your nephew should be able to be covered by his parent's insurance until he is 26. And if he does get a job with employer sponsored benefits, the insurance shouldn't exclude his pre-existing condition.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

So I just finished our taxes. I use HR block online and at the end a page popped up saying
" according to your income you may be eligible for subsidized health insurance coverage. Your total monthly payments would be $57.19. Your potential penalty would be $190.00 for 2014 and $650.00 for 2015"

Together with our self-employment, which is M & S farm, and our rental income, after expenses we made $20,000.00 . We are a family of 2.

To me that is very good news. So far The Affordable Care Act is a good thing!!


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

According to the calculator, our premiums will be going up by over $300 a month. 

Guess we'll be paying for part of yours 

Congratulations.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

btw, is anyone here concerned about the constitutionality (is that even a word?) of Obamarama's health care act?

Because really, it is going to turn a whole lot of people into little better than slaves, working to make $$$ for the insurance companies.

I'm still shaking my head over the fact that the bill was passed in the first place.

So long, America.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Elizabeth said:


> According to the calculator, our premiums will be going up by over $300 a month.
> 
> Guess we'll be paying for part of yours
> 
> Congratulations.


Is the calculator from your own insurance company? Or showing what you would pay if you used the government subsidized plans. According to what I have seen you would have to have a pretty high income to pay $300 to begin with and if you are talking about a $300 increase with what you already pay?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I wouldn't put much trust in what the tables show your insurance premiums will be under Obama care----they are guesses based on the largest numbers of employers participating, and it looks like that is not going to happen. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay the medical costs.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Melissa said:


> Is the calculator from your own insurance company? Or showing what you would pay if you used the government subsidized plans. According to what I have seen you would have to have a pretty high income to pay $300 to begin with and if you are talking about a $300 increase with what you already pay?


I agree. Something is wrong here. 
Either you make a LOT of money, Elizabeth, or you're looking at the annual premium thinking it's monthly or something... 



> Because really, it is going to turn a whole lot of people into little better than slaves, working to make $$$ for the insurance companies


Instead of _now_ where you have a whole lot of people trapped in jobs they don't like because they're afraid to risk losing their insurance coverage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Truckinguy said:


> Every time one of these health care threads comes up I just shake my head as I read the posts about people shelling out hundreds of dollars a month for insurance, not being able to retire because of needing to make insurance payments, people paying for years on huge medical bills. We definitely have issues with our health care system up here but we don't have the stress of worrying about how we're going to pay for it.


I wouldnt lose too much sleep over how much we stress over how we are going to pay for our health care.... most of us carry insurance, and the majority of those who dont, could if they wanted to. Like most of our political issues, this one was fabricated by the politicians. Count on it, the wide majority of our population are spoiled rotten, large children, who would whine and cry if the judge ordered them to be hanged with a brand new rope... they would claim new rope was too scratchy or too stiff.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

steff bugielski said:


> So I just finished our taxes. I use HR block online and at the end a page popped up saying
> " according to your income you may be eligible for subsidized health insurance coverage. Your total monthly payments would be $57.19. Your potential penalty would be $190.00 for 2014 and $650.00 for 2015"
> 
> Together with our self-employment, which is M & S farm, and our rental income, after expenses we made $20,000.00 . We are a family of 2.
> ...



Steve that is really good news. So far the affordable care act isn't anything, just words you read on a piece of paper. I hope it actually does do what it says. I'm in a similar boat as you, getting married in Oct. and with the farm, rentals, and a part time job we will probably clear something like 35k together. Right now the lowest insurance premium I have seen is around $360 per month for an individual. Cannot afford it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya for sure. That is just H and R Block making a estimate at this point in time on how much you May end up paying, wait till 2014 to see the Real numbers and I bet there is a huge difference, don't "count your chickens right now", and get excited, and depend on some arbitrary figure that a "Tax Preparer" form came up with.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Americans pay nearly twice as much (per capita) as Canadians and Brits for the SAME healthcare. The insurance companies are ripping the American people off.

As for people stressing over how they will pay for their healthcare. That is all I read about and all my friends and family talk about. The fear of losing everything to pay for a serious illness or having to match the increase in insurance premiums which have been rising at a ridiculous rate for over 15 years is making people sick.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Americans pay nearly twice as much (per capita) as Canadians and Brits for the SAME healthcare. The insurance companies are ripping the American people off.


I find this rather interesting.... My insurance company pays the vast majority of my health care, same as they do for most other folks in the US. I fail to see how they can be ripping me off when they are the ones paying the bill. :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> and the majority of those who dont, could if they wanted to.


You obviously need to explain this to people like Darntootin' who seem to think they can't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darntootin said:


> with the farm, rentals, and a part time job we will probably clear something like 35k together. Right now the lowest insurance premium I have seen is around $360 per month for an individual. Cannot afford it.





ErinP said:


> You obviously need to explain this to people like Darntootin' who seem to think they can't.


Well, There are lots of variables of course depending upon individual situations, but based on the above... 35k, divided by 12 = $2900 per month. Subtract $720 for their insurance and that leaves them with well over a grand to stick in savings, and another grand or so a month to live on. Since we already know that quite a number of us get by nicely on 10k per year.....  It would appear to me that if one prioritizes their finances placing things like health care and savings for retirement at the top of their list, everything else just sorta falls into place.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> Americans pay nearly twice as much (per capita) as Canadians and Brits for the SAME healthcare. The insurance companies are ripping the American people off.
> 
> As for people stressing over how they will pay for their healthcare. That is all I read about and all my friends and family talk about. The fear of losing everything to pay for a serious illness or having to match the increase in insurance premiums which have been rising at a ridiculous rate for over 15 years is making people sick.


I think there is quite a bit to debate about our health care being the same as Canada's or the UK, but that s a whole different argument .


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

I used the calculator that belfrybat posted a link to earlier in this thread. I'm not sure I did it right though. I just went back to look at it again and it just says to enter your income, so I entered our gross income. Maybe that was incorrect?

Yvonne's hubby- those numbers would never work for us. I don't see how anyone can live on 10K a year if they have a family. Even with everything paid for and not including health care most people can't live on that.

Even though our farm is paid for, we still have farm/homeowner's insurance, and auto insurance on two vehicles. We tried to be a one-vehicle family for almost two years but in the end we had to break down and get a car. Living in a rural area with no public transportation we are stuck without wheels.

The $14,800 we pay for health insurance and our deductible does not cover dental or glasses. Hubby and I both wear glasses so that is an additional expense for us.

Then we have to add utilities, which for us includes propane for the dryer and backup heating system, electric for the house and outbuildings, basic telephone and internet service, plus our really cheap pre-paid cell phones which we almost never use, but keep for emergencies. I don't know how much our electric bill is, but when I asked hubby today he said it averages around $120 a month during the warm months and $300+ in the winter. We do supplement our heat with the wood stove, and the wood is free so that helps to keep our bill down. 

In addition to auto insurance, of course we have to buy gas and pay for maintenance and repairs on the vehicles. Fortunately we stay at home a lot, so our fuel bill is not too high, but most people don't have that luxury. Still, it is an expense for what we do use.

I buy most of mine and my daughter's clothing at garage sales, thrift stores, or, in Claire's case, new if I can get items for 80-90 % off.

Then, let's not forget taxes- sales tax, fuel tax, income tax, SS, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.

We hunt for or raise almost all of the meat we eat, and we have a pretty good sized garden from which we can or freeze a lot of veggies. Our grocery bills are pretty low, but I know a lot of people who are spending hundreds of dollars a month to keep their families fed. A thousand dollars a month just doesn't seem as if it would go all that far 

I could go on, but the point is, that we are pretty frugal as folks go, and I can't see us living on anywhere near $10k a year.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

A interesting thread to read, As a Canadian I havent used your health care, I hear its good treatment wise, suspect its so.... I dont really care how you fund it as such, all up to you so to speak..... I can only say I just dont understand the overall costs, I know anytime I have to deal with a insurance company, I am always treated in a non consentual way, never a good experience...never I sure dont want them involved in my care.
Looking into your country its just stunning the wealth, corporate,governmental,military.
There is never a shortage of money for electoral campains, pensions for multimillionar congressmen, you put a man on the moon! unlimited funding for wars, hell, you can likely drop a bomb on any sqft of this earth in minutes, so its just nonsensical that your own citizens have to choose between eating, or staying warm, vs making a insurance payment, and thats if your not one of the ones denied coverage!
I am not telling ours is better, maybe we even pay more though hidden taxes, I dont know, I can say I have been blessed with good health so no cronic health issues to worry about, have not been so favorably blessed with good judgement....I have been very intimate with chain, band, and table saws, I know the sweet relief of a functioning air bag, and the god awful pain of a non functioning one. I have beged for morphine... some of my misadventures required spending time in a trama center being put back together...wondering if I would walk or mr happy would say hello again.
I suspect I would have been bankrupt and lost everything had I been in your country.
I want to complain about my care, I can tell you stories about what they call food,and waking me up every 3hrs to take my blood pressure and shot me up with pain meds like one long nightmare...I could go on..but it really is minor...I didnt have to worry about costs, and at the end the only bill I had was for the tv as they rent those..
I dont know the answer...looking in I just dont understand... a lot of your priorities, surely you can find some way to help your own people out, I know you will find the funds to finance the next war, or congressional pay raise, bankster bailout, why not a little to help each other? .... just saying


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

We don't need none of your socialist, commie talk here, Canuck! 





(I completely agree. For such a generous nation, we can be _blindingly_ selfish...)


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

justin time--then explain why so many of your fellow canadians come to minot and grand forks when they cannot get timely treatment for deadly illnesses.

yeah, you gotta great system.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

nodak3 said:


> justin time--then explain why so many of your fellow canadians come to minot and grand forks when they cannot get timely treatment for deadly illnesses.
> 
> yeah, you gotta great system.


 
I cant answer that, I dont know the circumstances of each case, people can and do cross boarders all the time for health, dental, even for shoe shoping I dont speak for them... only saying its worked well for me...I suspect, but would guess if you have lots of money and want faster service, you can go anywhere you wish, good for them.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

nodka3,

I just relized I can answer your question! I have been to Grand forks, and to Winnipeg (likely the city that people you speak about come from)Forget health care as the reason for people coming, If I lived in Winnipeg I would use any excuse to get out of there, hell I would drive out of winnipeg and drive to Grand forks for a coffee.I wont even get out of the truck in some parts of Winnipeg!


----------



## TRAILRIDER (Apr 16, 2007)

Beautiful baby girl! How wonderful for you. : )

I agree completely about health care affordability. I have health insurance through my work, thank Heaven for that. I worry about ever losing my job, always a real possibility. But even with my insurance I cannot afford to use it. If I really have a health issue I won't be able to afford my share. So I rarely bother with doctors. I hope for the best, and worry alot. 

I do not know the answer to our healthcare crisis. I won't even go there.....

But sometimes I think....if all Americans had health care, at least the basics (which is all I can afford WITH my ins) we could feel free to use our talents to make a living doing all kinds of things. You could make a living teaching piano and grooming dogs, or mowing lawns and selling firewood, or raising pigs and selling at the flea market. Anything, as long as you could make enough to pay your bills. At least you wouldn't have to worry about healthcare. I think in the end it would benefit the economy.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I have often thought that way also trailrider.

I think insurance companies do add another layer of expense to the equation. There is a lot of paperwork going on...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

The whole insurance issue is one part of the equation, another is the infrastructure and the availability of doctors, PAs, and NPS. Reforming the system from the bottom up is going to take some time, even if someone could figure it out. Just giving everyone insurance is not going to fix anything if the shortage of people and equipment keep people from getting health care.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TRAILRIDER said:


> But sometimes I think....if all Americans had health care, at least the basics (which is all I can afford WITH my ins) we could feel free to use our talents to make a living doing all kinds of things. You could make a living teaching piano and grooming dogs, or mowing lawns and selling firewood, or raising pigs and selling at the flea market. Anything, as long as you could make enough to pay your bills. At least you wouldn't have to worry about healthcare. I think in the end it would benefit the economy.


The problem with making a living in this country by teaching piano, or selling firewood etc isnt so much that we cant do it, it is that we wont curb our lifestyles to the level that those activities will support. We all seem to think we need all of the luxuries that everyone else has. Automobiles, cell phones, computers, central air conditioning, homes the size of warehouses.... the list goes on and on of things we seem to think are "necessities" today that didnt even exist 150 years ago. No one is content with the lifestyle of our ancestors who were capable of making their livings cutting firewood or repairing buggy wheels these days.


----------



## TRAILRIDER (Apr 16, 2007)

I simply don't know the answer. 

I do know, I will have to work a regular job as long as anyone will have me. I'd rather farm, but I won't be able to afford healthcare costs.
I do know, I'm scared to death of getting sick and losing everything : (
I do know, I won't use what little my ins provides because it leads to more expense, that I still cannot afford. 
And finally I am really worried about what the new health care laws will do to my finances.


----------



## TRAILRIDER (Apr 16, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The problem with making a living in this country by teaching piano, or selling firewood etc isnt so much that we cant do it, it is that we wont curb our lifestyles to the level that those activities will support. We all seem to think we need all of the luxuries that everyone else has. Automobiles, cell phones, computers, central air conditioning, homes the size of warehouses.... the list goes on and on of things we seem to think are "necessities" today that didnt even exist 150 years ago. No one is content with the lifestyle of our ancestors who were capable of making their livings cutting firewood or repairing buggy wheels these days.


No, not so. Some people do curb thier lifestyles as you have mentioned, but the FEAR of what might happen with out the insurance is what stops them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TRAILRIDER said:


> No, not so. Some people do curb thier lifestyles as you have mentioned, but the FEAR of what might happen with out the insurance is what stops them.


Fear is an ugly thing for sure. I dont worry quite so much as some. Instead of pacing the floor, wringing my hands about what "might" happen someday, I devote that energy into doing something about it. I protect my assets with insurance. Pretty much everything from auto accidents, to fires and liability in case some fool injures themselves on our property, and including health insurance. It takes a good chunk of my limited income, but it reduces the fear factor knowing that my assets are protected and will be there to help provide for my Yvonne when I croak out. It is costly... but much cheaper than coming out of pocket if my house were to be destroyed by fire, or some fool decides to sue me for his injuries incurred while trespassing. :shrug:


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fear is an ugly thing for sure. I dont worry quite so much as some. Instead of pacing the floor, wringing my hands about what "might" happen someday, I devote that energy into doing something about it. I protect my assets with insurance. Pretty much everything from auto accidents, to fires and liability in case some fool injures themselves on our property, and including health insurance. It takes a good chunk of my limited income, but it reduces the fear factor knowing that my assets are protected and will be there to help provide for my Yvonne when I croak out. It is costly... but much cheaper than coming out of pocket if my house were to be destroyed by fire, or some fool decides to sue me for his injuries incurred while trespassing. :shrug:


Exactly. We didn't have to worry a bit when my 21 year old daughter had a rare pancreatic tumor that resulted in $175,000 worth of medical bills. After our deductible, it was all covered. Thank heavens!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

This is a very informative read about how the US compares to other countries not only in the cost of healthcare but also in the claim that US healthcare is the "best care in he world." There is an enormous amount of propaganda spread by the insurance industry because they have a lot to lose.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> This is a very informative read about how the US compares to other countries not only in the cost of healthcare but also in the claim that US healthcare is the "best care in he world." There is an enormous amount of propaganda spread by the insurance industry because they have a lot to lose.
> 
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html


There is also an enormous amount of fear mongering spread by politicians in this country to promote their agenda's.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wee need to have some sort of tort reform, we need to make it so that insurance companies compete with each other in pricing their polices, We need to make sure insurance companies can sell across state lines like auto insurance companies are able to do. Look how the price of auto insurance has come down and Stayed Down, because one is price fighting with the other opens, Come here and save 550 a year, no come over here and save 560 a year. THAT would help a bunch get those two things in motion and the price WOULD be more affordable WITHOUT tearing the healthcare system apart like Obamacare is doing.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/?hpt=hp_c1

Interesting article on the cost of medical care in the US.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is also an enormous amount of fear mongering spread by politicians in this country to promote their agenda's.


Yes but remember that there is agenda promoting on both sides of the issue! And this does not change the simple fact that Americans are paying nearly twice as much for the same care.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There was an interesting article on this subject today-
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/?hpt=hp_c1


----------



## rafterdacres (Feb 20, 2013)

My wife has a serious illness and we live in Canada. I don't know where people get the idea that Canadian healthcare is not good. I love it. I never had to worry about anything nor will I have to in the future. Wait time is not bad, doctors are great for the most part and I don't get a bill when I leave the hospital. Never had to worry when we had the kids if we could afford them. I don't have to plan for the future medical requirements. Some people go to the "States" for medical care but they are unhappy about everthing. I would probably go south of the border if I required specialised care or something but 99.9% of my healthcare needs are met or exceeded here in snowy, cold Canada. Just sayin!!! You do what you wan't be I love living here and when snow and cold is getting anoying Arizona bound we are for a few weeks of warm sunny weather.


----------



## TRAILRIDER (Apr 16, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fear is an ugly thing for sure. I dont worry quite so much as some. Instead of pacing the floor, wringing my hands about what "might" happen someday, I devote that energy into doing something about it. I protect my assets with insurance. Pretty much everything from auto accidents, to fires and liability in case some fool injures themselves on our property, and including health insurance. It takes a good chunk of my limited income, but it reduces the fear factor knowing that my assets are protected and will be there to help provide for my Yvonne when I croak out. It is costly... but much cheaper than coming out of pocket if my house were to be destroyed by fire, or some fool decides to sue me for his injuries incurred while trespassing. :shrug:


True. Very solid advice. 

My unemployed 51 year old sister who has never been hospitalized for any reason, but is bi-polar has been turned down by every ins co she can find. No amount of planning can help with that.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

rafterdacres said:


> My wife has a serious illness and we live in Canada. I don't know where people get the idea that Canadian healthcare is not good. I love it. I never had to worry about anything


Likely because a good heathcare story doesnt make the news. Imagine if I called up a newspaper to comment on how fast they put me into surgery and connected my tendon back on, they wont run a story on that. Now if i want to tell a story about something that went wrong for whatever reason
well that would stand a chance of making print. Ofcourse insurance companies dont want to be cut out of the profit pie, so I am sure they play up anything thats gone wrong for American audiences.
A decade or so back my uncle smashed up his truck up north by GP.300kms or so north, because of the nature of the injuries he is flown from site by chooper direct to the University hospital, he was at the hospital faster than I could drive there, and I was only 40 km away. No charges or bills for the flight. You just dont hear the daily good stories, maybe cause there is no profit to make:whistlin:

Just remembered, after my last missadventure and as I am leaving the hospital they check where I live, and give me a number to call as they said I would require care/assistance for a while, and I was to call to schedual when I would like someone to come over to help with showering/cooking or whatever. I live way out in the country. what a surprise! if thats bad care I want more of it. I didnt use the number though as I had people to give me a hand.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't want to put Canada's health system down- people there pay for the service and if that is what they want, that's good.
But it is not problem free. I belong to a forum involving a rare disease so it has people from all over the English speaking world (and some whose English is difficult.)
One complaint that people in the countries with government controlled health care have constantly is that they get stuck if they have a physician who won't refer them to specialists. If the doctor is not familiar with their disease, they find themselves literally unable to go around the roadblock.
I found myself in a situation like that as I had a health insurance (HMO) that did not pay for services outside the area. I suffered substantially until I was able to change insurances that covered any certified professional. That insurance did not cover close to 100% like the HMO and cost more, but it allowed me to get another doctor who made a referral and I got the treatment I needed. So after four years of poorer and poorer helath, I was basically healthy within a year of changing insurance.
That is one of the major reasons why I don't like the government making health choices for me. It was nice to have no bill worries but it is even nicer to be able to get the care needed. For ordinary things, a socialized system has it's points but if you ever have an unusual problem, you may get stuck.


----------



## rafterdacres (Feb 20, 2013)

So true Justin time


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TRAILRIDER said:


> True. Very solid advice.
> 
> My unemployed 51 year old sister who has never been hospitalized for any reason, but is bi-polar has been turned down by every ins co she can find. No amount of planning can help with that.


Do they give her a reason for not insuring her? Do they turn her down entirely, or just wont cover the bi polar issues?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Yes but remember that there is agenda promoting on both sides of the issue! And this does not change the simple fact that Americans are paying nearly twice as much for the same care.


The way I read the article "twice as much" sounds a bit exaggerated, and as far as the same care.... no how, no way is the care in the US anything similar to care given in other countries. Its extremely difficult to compare a sack of oranges to a bucket of apples.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> That is one of the major reasons why I don't like the government making health choices for me.


True enough. It's MUCH better to let insurance companies make decisions for us. Assuming you haven't already been dumped by your company for exceeding limits, or having some bogus "pre-existing condition." Or, not being able to get covered AT ALL because you had an actual pre-existing condition. 

The US health care system works really well for the employed-with-benefits class, the well-to-do and the lucky. 
Everyone else is swimming with sharks and hoping for the best.


----------



## TRAILRIDER (Apr 16, 2007)

Yvonnes hubby, I was told it was the pre-existing condition. Apparently bi-polar disorder is something that can get very pricey to treat. That's why I worry about losing my job. My only health insurance is through work.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

rafterdacres said:


> So true Justin time


I see you are from Manitoba, sorry for the diss on Winnipeg dont take it personal gotta call'em as I see them. A great province outside of Winnipeg.

After my first trip to Winnipeg I thought of the Americans, thought how they should be given some type of warning. I had a image in my mind of someone in North Dakota getting a passport, and deciding to use it to drive up to the closest Canadian city to check it out, There should be signs on the road up saying keep your doors locked, no full stops rolling stops only, dont exit the vehicle or ask for directions, keep your windows up.Enter the city with a full tank of gas, .45 cal sidearms alloud.
Ok maybe I am exagerating....a little.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> The US health care system works really well for the employed-with-benefits class, the well-to-do and the lucky.
> Everyone else is swimming with sharks and hoping for the best.


The lucky dont need coverage... they wont get sick or injured, then there is that employed with benefits bunch, who have coverage coz they work and make enough money for their employers that they can afford to provide it, and of course the well to do can pay.... however the only people I know of who are "swimming with the sharks" are those who dont bother to get insurance, either through their employers, or privately... (that is allowed ya know  )... BEFORE they find themselves in need. The whole concept behind insurance is to buy it now.... in case you need it later.... ever call your insurance agent and ask to buy insurance on yer car right after you have an accident? Prolly not going to get them to pay for those fenders. Try buying fire insurance on your home after its already burned down. I cant really fault the insurance company for not wanting to provide you with coverage after you have broken yer neck, or contracted some horrific disease either. Now, if you would like to buy insurance protecting you from some catastrophe that "might" happen in the future.... I am quite sure they will be happy to discuss that with you.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The first step in clearing up both medical and Social Security issues is to force Congress, the President, Courts, and all other federal employees to use the same system the rest of us are forced to use. As long as they have a golden program outside what we have, they have no incentive to fix it. It absolutely infurates me that people who SHOULD BE considered employees of us citizens have voted themselves a golden program using our tax money to feather their nests. NOT RIGHT, NOT FAIR, AND SHOULD END.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TRAILRIDER said:


> Yvonnes hubby, I was told it was the pre-existing condition. Apparently bi-polar disorder is something that can get very pricey to treat. That's why I worry about losing my job. My only health insurance is through work.


Yep, bi polar can be pricey to treat, but it should not affect her ability to get health insurance for other, non-preexisting issues. I know BCBS and Humana both will set aside the pre existing condition, and provide coverage for anything else for something like two years, then their coverage will even pick up the preexisting condition coverage.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

YH, if you don't understand how insurance companies can finagle a "pre-existing condition" out of thin air, then _you_ would be one of the lucky.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

Just remembered,my mother is into her 80's, having health issues. I called up the hospital last week to see what services were available to help her stay in her own home for as long as possible. A nurse was over to see her yesterday to do a assesment of her needs I couldnt be there for the meeting but she tells me tells me they can come around every day if needed to assist with the meds she takes, and to help with personal care, and make sure the oxogen machine is working right, She seen the steps that my mother is having trouble with, and left info about lifts for the stairs.I am going over to day to follow up on getting a lift installed. Do to my mothers income she can get the lift installed for free ( I will pay for it just because I can) just another example of care that never makes the news, thats never mentioned.....Sometimes just the little things can make the biggest difference.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Under HIPPAA, you can change jobs and retain your insurance, see here:

If you are worried about keeping your health benefits when you change jobs, you should know about a federal law called HIPAA. It is the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act, also known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA for short. While HIPAA offers little protection if you are switching from a group health plan to an individual health plan, and nothing if you do not have insurance at all, it can help you from losing coverage when you have a gap in group health insurance. 
The law was designed to ease what was then a growing problem known as "job lock" - the reluctance to move from one company to another for fear of losing health coverage.
*Pre-existing conditions *

The driving force behind HIPAA is that health insurance companies have traditionally tried to hold down their costs by invoking a "pre-existing condition" clause. The concept of pre-existing conditions makes sense when you are talking about auto insurance. For example, if your windshield was cracked _before_ you bought your coverage, you cannot expect your new auto insurer to replace it _after_ you buy a policy. That would be like asking your insurer to replace the windshield for free when you have not paid premiums for that problem. 


http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/Jobs/benefits/health/Pages/HIPAALawExplained.aspx


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> YH, if you don't understand how insurance companies can finagle a "pre-existing condition" out of thin air, then _you_ would be one of the lucky.


I guess I am just lucky then... or maybe I never tryed to buy insurance after discovering I had something wrong with me. Hmmm, how far back do they look? I know I was insured at least 15 years before I ever filed a claim. :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

No, the slick part of pre-existings is that if your windshield is cracked, they can not only deny coverage for the windshield (which makes sense) but ALSO for things that are _connected_ to the windshield, like the hood, or the front quarter panels maybe the front bumper, but that would be decided only after you get clipped by a vehicle...

Friend of mine had her gall bladder out (common surgery for a late 20s woman, and for the vast majority, goes on to cause no further issues). But consequently, the coverage she got after that put exclusionary riders on anything even _remotely_ related to the digestive system. 
Just because they could.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I never had that problem and I have had a broken back, several other broken things over the years (clavicle, arm, leg, and hip) and have never had a problem with changing jobs and gaining new insurance. I am currently covered in full with no restrictions and I have a blood disorder that has to be treated and landed me in the hospital. I moved from one state to another and got new insurance with no restrictions.

I guess it depends on the insurance that a person has. I have BCBSA and have not had a problem, prior to that I have had Aetna and Cigna and regular BCBS. None have denied me coverage for anything and right now I am going to physical therapy as I reinjured my back. Insurance is paying for it with me paying my deductible and copay.

I have had insurance either privately or through my employer since I was 17 years old. I am now covered by my group insurance as well as my husband's insurance. I have insurance because I cannot afford to pay in full for all my medical care. Not everyone feels that their insurance company is out to "get them", I have been very satisfied with mine over the years and based on what I have had them pay out for the last 30 years, I have fully gotten my premiums worth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> No, the slick part of pre-existings is that if your windshield is cracked, they can not only deny coverage for the windshield (which makes sense) but ALSO for things that are _connected_ to the windshield, like the hood, or the front quarter panels maybe the front bumper, but that would be decided only after you get clipped by a vehicle...
> 
> Friend of mine had her gall bladder out (common surgery for a late 20s woman, and for the vast majority, goes on to cause no further issues). But consequently, the coverage she got after that put exclusionary riders on anything even _remotely_ related to the digestive system.
> Just because they could.


Of course they can deny specific conditions. Even the good companies that I have dealt with will not cover certain things... and most will not pay for experimental treatment options either. You look at the coverage they DO offer, and then decide which plan is most likely going to serve your needs best. My current insurance plan does not cover dialysis in the event of kidney failure... nor will I expect them to (and most likely would not want the treatments either) if that situation should arise... I know that going in, nobody is pulling any shenanigans in this case. I doubt that very many shenanigans are pulled by the major insurance companies either. Its been my experience that they do a pretty durn good job of taking care of business. What I have noticed over the years though is a whole lot of people have little to no idea what kind of coverage they do have until claims are filed, this is particularly true in cases where employers are furnishing their insurance for them. I know I was quite pleasantly surprised the first time I received benefits from BCBS.... they paid for quite a bit of stuff that I had no idea would be covered.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The way I read the article "twice as much" sounds a bit exaggerated, and as far as the same care.... no how, no way is the care in the US anything similar to care given in other countries. Its extremely difficult to compare a sack of oranges to a bucket of apples.


Twice as much? - for some countries even more than twice as much. And when you compare the cost of administration it is clear to see where so much of the money is going. Why does an appendectomy in the US cost $7962 while in the next most expensive OECD countries it costs $3000 less? And this holds true for nearly all treatments.

As for comparison of care - I don't think you read the same article as I did. There are things in which the US ranks first but then again there are things where they rank very poorly given the wealth of the nation. Including life expectancy.

Don't fall for the John Wayne advertising.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Twice as much? - for some countries even more than twice as much. And when you compare the cost of administration it is clear to see where so much of the money is going. Why does an appendectomy in the US cost $7962 while in the next most expensive OECD countries it costs $3000 less? And this holds true for nearly all treatments.
> 
> As for comparison of care - I don't think you read the same article as I did. There are things in which the US ranks first but then again there are things where they rank very poorly given the wealth of the nation. Including life expectancy.
> 
> Don't fall for the John Wayne advertising.


Our health care cost more than other countries for a couple of reasons. Probably the most prominent is that in our country we practice what is called free enterprise instead of some of the others who have a wee bit more government involvement. Sadly we have just enough government meddling to cause real problems. As to the "wealth of the nation".... how does being not only broke, but $16 Trillion in debt and growing by billions daily rank us as being wealthy?

As to the Duke... I always sorta liked his approach.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our health care cost more than other countries for a couple of reasons. Probably the most prominent is that in our country we practice what is called free enterprise instead of some of the others who have a wee bit more government involvement. Sadly we have just enough government meddling to cause real problems. As to the "wealth of the nation".... how does being not only broke, but $16 Trillion in debt and growing by billions daily rank us as being wealthy?
> 
> As to the Duke... I always sorta liked his approach.


Switzerland has free enterprise and in fact their healthcare is private - not government - and is still less expensive than US healthcare. I had healthcare in Switzerland for the years I lived there. It tops anything in the world.

The US is still the wealthiest country in the world. To spend only 17% of GDP on healthcare is rather sad.

The Duke in most of the caricature roles he played was a "swaggart." Not an approach I admire.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our health care cost more than other countries for a couple of reasons. Probably the most prominent is that in our country we practice what is called free enterprise instead of some of the others who have a wee bit more government involvement. Sadly we have just enough government meddling to cause real problems. As to the "wealth of the nation".... how does being not only broke, but $16 Trillion in debt and growing by billions daily rank us as being wealthy?
> 
> As to the Duke... I always sorta liked his approach.


And a lot of out costs are because of the research that has been done before hand. Other countries just follow suit so they have a "copy" already of what is he best way to do things. And the equipment costs is very high and the FDA regulations are very stick and many hoops to jump through just to get a piece of equipment approval for use. Other countries don;t have the "red tape" to go through lowering their costs by quite a bit. Again THE GOVERNMENT Sticking their NOSE into places where they should STAY OUT OF. And the health care costs would not be this high.
And yes The Duke was cool, and One Great America for sure.
And now Obamacare wants to take over peoples choice in the matter. Ouch with a big O in front.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Another reason our healthcare is so expensive is that lawsuits are so easy to file. No matter whether a doctor is "God" or not, people expect them to be and so if a baby is born with a defect, many times a GYNOB is held responsible and sued.

You see it all the time on TV - 
1. Ever taken birthcontrol pills Yaz? Well join the ongoing class action lawsuit
2. Mesothelioma - got that? join our lawsuit
3. Ever had some sort of mesh to hold up your bladder? Join our lawsuit?

Doctors pay enormous amounts of money in malpractice insurance because people in the US are sue happy. I worked in a law office for years, people wanted to sue for all sorts of things. What is worse, the malpractice insurance would pay these folks off rather than fight them and some people made quite a nice "living" suing hospitals, doctors, drug manufacturers, and medical device makers because they could "work the system".

My OBGYN said he no longer would deliver babies due to the enormous expense of medical malpractice insurance - $600,000 per year in premiums. But on the other hand, if he did not have that insurance, and someone sued him, he would lose everything he had worked for. 

People expect perfect care, all the time, no matter what and if they don't get it, they will sue the pants off a doctor, nurse, hospital, etc.

Want to control costs? Cap awards in medical malpractice suits. Doctors are NOT Gods, they cannot always perform perfect medicine or surgery. They make mistakes, they can misdiagnose with the BEST equipment in the world. It happens. What does America do? Ring up the lawyer and plan how to get the most out of the doctor, his insurance and whatever else they can get.

Rather than work WITH a doctor, people sue. So doctor's order MORE tests than are necessary to cover their butts in case someone says "well you didn't test for THAT" regardless of whether the test had any bearing at the time or not. 

So to avoid a suit, a doc will order more tests than probably are needed just "in case". Makes health care costs go up more because of the fear of lawsuits.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I guess it depends on the insurance that a person has.


Yep. Group/employer-sponsored is far less likely to engage in practices of questionable ethics, like making sweeping exclusions under the label of "pre-existing conditions." 
Self-pay, OTOH, all bets are off. (And of course you'll pay more for less coverage)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

ErinP said:


> Yep. Group/employer-sponsored is far less likely to engage in practices of questionable ethics, like making sweeping exclusions under the label of "pre-existing conditions."
> Self-pay, OTOH, all bets are off. (And of course you'll pay more for less coverage)


Melissa- thanks for the link. I usually read Time a week late from the library and was looking forward to this issue. It should be required reading for both supporters and detractors of Obamacare and the current system.

Sorry- hit respond to wrong post. Check out link to Time's current health care cost article.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Yep. Group/employer-sponsored is far less likely to engage in practices of questionable ethics, like making sweeping exclusions under the label of "pre-existing conditions."
> Self-pay, OTOH, all bets are off. (And of course you'll pay more for less coverage)


Cale has insurance through his union and I can say it is pretty comprehensive. They cover pre-existing conditions fully, have no dollar limit and even though it is an 80/20 plan the maximum for the year is about $6000 so while that is a lot of money, at least you won't go bankrupt over it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Switzerland has free enterprise and in fact their healthcare is private - not government - and is still less expensive than US healthcare. I had healthcare in Switzerland for the years I lived there. It tops anything in the world.


According to what I read in wiki... I know, not the most reliable resource, Switzerland has free enterprise, and a "portion" of their health care system is private, but there is so much government control it may as well be government provided. Little things like forcing everyone to have insurance, regulating price of insurance, not allowing any profit to be made by the insurance company..... the list goes on and on. 



emdeengee said:


> The US is still the wealthiest country in the world. To spend only 17% of GDP on healthcare is rather sad.


And yet the Swiss only spend about 10 percent of their GDP on healthcare... those poor folks must be in very serious trouble. 



emdeengee said:


> The Duke in most of the caricature roles he played was a "swaggart." Not an approach I admire.


To each their own... but most of those characters "got the job done", and usually got it done efficiently.... without whining or crying about how much better life is in some foreign country. 

BTW I am pretty sure there are still flights available to Switzerland as well as other european countries for those interested.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Cale has insurance through his union and I can say it is pretty comprehensive.


Yeah, you're pretty lucky to have group insurance. The group has more negotiating power, as well as influence when their are questionable claims. And, you tend to have better coverage for less cost, even if your employer isn't covering any percentage of the premium.

Self-pay, OTOH, you're pretty much at the mercy of the good graces of the insurance co.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think for every story you hear about someone having issues with our health care system there are hundreds of stories you never hear about people being happy with the system. Our family and friends are all happy with the health care we've received over the years. My Parents both retired within the last few years comfortable on their pensions after raising eight kids in Toronto, which is an expensive city to live in. They had no worries or extra expense of health care costs.

My Dad had a heart valve replaced 11 years ago, went in the hospital, had the operation, a few more days in the hospital in recovery then home with a nurse coming around regularly to administer some drugs or antibiotics, not sure now what they were, excellent and timely medical care and no bill. These valves last about ten years so he went in again on January 1st for a second operation, had the operation but unfortunately passed away on Jan. 28 of other complications including liver and kidney failure. He would have been 73 in March. He was in the hospital for 28 days, many tests, medications, antibiotics, had the heart operation, quite a few days in ICU and my Mom will receive no bills for any of it.

As for the quality of care we are comparable to most countries in the world. Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto is one of the top children's hospitals in the world. We have some leading edge medical research facilities, one of which was just built attached to Toronto General Hospital that has attracted researchers from all over the world. Canadian researchers have been responsible for many leading edge medical discoveries.

Do we have issues with our health care system? Of course! However, we are always hearing so many stories of Americans who are experiencing varying degrees of financial hardship due to medical costs. The title of this thread is "How does anyone afford health care?" and the simple answer is that a lot of Americans can't. Americans should go back over their lifetime and add up the costs of health care insurance premiums and out of pocket medical costs and ask themselves how much farther ahead they would be in their lives if they didn't have to pay out that money.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

Truckinguy

in reading the thread I have concluded its not at all about healthcare, its costs, or delivery...look at the postings, I think some of the posters must have a "vested" interest defending insurance profits , while others have a self interest in promoting political agendas Real, imagined, functional or fictional, and sadly at the expence of the topic-healthcare.
Time to smile, and wave....pass to popcorn...


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Yeah, you're pretty lucky to have group insurance. The group has more negotiating power, as well as influence when their are questionable claims. And, you tend to have better coverage for less cost, even if your employer isn't covering any percentage of the premium.
> 
> Self-pay, OTOH, you're pretty much at the mercy of the good graces of the insurance co.


I don't know if those who are self-pay can find it but when my husband was a computer consultant, he joined a "union" who's purpose was to just get group health insurance for independent contractors. It definitely helped to bring the cost of health insurance for our family down!


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Something that is rarely mentioned in these threads is high administration costs of private insurance driving up premiums. There's a myriad of companies and thousands of different policies, all with different regulations and an underlying profit motive. They make paperwork COMPLICATED. Every hospital has to employ hundreds of people--thousands for larger hospitals--to do billing and try to navigate a maze of requirements for each policy. Insurance companies routinely deny coverage in order to force physicians and patients to go through a complex appeals process. They hire people to review cases to find reasons to retroactively deny coverage for care and they use profits to line their own pockets rather than contribute ideas to improve access to care. 

Private insurance companies advertise (with your money) and pay lobbyists large sums of money (with your money) to make citizens and lawmakers afraid of a single party payer system and healthcare reform in general. I say, shame on them...

I PERSONALLY feel that healthcare is a right, not a privilege and am very saddened by the state of healthcare in this country. It makes me sick to hear of people having to choose between basic necessities in order to pay ever-rising healthcare premiums. 

Our insurance is $1,700/month for 2 adults and 1 college student. It is an employer sponsered group plan so we pay only 20% of the premium ($340). It is a good plan accepted by most physicians and with very low co-pays. There is no way we could afford this plan if we had to pay the full premium. We would have to settle for a plan with a high (barely affordable) deductible that would probably about wipe out our savings every time we had to use it...


----------



## ldc (Oct 11, 2006)

The Canadian posters above have a different point of view....inc.emdeengee, who once lived in Switz. So?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Does anyone really think that the government is going to do an efficient job and save money running health care? One of the things I've seen is that they are going to have the health insurance people running most of their insurance program. That will just add another layer or two to the cost.

The government sets the cost of health care now. Everything is based on medicare reimbursement , private insurance or not. 

Most people can, if they want to join a group that gets group rates. There are groups for rural people through farm bureau, the granges, different associations. There are groups for small business as well. Costco sell group policies. Insurance is expensive, and it seems even more so when you pay all of it. If you choose a career in a low paying field, where you are expected to buy your own insurance that is your choice. If you decide that your money can be better spent in ways other than insurance, that is currently your choice. 

I think Obamacare is just going to cost the paying people more. You don't get something for nothing, especially when you leave the insurance companies in the mix and do nothing about tort reform. A large part of your health care is mandated by the doctors malpractice insurance company as well as your company. It seems Americans expect perfect health, supplied by the health care system and sue if they don't get it. This adds a tremendous cost to our care and it is not even addressed by obamacare.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

justin_time said:


> Truckinguy
> 
> in reading the thread I have concluded its not at all about healthcare, its costs, or delivery...look at the postings, I think some of the posters must have a "vested" interest defending insurance profits , while others have a self interest in promoting political agendas Real, imagined, functional or fictional, and sadly at the expence of the topic-healthcare.
> Time to smile, and wave....pass to popcorn...


I have to admit I am one of those with a political agenda. I promote adherence to our Constitution, and am more than a little bit opposed to our continuing slide into the abysmal pit of socialism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> I PERSONALLY feel that healthcare is a right, not a privilege


I agree, every person in our country should have the right to purchase any medical service, automobile or firearm their little heart desires.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> Our insurance is $1,700/month for 2 adults and 1 college student. It is an employer sponsered group plan so we pay only 20% of the premium ($340). It is a good plan accepted by most physicians and with very low co-pays. There is no way we could afford this plan if we had to pay the full premium. We would have to settle for a plan with a high (barely affordable) deductible that would probably about wipe out our savings every time we had to use it...


My insurance is about $450 a month for two adults and one student. With about $10,000 out of pocket cost per individual, I also have some dental coverage with that. I'm self employed it is all out of my pocket.

Honestly when you start comparing costs your paying a lot for the privilege of cheap copays that you may not be using. Several years ago I had insurance that paid for two doctors office calls a month, got to looking and I was paying the insurance company for two office calls a month I wasn't using. Like I've said before I see my health insurance as a way to protect against a major expense. It will hurt if it happens but I have some protection when it does.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to admit I am one of those with a political agenda


I would have never quessed.....just what every disscusion should center on, maybe hidden, or open religious agendas should shape the discussion too, I know, how about tarot card or palm reading as a prerequisite to practical policy making.....Its always wise to form all policy around political agendas, no down side to that, nope none at all, ...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

justin_time said:


> I would have never quessed.....just what every disscusion should center on, maybe hidden, or open religious agendas should shape the discussion too, I know, how about tarot card or palm reading as a prerequisite to practical policy making....*.Its always wise to form all policy around political agendas, no down side to that, nope none at all,* ...


 Just how do you think "*poli*cy" is formed? *Pol*icy comes from the Greek work "Polis" meaning body of citizens and "*pol*icy" is dictated by "*poli*ticians" that in a democracy we elect so of course policy is formed around political agendas. Even dictators, who enact "policy" by decree have a political agenda in the formation of their policy.

Maybe I didnt understand your statement but it sounds like you think policy is formed in a vacuum somehow. Care to explain?


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to admit I am one of those with a political agenda. I promote adherence to our Constitution, and am more than a little bit opposed to our continuing slide into the abysmal pit of socialism.





salmonslayer said:


> Maybe I didnt understand your statement but it sounds like you think policy is formed in a vacuum somehow. Care to explain?


I will try better to be clear. First maybe the word is more literal, and stricktly taken in your country, As opposed to how I used it.I fully agree Policy is not formed in a vaccuum, but that policy can be removed from political agendas which are increasingly just corporate agendas working for there own ends. The political nonsense as someone looking into your country sees is corosive to problem solving, change, and rational practices.
Your being played one against the other...endlessly, with efforts not going to real change, or problem solving,and finding practices not tried that may work better. 
If I am a potter looking for a new type of glazing I may not find one if I refuse to consider materials that come from another country , or I refuse to consider a element reciently discovered because it does not match may imagined political bent. If I bring those preconcieved notions to my search I wont find a new glazing, same with healthcare. Thats what I mean by strip the politics out of policy if you want to find workable solutions, and dont you think thats where your efforts should go to finding solutions so everyone get the care they need, leave the politics of it out. My god looking in it just stunning how you are played one against the other, and how eager you are to have it continue.....

Rereading this, it looks like I am still useing the word wrong by your definition, so Maybe my thoughts will define my intended use of the word


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I think I understand what you are saying Justin Time and our politics do look strange to those looking at them from outside but in the end we manage. I think if we were a true democracy as you envision your way would work but as it is we are a democratic republic where we elect people to do the wrangling for us and in the end it all works out even if we may not agree to the end solution.

Dont confuse our process for anything other than each side advocating for what they believe in. Most of us already have health care and good health care and the very same thing you think is happening to us (being played) is happening to you; you have bought the whole propaganda that we all are struggling to pay for health care and that we just cant get insurance which is simply not true for most of us.

There are too many who cannot get insured and we have issues with pre-existing conditions, portability etc coupled with some who could in fact pay for HC (or part of it) but for one reason or another choose not to and that is what you are seeing....our process of hashing it all out ugly though it may look.

I think outsiders also do not understand that we are a confederation of states with each state having a degree of sovereignty that we even fought a very bloody internal war over and that fight continues today. Lots of us are very leery of the federal government usurping states rights and imposing federal decree in a one size fits all manner...kind of like my Quebecois wife feels about your decrees from Ottawa.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> you have bought the whole propaganda that we all are struggling to pay for health care and that we just cant get insurance which is simply not true for most of us.


But it IS true for millions and millions. It's also true that even those who ARE insured run the risk of bankruptcy from health-related bills. 

There's a reason Obamacare went through afterall and it's because there was enough of a demand for change.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

justin_time said:


> I would have never quessed.....just what every disscusion should center on, maybe hidden, or open religious agendas should shape the discussion too, I know, how about tarot card or palm reading as a prerequisite to practical policy making.....Its always wise to form all policy around political agendas, no down side to that, nope none at all, ...


I think you miss my point.... I am not proposing a new policy... merely the adherence to our nations supreme law. That would be the law that our country is based upon, and the citizens... through their duly elected officials agreed upon. We are supposed to be a nation consisting of a collection of individual sovereign nations, who govern ourselves at state levels within the confines of our federal constitution. This form of government was designed to prevent any government.... the individual states, the federal government or any foreign government from treading upon the basic God given rights of the people. When we allow our own government to stray from those most basic of laws, we are surrendering our freedom to a handful of politicians. Me? I prefer keeping the government under the control of the people, not having the people under the control of the government. That my friend is my "agenda". It has nothing to do with tarot cards, religion, or political party, its simply adhering to the supreme law of our land.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I think a lot of people are forgetting this VERY important part of WHY we have a Constitution in this country.
*The purpose of the constitution is to limit the power
of the federal government, not the power of the American people*


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

whenever I hear someone bad mouthing workers unions or complaining about uniondues . my healthcare cost me 30$ a month because I took early retirement .33 years was enough . but I think of when hosbitalized 3 days with newmonia years ago .a young lady came in my room said to try to avoid junk food and to eat healther .when I checked the bill there was a charge of 250 $ for that . still no cost to me .thank goodness for that union there wouldn't be a pension and insurance if not for them


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> There's a reason Obamacare went through afterall and it's because there was enough of a demand for change.


It went through because the dems happened to have just enough clout during a brief period of time to force it through over the objections of the rational clear minded people. This is the problem with any democracy.... just because 51 percent wants something changed... does not make that change right... or good. Its also the reason our founding fathers did not set up a democracy when the formed our country... they were all too well aware of what would happen to our new found freedom if they allowed them to vote themselves personal wealth from the public treasury.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

My health insurance where I worked cost m $35 a week.
When I had a severe reaction to one of my RA drugs and was in the ICU for 3 days and 5 more in the hospital I thank God I had insurance and that company was NOT a union one either. 
And that Insurance PAID everything but my 3K deductible~! 
Thank goodness for good companies that look after their workers without "sticking it to them" into some mandated dues to pay, where the bosses of that union have WAY WAY too much power and I sure am glad that Our Governor in WI. Governor Scott Walker Clipped some of those feathers off the strong hold that unions have in this state over its workers and mandated such Unreasonable and outrages pensions and wages that they are costing Americas JOBS as more and more companies seek friendlier countries to operate in.
And this WILL as time goes on will march across the country as more and more sees the evil ways of unions.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> It went through because the dems happened to have just enough clout during a brief period of time to force it through over the objections of the rational clear minded people


*chuckle* 
Oh. Of course. And the millions of people who supported it _aren't_ rational. 
I got it. lol


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> *chuckle*
> Oh. Of course. And the millions of people who supported it _aren't_ rational.
> I got it. lol


Why would a rational person support a law not knowing what it was? I am sure you remember the now infamous line: "We just need to pass it and then we can find out whats in it". 
Its been over two years.... anyone know yet whats in it?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

At this point, debating whether we should have the law or not is not getting us anywhere. Each person just has to figure out how it will affect them personally and prepare the best they can.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> anyone know yet whats in it?


Uh yeah... 
why don't _you_??

It was available for perusal before it passed, by the way. That's why it had so much support. :shrug:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why would a rational person support a law not knowing what it was? I am sure you remember the now infamous line: "We just need to pass it and then we can find out whats in it".
> Its been over two years.... anyone know yet whats in it?


 Nobody should have been for this monstrosity of a bill.
Not really hardly anybody knows what is it, as more and more things are just NOW coming out, and most of that is bad. What is left that has not come out as it is still nearly 2 years before it gets up and going and won;t be 100% out in the open until 2020 when it all hits the fan.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

ErinP said:


> *But it IS true for millions and millions. It's also true that even those who ARE insured run the risk of bankruptcy from health-related bills. *
> 
> There's a reason Obamacare went through afterall and it's because there was enough of a demand for change.


 I think you didnt read my post or are picking at straws, I agree with you for the most part. According to the last US census 16.7% of the US population are considered uninsured which is roughly 50 million and way too many but hardly the majority that is portrayed by some in the media and that many of our Canadian friends tend to believe from watching our rather bizarre political dance from afar.

I do find it interesting that some of the biggest opponents of Obamacare still at least claim they will pay the penalty rather than purchase HC insurance which just seems strange to me. I was against this HC Act as it was envisioned and as implemented and I also think parts of it are probably not in fact Constitutional but you know, the ruling came down and its here and not going away so time to dry the hankies and at least for me, figure out how to take advantage of it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

salmonslayer said:


> I think you didnt read my post or are picking at straws, I agree with you for the most part. According to the last US census 16.7% of the US population are considered uninsured which is roughly 50 million and way too many but hardly the majority that is portrayed by some in the media


Sure and out of those so called 50 million you can break it down Well this one says 45.7 million









And the 10 million left just don't want insurance for one reason or another, and the other part is the just starting out workers that consider themselves invincible and will not get sick or hurt. And that leaves just a small handful left that many states do have safety nets already in place if they would just get out and look and search for such help. Medicaid to SSI. To even getting drugs free of charge direct form the drug companies.~! I even did that for 3 years, because I didn't have drug coverage insurance, and got a Very Expensive Rheumatoid drug something like 1500 a month it would have cost and I got it free for 3 years. There IS help available.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> True enough. It's MUCH better to let insurance companies make decisions for us. Assuming you haven't already been dumped by your company for exceeding limits, or having some bogus "pre-existing condition." Or, not being able to get covered AT ALL because you had an actual pre-existing condition.
> 
> The US health care system works really well for the employed-with-benefits class, the well-to-do and the lucky.
> Everyone else is swimming with sharks and hoping for the best.


I looked for insurance that gave me the choice. I paid a lot more for it and it covered less. But it was worth it. If I had stayed with the insurance that covered a 100% after the deductible, my heirs would have been richer. 

I did have a pre-existing condition but since I had been enrolled for a number of years, I had the ability to change the type of insurance anyway. It cost but I did it. Those were pretty thin years. But a good choice for me. It was not luck that I had paid for insurance for years without really using it. 

Having benefits is not a "class." It was my choice to stick like glue to a relatively secure job that did not pay as well as others but offered benefits. It was not easy and it meant that if the job needed me elsewhere, I went there. It was a job that was available to many but most people chose other things like more income.

Although luck can always be an issue in everything, it was not luck that got me that job. It was my work.

But I do doubt that my employer would be offering this insurance now. Obamacare has narrowed the choices of employers. The costs have escalated and the employer can be penalized for supplying a generous plan or will be in 2018. With tight competetion from foreign producers, employers have less margin to pay for benefits. So those who had the choices I did may not have them much longer.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> I was against this HC Act as it was envisioned and as implemented and I also think parts of it are probably not in fact Constitutional but you know, the ruling came down and its here and not going away so time to dry the hankies and _*at least for me, figure out how to take advantage of it*_.


^Here is the problem with this country!!!!!!

Hey whether you like it or not food stamps are here, might as well figure out how to take advatage of it.

Hey same with ObamaPhones, HUD,WIC,TNAF and all the other forms of lovely welfare, might as well get everyone on them.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

blooba said:


> ^Here is the problem with this country!!!!!!
> 
> Hey whether you like it or not food stamps are here, might as well figure out how to take advatage of it.
> 
> Hey same with ObamaPhones, HUD,WIC,TNAF and all the other forms of lovely welfare, might as well get everyone on them.


 Nice try, I have always had HC insurance and am in no danger of losing mine with Obamacare but if we can get currently uninsured people insured we all benefit, financially and socially. Since this isnt going away no matter how much you may wish it to your comments just seem kind of silly since your either going to get on board or your going to pay a fine, either way your participating and paying in one fashion or another.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> *chuckle*
> Oh. Of course. And the millions of people who supported it _aren't_ rational.
> I got it. lol


Millions of people supported Hitler also. Its all about how dubious the society is and how it is presented. I mean, who would want impure people in the world?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> My health insurance where I worked cost m $35 a week.
> When I had a severe reaction to one of my RA drugs and was in the ICU for 3 days and 5 more in the hospital I thank God I had insurance and that company was NOT a union one either.
> And that Insurance PAID everything but my 3K deductible~!


Not picking on you personally, AK, I know many people have deductibles but you consider yourself "well taken care of" even though you still had to pay $3000? The OP was wondering how people afford health care and I'm still trying to picture myself paying a few hundred dollars a month for premiums and then trying to come up with a few thousand dollars to cover the deductible when I had to be taken care of. It would be extremely difficult to add that to my budget and I'm not rich but doing ok.

Another thing I was wondering about is if your taxes are lower in the US due to the government not providing health care? If your taxes are lower it would offset the cost of your health care premiums but if we're paying roughly the same in taxes and you're paying for health insurance on top of that it wouldn't make much sense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Truckinguy said:


> Not picking on you personally, AK, I know many people have deductibles but you consider yourself "well taken care of" even though you still had to pay $3000? The OP was wondering how people afford health care and I'm still trying to picture myself paying a few hundred dollars a month for premiums and then trying to come up with a few thousand dollars to cover the deductible when I had to be taken care of. It would be extremely difficult to add that to my budget and I'm not rich but doing ok.
> 
> Another thing I was wondering about is if your taxes are lower in the US due to the government not providing health care? If your taxes are lower it would offset the cost of your health care premiums but if we're paying roughly the same in taxes and you're paying for health insurance on top of that it wouldn't make much sense.


As near as I can tell from looking at the overall tax rates between our country and those of countries that furnish health care, our tax rates are pretty low. its kinda hard to tell for sure, as there are different systems in place for different folks. In our country there is a small percentage of the people who pay the bulk of the taxes, while nearly half the population are not required to pay anything.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Melissa said:


> At this point, debating whether we should have the law or not is not getting us anywhere. Each person just has to figure out how it will affect them personally and prepare the best they can.


OK, and just how are we supposed to prepare for the unknown? There are so many hidden details in it, and things that could have different affects for different folks its virtually impossible to know how its going to affect us until it all actually takes effect. I dont think any one really knows how a lot of this monstrosity is going to be interpreted by the PTB. I would also point out that holding open discussions about this law is possibly the way to get it repealed.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

There are not only things in obamacare that are hidden, there are a lot of things very open to individual interpretation, as well as thing required but not funded, and all kinds of other problems.

If you think that the basic bill gives everyone healthcare, that's not true. For one thing, we simply don't have the infrastructure to simply add millions of people to the current patient load. We don't have the medical personal to treat them either. It sounds nice to say that the combination of catching the crooks, and making the doctors and hospitals take less for care, then taxing the rich some more will solve the problem but it won't. 

Doctors are leaving school with a quarter million dollars or more in in debt. The non- profit hospitals average 2% profit, which is spent on charity as well as improvements. The for profit hospitals do better, but choose patients carefully and don't treat any more poorly insured than they have to. Medical malpractice insurance costs are out of sight and growing. 

If you want to effectively improve medical care you need to start building an expanded system that can handle the increased patient load. Obamacare does nothing (that I can find) to do this, nor does it address the cost of not requiring tort reform. ​


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

My personal thought is ALL insurance should be just a once a year free physical and then the high deductible insurance only. That would cover the really sick and the really need this unexpected expense.

But everytime we have an ear infection or minor boo boo? We pay for it just like we do groceries and gas and clothes--by planning on it.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

nodak3 said:


> My personal thought is ALL insurance should be just a once a year free physical and then the high deductible insurance only. That would cover the really sick and the really need this unexpected expense.
> 
> But everytime we have an ear infection or minor boo boo? We pay for it just like we do groceries and gas and clothes--by planning on it.


That would be great if they didn't charge $200 just to walk in the door! This winter, we've had the creeping crud running through the house. So that meant:

Me: 3 visits to the doctors, 2 rounds of antibiotics, 2 breathing treatments and prescriptions for inhalers and steroids

Daughter #1 - 1 visit to the doctor and 1 round of antibiotics (she could have not gone but she has no spleen and her throat looked like it might have been strep - which could prove very bad for her)

Daughter #2 - 2 visits to the doctors, 1 round of antibiotics, 1 chest x-ray, 1 large round of steriods. 

This is just since about Christmas time and totals about $1500. Add in my mammogram (with a callback for an ultrasound),my annual gynecological visit with some new prescriptions and my husband's pulmonologist's annual visit ($500 for that!) and we're poor. LOL

I'd LOVE to see doctors charge a straight $50 for a visit. I don't care if it's a relatively quick visit and I'd even be happier if he had a nurse practitioner on staff that I could see for less severe stuff. I'd rather pay $50 cash to see the doctor for a less serious illness than do what we do now.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Annsni said:


> That would be great if they didn't charge $200 just to walk in the door! This winter, we've had the creeping crud running through the house. So that meant:
> 
> Me: 3 visits to the doctors, 2 rounds of antibiotics, 2 breathing treatments and prescriptions for inhalers and steroids
> 
> ...


A doctor that has been in practice for awhile could probably treat all of that for a third of what that cost you, if he (or his insurance company) didn't have to worry about getting sued if he made a wrong decision. The cost of proving what he knows, and having the ensuing paperwork done is a very large part of the cost to you. Under our current system as well as the new system there is no control over this cost.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> A doctor that has been in practice for awhile could probably treat all of that for a third of what that cost you, if he (or his insurance company) didn't have to worry about getting sued if he made a wrong decision. The cost of proving what he knows, and having the ensuing paperwork done is a very large part of the cost to you. Under our current system as well as the new system there is no control over this cost.


Yep - Our friend is an orthopedic surgeon and his malpractice insurance is $300,000 a year!!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

salmonslayer said:


> I think you didnt read my post or are picking at straws, I agree with you for the most part.


No, I realize what you're saying. I was just expanding upon your point.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One thing that is hard to understand is the fact that the more doctors there are in practice, the more it costs to see them. Doctors charge to make their own living plus the salary of a billing clerk, receptionist, office manager, medical assistant. He pays rent or mortgage, insurance and buys supplies. 
So if he sees fewer people, then he charges more to cover all this as fewer people does not mean less cost. He still has all those things.
In fact, there was a very good doctor I saw for about a year until he retired who charged $55 per visit. His wife was his billing clerk, receptionist and office manager. No one else worked in the office. He long since owned the building and only paid maintence. Relatively low overhead.
One of the worse problems with the way our medical care has evolved is that, to support all these extra people, he has to turn over patients at the rate of 6 an hour. And he needs those people in order to do that moving.
I wonder if medical care, at least the private physician part, might actually prove more profitable to the doctor if there was only a receptionist/assistant and the doctor. Somehow, we have evolved into this mammoth 200 different insurance billing juggernaut.

I do vaguely remember a time years ago when, if you had medical insurance, you still paid for the doctor visit up front, then sent the receipt into the insurance company yourself. If there was a problem, you were faced with resolving it yourself. I can vaguely remember calling the insurance company to check on the reimbursement.

I wonder if we have let convenience of it all being the doctor's office's responsibility to get reimbursement to create this monster system.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Annsni said:


> I'd LOVE to see doctors charge a straight $50 for a visit.


I would love to see gasoline for 10 cents a gallon too, or bread for a penny.... but that aint gonna happen anytime soon. its called inflation.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would love to see gasoline for 10 cents a gallon too, or bread for a penny.... but that aint gonna happen anytime soon. its called inflation.


A gal can wish though, can't she???????


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

blooba said:


> Millions of people supported Hitler also. Its all about how dubious the society is and how it is presented. I mean, who would want impure people in the world?


Oh yeah... 
When people disagree with you, it must be because they don't know what they're talking about, or better, because they want to _see the fall of American civilization_! :shocked:


Can't it possibly just be that some people see a different solution to the same problem?
Or, maybe, see a problem that you just haven't noticed?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Oh yeah...
> When people disagree with you, it must be because they don't know what they're talking about, or better, because they want to _see the fall of American civilization_! :shocked:
> 
> 
> ...


Was it a problem? yea our medical system does need redesigned.

Is Obamacare Constitutional? No

Was Obamacare the solution to our problem? No

Frankly the government has caused the majority of our healthcare problems so is more government gonna fix it? Nope just make it worse.

Is it the end of American Civilization? No but how many times are we gonna "re-interpret" the Constitution to fit "our" Socialist ideas? This is not what this country was founded on!!!


----------



## Mike in Ohio (Oct 29, 2002)

For an interesting read check out this weeks Time Magazine. The cover story is about health care costs and hospitals.

Mike


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 4, 2002)

There is a doctor located about 40 miles from us who does not participate in any insurance programs at all. She charges $40 for an office visit. Not exactly sure what she does if she needs to send a patient to the hospital, or if someone needs surgery. A lot of Amish families in the area use her.

I am thinking about switching to her once I get done with my surgery.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

THe US Gov't refuses to put in place caps on anything in th emedical field. We are being forced to buy into a for profit plan network due to Obamacare because B>O>flet he had to bail out the insurance industry. Good article on the crazy costs here http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ In Canada there are caps on what Dr's, Hospitals can charge under the NHS but ifyou are a privatelyinsured induvidual those caps are no longer in place.

When DH and I were boh self employed or he P?T employes we could not afford the amount we were quoted for hleath insuranceprivatly purchased so we had to go without


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

anyone remember this? we need to pass the bill to find out whats in it
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jejF2DwNbSM[/ame]


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There was an interesting article on this subject today-
> http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/2...-us/?hpt=hp_c1


This article should be required reading for every American.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/?hpt=hp_c1


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

beaglebiz said:


> anyone remember this? we need to pass the bill to find out whats in it


Every time I hear that, I think she's right. WAY too many people running around like chickens with their heads cut off proclaiming the end of the world.  
Get it passed, and let them see what's in it. 
This thread is an _excellent_ example. Look how many people don't even have a clue what they might be paying and the estimation calculators have been out there for several _YEARS_!



blooba said:


> Is Obamacare Constitutional? No


I always find this argument funny... 
People proclaim that it's unconstitutional. Yet the Supreme Court, the body charged with deciding constitutionality of legislation (charged BY the Constitution, btw) has stated that it _is_.
Ie, to think that the Supreme Court's decision on constitutionality isn't constitutional is unconstitutional! lol :happy2:


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> I always find this argument funny...
> People proclaim that it's unconstitutional. Yet the Supreme Court, the body charged with deciding constitutionality of legislation (charged BY the Constitution, btw) has stated that it _is_.
> Ie, to think that the Supreme Court's decision on constitutionality isn't constitutional is unconstitutional! lol :happy2:


The Supreme Court can declare the sky is purple but it doesnt make it right. Our government is so corrupt anymore noone knows what is constitutional anymore.

Did I miss a vote or something? Unless there is a Costitutional Admendment that I missed giving the Federal Government the power to do whatever they feel like, We've been breaking the Constitution for the past 100 years.

These powers are given to the states not the federal government. If a state (like Mass.) wants to setup something like this its all fine and dandy. If multiple states want to band together and do it its perfectly legal. But the Feds doing it is against their powers.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Yes our system is broken, no argument there! But IMHO the break is in the insurance giants, they are going to control care with the support of the government. As to the calculators they all come with disclaimers that pretty much state they are not working with complete info. It is one of those things that we will just have to see the finished product.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

If I was still playing the stock market I would buy the major health care insurance company stocks. I kinda feel like they would end up being a very good investment.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Obamacare started out on the worst possible footing. There were myriads of "cuts" to Medicare involving changes in the way Medicare was supposed to cover costs. Yet none of the savings were used to offset the rising cost of Medicare. It was funneled in the same bill to expand Medicaid.
Now Medicare and Medicaid are still on ever increasing costs so now the politicians keep making noises about cutting. Which will have to be done since Obama chose to indrease the spending without putting any teeth into the revenue side. 
And the sell was that it would reduce costs to the purchasers of health insurance, although it was very vague how this was really going to happen. And the result has been almost uniform increases in costs, with subsequent reductions in coverage for the majority of people. Another few doing well and most doing worse expensive program.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Every time I hear that, I think she's right. WAY too many people running around like chickens with their heads cut off proclaiming the end of the world.  Look how many people don't even have a clue what they might be paying and the estimation calculators have been out there for several _YEARS_!
> :


Imagine that- people who normally expect to pay their own way wanting to know what the cost will be so they can figure out how to come up with the money.
Yes- a definite humorous idea for those who don't worry about paying for what they use.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Since you seem to be the only person in the country that says they understand the whole obamacare bill, Erin, why don't you explain how it works to the rest of us. 

The first thing I don't understand is who is going to pay for your families cheap insurance? It seems to me either we will have to borrow the money from China or raise taxes or something? I just don't think we can greatly expand the whole health care system, without expanding the cost. My understanding is that insurance companies are still involved, there is no provision to add doctors or other medical personal or medical infrastructure, we can still sue any medical organization for as much as we think we should get for any treatment that doesn't meet our expectations.

It seems to me that we can only force the doctors and hospitals to lower their charges to a certain point before they simply quit. How are you going to force them to keep treating patients? Why, if this plan is so great, why are some of the largest organizations, including the congress, not going to be a part of it? 

I believe the Supreme Court said the government had the right to tax us, not that obamacare was completely legal, that that could still be determined. So how does this all work? I don't understand it, and I do have experience reading government language. 

Most of the countries that have some type of universal health care do not allow patients to sue whenever things go wrong. Some have duel systems, if you want faster, better care you buy insurance. Their doctors don't graduate from medical school hundreds of thousands of dollars in dept, and many don't have all kinds of research going on. How do we get the best of all worlds, and not spend more money?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Most of the countries that have some type of universal health care do not allow patients to sue whenever things go wrong. Some have duel systems, if you want faster, better care you buy insurance. Their doctors don't graduate from medical school hundreds of thousands of dollars in dept, and many don't have all kinds of research going on. How do we get the best of all worlds, and not spend more money?


Those countries have plenty of research going on.

They also keep costs down by first of all cutting out the percentage that the insurance companies rake in. Then because almost everyone has insurance it is not like here where the hospitals and insurance companies have to charge the people that do buy heath insurance more because they are paying for those who can not pay. It is quite simple really.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't think it is that simple. If the insurance companies are still involved, which h is my understanding, and you add several layers of government oversight isn't that going to absorb a lot of the added revenue? 

Yes there is of research going on in other countries, but I don't think it is funded like we fund it here.

I don't see how this is simple.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't think it is that simple. If the insurance companies are still involved, which h is my understanding, and you add several layers of government oversight isn't that going to absorb a lot of the added revenue?
> 
> Yes there is of research going on in other countries, but I don't think it is funded like we fund it here.
> 
> I don't see how this is simple.


You don't think it is that simple but those countries have already proven you wrong.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

painterswife said:


> You don't think it is that simple but those countries have already proven you wrong.


Research my Dear Watson.

looks like we do 5 times more research papers than the next highest country. and almost as much as the top 20 combined.

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2008/08aug20CLI/

or dollar wise (once again no where close to any other country)

United States of America &#8230;&#8230;. $100 per citizen
United Kingdom &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. $30 per citizen
Canada &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. $30 per citizen
France &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. $15 per citizen
South Korea &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; $13 per citizen
Germany &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. $11 per citizen
Japan &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. $9 per citizen
Russia &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; $2 per citizen
http://www.psoriasis-cure-now.org/m...vel-by-country-world-psoriasis-day-challenge/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> I always find this argument funny...
> People proclaim that it's unconstitutional. Yet the Supreme Court, the body charged with deciding constitutionality of legislation (charged BY the Constitution, btw) has stated that it _is_.
> Ie, to think that the Supreme Court's decision on constitutionality isn't constitutional is unconstitutional! lol :happy2:


Ok, right up front the Supreme court did not rule on the Constitutionality of Obama care.... they only ruled on the Constitutionality of one small part of the bill... that being the penalty imposed for failure to comply. If its a tax... then its Constitutional... penalty or fine would not be. They then took it upon themselves to redefine the terms "penalty" and "fine/s"... calling them a tax so it would pass muster. The bill... as written, and passed, is indeed unConstitutional for several other reasons as well.... but the court was not asked to rule on those things and indeed stretched a great stretch to weasel it passed on the issue brought before them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

blooba said:


> Research my Dear Watson.
> 
> looks like we do 5 times more research than the next highest country. and almost as much as the top 20 combined.
> 
> http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2008/08aug20CLI/


Reread my answers and you will see that I was talking about the cost of heath care and not research when I stated that.

I never said that the US does not do more research did I.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

How have other countries proved me anything? What countries have a system with insurance companies and government employees in parallel roles? And which countries have the billions of dollars involved in lawsuits as well? I don't believe the numbers of medical lawsuits or the amounts of money involved are part of any other health system? It looks to me like we are keeping the most expensive parts of the former system, then adding to them. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Molly Mckee said:


> How have other countries proved me anything? What countries have a system with insurance companies and government employees in parallel roles? And which countries have the billions of dollars involved in lawsuits as well? I don't believe the numbers of medical lawsuits or the amounts of money involved are part of any other health system? It looks to me like we are keeping the most expensive parts of the former system, then adding to them. I hope I'm wrong.


Research and Medical Malpractice costs the average insured citizen over $300/yr + the markup of all the processing markup from insurance companies. how many members are you insuring in your family?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

blooba said:


> Research my Dear Watson.
> 
> looks like we do 5 times more research papers than the next highest country. and almost as much as the top 20 combined.
> 
> ...


I see. You are using the dollar figure as a way to measure the success of the US system of heath care. Believing that throwing money at something in some way indicates superiority is the problem with the whole US medical system. It is not a correct indicator of how well this system works. The studies show that the US spends substantially more Per capita but ranks lower in regards from measures of life expectancy to child mortality rates.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I see. You are using the dollar figure as a way to measure the success of the US system of heath care. Believing that throwing money at something in some way indicates superiority is the problem with the whole US medical system. It is not a correct indicator of how well this system works. The studies show that the US spends substantially more Per capita but ranks lower in regards from measures of life expectancy to child mortality rates.


No but somebody's gotta research stuff. And we do the majority of it.

The reason for the lower measures is because the majority of Americans are fat lazy microwave meal eating hypocondriactes (sp?) that beleive a pill will cure all and they have the latest buzz word disease they seen on TV.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I see. You are using the dollar figure as a way to measure the success of the US system of heath care. Believing that throwing money at something in some way indicates superiority is the problem with the whole US medical system. It is not a correct indicator of how well this system works. The studies show that the US spends substantially more Per capita but ranks lower in regards from measures of life expectancy to child mortality rates.


Yep - Because we do all of the research that other countries don't do. They benefit from our money.

Realize that you are responding to information about research and applying it to the US system of health care. They are two different things although one supports the other. However, it is not research that supports the health care system but instead, the other way around.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

blooba said:


> No but somebody's gotta research stuff. And we do the majority of it.
> 
> The reason for the lower measures is because the majority of Americans are fat lazy microwave meal eating hypocondriactes (sp?) that beleive a pill will cure all and they have the latest buzz word disease they seen on TV.


Still using that tired yardstick. Just because the US spends more money on research does not mean they are doing more research.

Just as the US spends almost double per capita on heath care does not mean their health care results are better. It is kinda like saying, I bought these 20.00 per can tomatoes so they are better than your home grown canned tomatoes that costs you a lot less.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Still using that tired yardstick. Just because the US spends more money on research does not mean they are doing more research.
> 
> Just as the US spends almost double per capita on heath care does not mean their health care results are better.


Why do you think not only did I list dollars spent but also research papers written. Actually per dollar spent we get more research done by the looks of the numbers...

I would have copied the research paper chart but it didnt come out right so check out the top link in my post above


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Imagine that- people who normally expect to pay their own way wanting to know what the cost will be so they can figure out how to come up with the money.
> Yes- a definite humorous idea for those who don't worry about paying for what they use.


But that's the point: The costs were available WELL BEFORE it ever went to vote! :smack:
However, people were (and still are!) running around in a dither because they can't be bothered to get some information!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I have health insurance (have had for over 30 years) through employment. As a family (DH and I) pay over $4500 per year in health insurance premiums, I want to know how much I'll be paying in additional taxes for national heath care? I don't mind subsidizing some of cost but I'd like to at least have an idea of the amount. 

Is there a chart or calculator for that?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> I looked for insurance that gave me the choice.


Lucky you. And I hope you realize that a lot of it IS luck. 
You also live in a wealthy, and fairly socialized state and are obviously benefiting from it.



> Having benefits is not a "class."


Actually, I was using the word "class" in the sense of the fifth grade class. Just a group. However, it IS a class in that sense, too. 

For example, the vast majority of people in production agriculture do not have health insurance available through their employer (and/or are self-employed).
We're talking about the people who FEED everyone else... Construction is another occupation where benefits are a rare treat.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have health insurance (have had for over 30 years) through employment. As a family (DH and I) pay over $4500 per year in health insurance premiums, I want to know how much I'll be paying in additional taxes for national heath care? I don't mind subsidizing some of cost but I'd like to at least have an idea of the amount.
> 
> Is there a chart or calculator for that?


Yep. 
Google is your friend.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Yep.
> Google is your friend.


Sorry. I assumed with your knowledge of the National Health Care bill you wouldn't mind pointing out where I could find a comprehensive chart or calculator, I can't seem to find one. My bad.

No worries I'll be forced to pay it anyway, right?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

retired and toddler don't mix... in fact, toddler and "working my tail off" sometimes don't even mix...

For all of you so upset with "the system" (health insurance)... why don't you just elect to "not play"?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> No worries I'll be forced to pay it anyway, right?


As will I. 
And nope, I don't worry. There are two certainties in life: Death and taxes. 
It's just one of the responsibilities of living in a civilization. 


To the costs, keep looking. I don't have a link handy because it's not something I've bothered to bookmark. But, I can say it's part of almost everything you read about the HC bill. 
If you genuinely care, you'll find your own information and you'll appreciate it that much more than someone else spoonfeeding it to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

> As will I.
> And nope, I don't worry. There are two certainties in life: Death and taxes.
> It's just one of the responsibilities of living in a civilization.


It's just a bother to get an education, work hard, save, make the correct life choices and then be penalized for your work ethic.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry. I assumed with your knowledge of the National Health Care bill you wouldn't mind pointing out where I could find a comprehensive chart or calculator, I can't seem to find one. My bad.
> 
> No worries I'll be forced to pay it anyway, right?


It all depends on how much money you make based on the Federal Poverty Level that will determine how much your monthly premiums will go up.










Consider, for example, a 25-year-old person with income at 300 percent of FPL, or $33,510. This person currently could purchase coverage for about $2,400 per year, or 7.2 percent of his or her income, this person at 300 percent FPL will be required to pay 9.5 percent of his or her income, or $3,183, toward the cost of coverage.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Thank you, blooba. I found it easier to follow the chart by going to the Forbes site and reading the article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...ocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Erin, where did you find all this information about obamacare, when the bill was changing as it was being printed? The Speaker of the House didn't know what was in all 2400 pages before it was finalized.
The decision not to buy health insurance was yours and your husbands. There are group health policies available to ag workers. Everyone pays for their own health insurance, it seems cheaper when the employer buys it, but the money is money that isn't paid to employees. The argument about the way ag workers are paid is another discussion.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> It's just a bother to get an education, work hard, save, make the correct life choices and then be penalized for your work ethic.


"Penalized." How odd... 
I was raised that if you have all the above, you should praise the Lord for your good blessings. 
In fact, _every_ tax season my dad (an attorney, so he paid a smidge in taxes! lol) has always said "Thank God I pay taxes, because the alternative isn't pretty..."

Maybe be more positive and you might be happier!

ETA: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but blooba isn't talking about what you were asking about:


> I want to know how much I'll be paying in additional taxes





> The decision not to buy health insurance was yours and your husbands.


What are you talking about?  
Except for two years when we had employer-sponsored, we've _always_ had our own health insurance. (Which, of course, is why I know that group insurance is _nothing_ like self-pay)

And every incarnation of that bill was available online for anyone to read, up to and after printing. That's why there were hundreds (thousands?) of discussion and write-ups and opEds, etc, etc on it...


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The simple fact is that it is going to happen and since Americans continue to elect the same representatives over and over, most likely nothing will change in the near future. 

As homesteaders we are in a unique position in that we are willing to be prepared. Maybe our discussion would be more productive if we focused on ideas in that regard...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

> Maybe be more positive and you might be happier!


Why is it acceptable to imply that someone is miserable because they don't agree with an opinion? I see this over and over on HT. Just curious.


----------



## kendall j (Mar 30, 2007)

If insurance wasn't being used in a manner that it was never intended for, we wouldn't have the problems we have. Why should we have insurance for anything other than emergency or long term care? It is obvious those things are going to be costly but not extremely likely to happen. 

For routine care insurance is ridiculous. What it has done has set up a system where people have no clue how much medical care actually costs and doctors can hide behind insurance companies and charge whatever they feel like charging. Just look at the cost of things when you don't have insurance vs when the provider runs it through insurance. They overcharge for services when you have insurance plain and simple. My family doctor does not take insurance. I am charged $50 per visit. Amazingly that is around the same amount as my copay was when I was being overcharged by other doctors when I had insurance. So please, tell me how we are better off having insurance for routine care.

If the government really wants to fix the issue, make the doctors advertise their prices up front like everyone else does in a free market system. Completely eliminate the need for insurance for routine care and you will see a major drop in the amount of emergency care abuses for things like hangnails and sniffles. Once you reduce those emergency costs (everyone's cost should go down because indigent care costs for emergency services shouldn't be getting passed on to everyone at as high a rate) people might actually be able to find affordable policies for things like long term and emergency care provided they are responsible enough to purchase them at a younger age when they can be locked into a lower rate.

But the government won't do that. No, they will claim they are "trying to help" when their endgame is really to screw things up so bad that we are dependent on them for yet another aspect of our lives. You know, having control over people and telling them what to do is really what they want. I've come to realize that politicians must really be a bunch of insecure losers who have to control people so they can feel good about themselves.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

It has nothing to do with the opinion. It has everything to do your response to the situation. 

Taxes, something that has been around since the dawn of time and will always be here--
I have learned that paying taxes is a blessing I should be thankful for! Obviously my blessings are abundant, and as such I'm need to render unto Caesar.
You think it's something to complain about. A "penalty" for getting an education and working hard.

Two responses to the same issue. One positive, the other negative.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Let's watch the personal attacks/statements, some are getting close to the line that should not be crossed~


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well Erin there is a limit to how much taxes people are willing to pay. Would you happily pay 80% or 90%? Some people might, but I sure wouldn't. Everyone has an amount that they feel is fair, you can't disparge people with not agreeing with paying higher taxes...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Of course. 
But, when you consider the fact that we're at one of the LOWEST tax rates in American history, I'm failing to see where it's a valid complaint. :shrug:
BTW, if you'll double check, you'll see I wasn't disparaging anyone. Merely pointing out that it's a _decision_ whether to see things positively or negatively.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Melissa said:


> The simple fact is that it is going to happen and since Americans continue to elect the same representatives over and over, most likely nothing will change in the near future.
> 
> As homesteaders we are in a unique position in that we are willing to be prepared. Maybe our discussion would be more productive if we focused on ideas in that regard...


 Exactly Melissa. I was against this bill and still am but it seems extremely counter productive to keep gnashing teeth over what has happened. We have another 4 years at least of this administration, the Supreme Court is being stacked with members who are more likely to support this thing, and frankly the opponents of this bill are mostly focusing on incorrect red herrings.

I applaud those who feel so strongly about this they make a personal decision to just pay the fine as their way of protesting. It makes little sense to me from a purely financial standpoint but at least they are standing by their convictions. However the vast majority who just want to complain, take no effort to even find out the basics of this bill and who keep spewing out misinformation to scare folks are just demonstrating why the opponents of this bill lost the battle in the first place.

Parts of the bill have already implemented and the main components start next year so as homesteaders who supposedly like to be prepared for things there sure are a lot of people who are taking no effort to find out how to deal with this.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

ErinP said:


> It has nothing to do with the opinion. It has everything to do your response to the situation.
> 
> Taxes, something that has been around since the dawn of time and will always be here--
> I have learned that paying taxes is a blessing I should be thankful for! Obviously my blessings are abundant, and as such I'm need to render unto Caesar.
> ...


I'm around 15 years from retirement so I'd rather have enough saved to be able to afford to eat better than "Meow Mix." Higher taxes can impinge on the enjoyment of my golden years- maybe I'll be less miserable when I'm taxed less after retirement. :happy2:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> Exactly Melissa. I was against this bill and still am but it seems extremely counter productive to keep gnashing teeth over what has happened. We have another 4 years at least of this administration, the Supreme Court is being stacked with members who are more likely to support this thing, and frankly the opponents of this bill are mostly focusing on incorrect red herrings.
> 
> I applaud those who feel so strongly about this they make a personal decision to just pay the fine as their way of protesting. It makes little sense to me from a purely financial standpoint but at least they are standing by their convictions. However the vast majority who just want to complain, take no effort to even find out the basics of this bill and who keep spewing out misinformation to scare folks are just demonstrating why the opponents of this bill lost the battle in the first place.
> 
> Parts of the bill have already implemented and the main components start next year so as homesteaders who supposedly like to be prepared for things there sure are a lot of people who are taking no effort to find out how to deal with this.


I think it's less gnashing of teeth than it is resignation and simply wanting to know "how much more?" At least that's how I feel...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think it's less gnashing of teeth than it is resignation and simply wanting to know "how much more?" At least that's how I feel...


 Fair enough. I just think people ought to be doing some serious research because this train in coming down the tracks at a fast clip and it seems lots of folks are still in denial.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> Fair enough. I just think people ought to be doing some serious research because this train in coming down the tracks at a fast clip and it seems lots of folks are still in denial.


I agree, but (there's always a but isn't there?) I can research now and find that yes my taxes/fees are going to go up xx% because of national health care. In a week or 2 or 26 there will be a "but (because there's always a but) we didn't include xyz in the formula so it will a xx.5% increase"... and so on and so forth. And before you know it I'm eating Meow Mix in my golden years (OK I'm being facetious, maybe) At least that's been my experience with a smidge over a half century on the planet, ymmv. 

Sooo when one is facing retirement the urgent question is always going to be (unless you are a multimillionaire) how much is it going to cost me?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, but (there's always a but isn't there?) I can research now and find that yes my taxes/fees are going to go up xx% because of national health care. In a week or 2 or 26 there will be a "but (because there's always a but) we didn't include xyz in the formula so it will a xx.5% increase"... and so on and so forth. And before you know it I'm eating Meow Mix in my golden years (OK I'm being facetious, maybe) At least that's been my experience with a smidge over a half century on the planet, ymmv.
> 
> Sooo when one is facing retirement the urgent question is always going to be (unless you are a multimillionaire) how much is it going to cost me?


 Unfortunately, this bill is not national health care and as you mostly point out its an unknown cobbled together mess. I am already retired and the bill will be mostly meaningless to me personally but not for some family members so I try to figure out how its going to impact them and find the best way to adapt and take advantage of some of the provisions.

No doubt about it to me, prices are not going to go down.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm just glad there's finally a national awareness about this! 
For too many decades people with their nice little employer-sponsored health care haven't had to pay attention to the rest of the country that isn't so fortunate. Their health care is mostly fine (which, of course, is why they're the ones who are howling the loudest from what I can tell  )

But now people are starting to pay attention to things like the actual cost of health care. The article in Time is a good example. If it weren't for Obamacare, most people wouldn't care about costs because it didn't really affect them once they hit their deductibles. 
But if their taxes might go up, or their own coverage, well then we'd better do something to get costs under control! 
Meanwhile, the under/un-insured have been begging to do just that for the better part of 20 years!!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Sigh. I'm not complaining (at least not howling loudly) about paying (I've paid for my health care and NYS subsidized health care for over 30 years) I just want to know how much. Is wanting to know the cost of something so horrible? 

My family and I have had wonderful health care insurance (dental and eye too!) since 1981- it wasn't an accident and it wasn't cheap, it was totally by design. We aren't millionaires, didn't come from wealthy families, it was simply a priority to us to get jobs that included good benefits.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. I'm not complaining (at least not howling loudly) about paying (I've paid for my health care and NYS subsidized health care for over 30 years) I just want to know how much. Is wanting to know the cost of something so horrible?
> 
> My family and I have had wonderful health care insurance (dental and eye too!) since 1981- it wasn't an accident and it wasn't cheap, it was totally by design. We aren't millionaires, didn't come from wealthy families, it was simply a priority to us to get jobs that included good benefits.


How much? Health insurance has been going up every year. You never know how much it will be going up now. What will make it different in the future?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Of course.
> But, when you consider the fact that we're at one of the LOWEST tax rates in American history, I'm failing to see where it's a valid complaint. :shrug:


Its actually the largest Tax disparity in History
The poor are collecting more money than ever and the *TAXPAYERS* are paying for it.

Average Individual Income Tax Rate
Lowest Income---->Highest income
1979 0.0 4.0 7.4 10.1 15.9
1980 0.2 4.4 7.9 10.7 16.7 
1981 0.5 4.7 8.2 11.1 16.8 
1982 0.5 4.1 7.4 10.0 15.4 
1983 0.4 3.7 6.6 9.1 14.2 
1984 0.7 3.9 6.5 8.9 14.0 
1985 0.6 3.9 6.6 8.8 14.1 
1986 0.5 3.9 6.5 8.8 14.2 
1987 -0.4 3.1 5.8 8.1 14.9 
1988 -0.9 3.0 5.9 8.3 14.9 
1989 -1.3 2.9 5.9 8.3 14.7 
1990 -0.7 3.3 5.9 8.3 14.5 
1991 -1.2 2.8 5.7 8.1 14.4 
1992 -1.6 2.4 5.4 7.9 14.5 
1993 -1.7 2.2 5.3 7.8 15.0 
1994 -3.2 1.9 5.2 7.7 15.1 
1995 -3.6 2.0 5.2 7.8 15.6 
1996 -4.2 1.9 5.2 7.8 16.2 
1997 -4.2 2.0 5.4 8.0 16.5 
1998 -4.6 1.6 4.9 7.9 16.6 
1999 -4.5 1.7 4.9 8.0 17.2 
2000 -4.0 1.5 4.9 8.1 17.6 
2001 -4.9 0.5 3.8 7.0 16.4 
2002 -5.2 0.1 3.5 6.6 15.6 
2003 -5.4 -0.7 2.7 5.8 13.8 
2004 -5.4 -0.5 2.8 5.8 14.0 
2005 -5.7 -0.5 2.8 5.8 14.2 
2006 -5.7 -0.4 2.9 5.9 14.2 
2007 -5.8 -0.1 3.1 6.1 14.4 
2008 -9.1 -2.5 1.2 4.7 14.0 
2009 -9.3 -2.6 1.3 4.6 13.4

And it keeps growing!!!!!

The only reason tax rates are so low is because we are borrowing from China.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> How much? Health insurance has been going up every year. You never know how much it will be going up now. What will make it different in the future?


"National Health Care" will increase what I pay either through increased cost of premium, increased taxes or both. Our employment based policy (it has tens of thousands of holders) hasn't varied more than a few dollars a year until three years ago when it increased $15 year. We were warned it would go up at least 6 months prior to the increase and knew exactly how much. So, I have known when the price will go up. I realize that this is not the way for everyone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> "National Health Care" will increase what I pay either through increased cost of premium, increased taxes or both. Our employment based policy (it has tens of thousands of holders) hasn't varied more than a few dollars a year until three years ago when it increased $15 year. We were warned it would go up at least 6 months prior to the increase and knew exactly how much. So, I have known when the price will go up. I realize that this is not the way for everyone.



I pay the bills for the company I work for. Health Insurance has gone up 20-40 percent a year every year for the last 10 years. We never know how much until a few months before the anniversary date. Now we know there will be a limit to how much that will be able to be raised every year.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Well I'm self employed and in 2010 I paid at a rate of 29.8%, 2011 28.4% I'm waiting to see what I pay this year. I do know I won't owe quite so much because I had a dependent in College....

Oh and DH & Mine combined AGI has never been over $50,000......



blooba said:


> Its actually the largest Tax disparity in History
> The poor are collecting more money than ever and the *TAXPAYERS* are paying for it.
> 
> Average Individual Income Tax Rate
> ...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

HOTW said:


> Well I'm self employed and in 2010 I paid at a rate of 29.8%, 2011 28.4% I'm waiting to see what I pay this year. I do know I won't owe quite so much because I had a dependent in College....
> 
> Oh and DH & Mine combined AGI has never been over $50,000......


The rates posted are effective Income Taxes, does not include FICA taxes. And it is averages splitting the population into fifths so some will pay more (like me) some will pay less.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

blooba said:


> Its actually the largest Tax disparity in History


Perhaps. But even still, even the highest tax rates are still lower than at almost any other point in American history. 
EVER.
That was my point.
Your table supports that. :shrug:



HOTW said:


> Well I'm self employed and in 2010 I paid at a rate of 29.8%, 2011 28.4% I'm waiting to see what I pay this year. I do know I won't owe quite so much because I had a dependent in College....
> 
> Oh and DH & Mine combined AGI has never been over $50,000......


Then you need a better accountant, because something is *VERY* wrong here...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Perhaps. But even still, even the highest tax rates are still lower than at almost any other point in American history.
> EVER.
> That was my point.
> Your table supports that. :shrug:
> ...


BUT...We all know the debt collector is coming, unlike what BO says, it's not a revenue problem, its a spending problem!!!!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> But that's the point: The costs were available WELL BEFORE it ever went to vote! :smack:
> However, people were (and still are!) running around in a dither because they can't be bothered to get some information!


Nonsense. Did anyone expect that premiums would go up so much for so many people simply because Obamacare was passed? Does anyone know what the cost will be for the insurances carried in the various Obamacare insurance exchanges in 2014? 
No- I imagine that the insurance companies themselves have not determined it yet. 

You throw assumptions around and call them facts. And then attach those silly "slapping head" icons as if that simply makes a statement true. 
The insurance I have has nothing to do with the state in which I live. The same policies are available nationally. 
However the amount of taxes I pay of course are one of the highest in the nation which is the only "benefit" that I get for living in a socialized state.

And of course anyone who knows any history knows that your allegation of having the lowest taxes now is unbelievably unreal. There were times when there were no income taxes at all. 

The truth with taxes is that the sum total has become burdensome. It's just that a lot of them are not called income taxes lately. The sales tax percentage in my state has almost doubled in the last 15 years. There are fees stuck on untility bills. There are special bonds all over my property tax bill than didn't exist 15 years ago. There are city and county percentages added to the State sales tax. I even pay a "fee" to the state for simply living outside of an incorporated area- that was last years joyful addition.

And again- luck has little to do with my ability to change insurance when I needed to. It's not called luck for those that work for a benefit. It's called work. Seems to be a confusing concept for you - work versus luck.


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

blooba said:


> The only reason tax rates are so low is because we are borrowing from China.


Say it aint so...you must have heard of bretton woods, and how /why your dollar is now a petro dollar.....tax rates can be low, spending through the roof and going higher like a nonsensical pyramid schieme that no country can match....really, take a look at the unparralled advantage The Bretton woods agreement first gave your country, and how the conversion to a petro dollar accelerated the nutty spending parade, without the consequences that would have been suffered by any other nation that over spent so much, for so long....When I said without consequences I mean without ones so far..... the next decade or two should be interesting...

And even with Bretton woods at least with the dollar tied to gold, supper nutty type spending was somewhat hobbled, but not now, I think it was tricky Dicky who took the brakes off, and things have been gathering momentum sense...just in a exponential way now.
True by itself a petro dollar alone doesnt cause the massive spending but it allows it, allows it by each of your parties, so you can be pitted one against the other to argue about it while behind curtain 2, whatever corporate sponsored sock puppet party holds office , spends freely at will...while claiming it wont or hasnt, or will stop, the band plays on....


----------



## justin_time (Dec 2, 2012)

jfsty;kaghh


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

blooba said:


> The rates posted are effective Income Taxes, does not include FICA taxes. And it is averages splitting the population into fifths so some will pay more (like me) some will pay less.


But if you halve my FICA I pay then I still pay more than the rates posted and our gross income does not come near the $100,000 mark. Sadly I have done my taxes several ways and as soon as you file a schedule C your tax rate goes up. One year I made up our taxes as MFS(worst case) MFT (second worse), MFT and entered myincome asif I was working for someone else(bestof the US lot) and MFT on a Canadian tax form(best of them all!) It was a very sobering look at taxes.....


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Then you need a better accountant, because something is *VERY* wrong here...


I do our taxes whenever I have hired CPA's to do them I have found mistakes that were worse....


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Nonsense....


Look, the information has been available for years. Seriously. 
YEARS. 
Will things go up? Probably. Things _always_ go up. But the estimations are available and have been, for every incarnation of the bills, prior to and following passage. 
My frustration is when people, tells us this is too complicated, but they can't even be bothered to investigate it, and then try to tell us it's not out there. 

Yes, it is. 
There were no secrets, just people who are too lazy to seek information. 



HOTW said:


> I do our taxes...


In that case, you need to be on the hunt for some serious mistakes. You're missing something if your effective tax rate is _more than double_ the rate for the highest tax bracket! :shocked:
In the _highest_ bracket, nominal rate is something like 35%, if you're netting over $400K, but no one actually _pays_ that once deductions and such are taken out. 



where I want to said:


> The sales tax percentage in my state has almost doubled in the last 15 years.



What does that have to do with health care? Property taxes are high in some areas too. But that isn't relevant either...
Health care will be connected to income and payroll taxes.



where I want to said:


> And of course anyone who knows any history knows that your allegation of having the lowest taxes now is unbelievably unreal. There were times when there were no income taxes at all.


Of course. There were also times when we didn't have interstate travel, global commerce or telecommunications. 
But income taxes have been around in some form since the Civil War, and have been part of the Constitution for a century. To the issue of how high or low they are, again the information is readily available. 
We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in 100 years!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> as soon as you file a schedule C your tax rate goes up


No it doesn't. 
Your tax rate is the same as everyone else's (I've filed a Schedule C for over 10 years). You have to pay both halves of _payroll_ taxes because you are both employer and employee (FICA, ie SS/Medicaid), but that's not income tax...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

justin_time said:


> I hear crickets.........maybe furryous googling going on, For clarity I did diss both your right, and left political parties equally regarding spending and what their spending practices will be regardless of what they say. The train is in motion, and wont/cant stop until it goes of the tracks so to speak, com on guys back at,.... its to quiet, ....I feel like I have steped on a kitten....


 Must get discouraging hollering from a place most Americans dont even know the capital of and think is just Great Britain with dentists (its just a sad but true fact). 

Bretton Woods was a convention of WWII so your reaching a bit far back for your nostalgia but your right about Nixon terminating the gold standard. Unfortunately, you can cry all you want about how bad things are in this country but things are not nearly as dire as the propaganda you seem to fall prey to and I think your seeming declaration of imminent collapse is a bit premature. 

We are happy to let you Canadians be secure in your superior ways and we will just keep on with our terrible system thank you. I have lived long enough to have heard the same dire predictions and doom and gloom before and we always manage to persevere. Americans like to complain and you could give each one of us a bag of gold and reduce tax rates to 2% across the board and you would still have people proclaiming it was unconstitutional, a terrible injustice, and the bag of gold should have been platinum.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Of course. There were also times when we didn't have interstate travel, global commerce or telecommunications.
> But income taxes have been around in some form since the Civil War, and have been part of the Constitution for a century. To the issue of how high or low they are, again the information is readily available.
> We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in 100 years!


Umm... 1913 (exactly 100 years ago)
Effective Tax Rates of 1%-7% (the first year of permanent income taxes)

So I guess the bottom tiers are paying 10% less taxes vs then, but the rest of us are paying WAY more


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Uh huh. 
Keep reading. 

Here's an easy run down: http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx









Here's another that shows nominal tax rates for all the brackets, not just the highest: http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Uh huh.
> And what was it by, say, 1920 or so?


Here, figure it out yourself.

Type in your income and look at your taxes over the years.

http://qz.com/37639/check-your-us-tax-rate-for-2012-and-every-year-since-1913/


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

blooba said:


> Here, figure it out yourself.
> 
> Type in your income and look at your taxes over the years.
> 
> http://qz.com/37639/check-your-us-tax-rate-for-2012-and-every-year-since-1913/


 Interesting graph, my adjusted income after deductions (which is how the graph is supposed to be done) shows I am in the 17.2 % tax bracket which is lower than at any point since 1940 and that seems consistent until you reach 200K in adjusted taxable income. Am I missing something in your argument?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Interesting graph, my adjusted income after deductions (which is how the graph is supposed to be done) shows I am in the 17.2 % tax bracket which is lower than at any point since 1940 and that seems consistent until you reach 200K in adjusted taxable income. Am I missing something in your argument?


Think its a coincidence we never had a single 5 year stretch since then that we brought in more than we spent?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now with the hike in Corporate Tax rate Americans IS the Highest in the World to tax the bejeppers out of companies.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

blooba said:


> Think its a coincidence we never had a single 5 year stretch since then that we spent more than we brought in?


 Well, that is indeed an interesting graph but didnt you mean we have never had a 5 year stretch since 1940 where we brought in more than we spent? Because that is what that graph shows and I agree with that; we spend more than we bring in. I am personally in favor of a flat tax and there is plenty of fat to be cut from federal spending; if thats what you mean I just misunderstood and actually agree with that point.

Good link by the way, davemanuel.com; some interesting stuff there.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Well, that is indeed an interesting graph but didnt you mean we have never had a 5 year stretch since 1940 where we brought in more than we spent? Because that is what that graph shows and I agree with that; we spend more than we bring in. I am personally in favor of a flat tax and there is plenty of fat to be cut from federal spending; if thats what you mean I just misunderstood and actually agree with that point.
> 
> Good link by the way, davemanuel.com; some interesting stuff there.


sry, edited post....lol


----------



## vixcottage (Feb 12, 2013)

Elizabeth said:


> I just have to ask-
> 
> How in the world does anyone afford health care anymore?
> 
> ...


Well if you are not eligible for Medicare then you are going to have a difficult time. I wanted to retire but due to health care was not possible. I decided to work part-time. I work 20 hours week and am eligible for health insurance for a small rate. I also receive other benefits. I have heard many people say no to health insurance-they have MUCH more discretionary income but are definitely gambling. There are choices and priorities in everyday life and I choose to work outside the home in order to obtain that level of security. Due to the upcoming health care laws several companies are looking at affordable options and offering the bare minimum allowable by law. Hopefully that will be some help to you.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

blooba said:


> Here, figure it out yourself.
> 
> Type in your income and look at your taxes over the years.
> 
> http://qz.com/37639/check-your-us-tax-rate-for-2012-and-every-year-since-1913/


Um yeah. That is my point _exactly_.
We're at one of the lowest rates since income taxes have existed. (DH's and mine would have been lower in 1940, but that was a few years before my time...As well as my parents' for that matter. Shoot, my _grandparents_ were barely part of the workforce at that point. lol)

I think I'm confused though. You posted this to prove MY point?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> "Penalized." How odd...
> I was raised that if you have all the above, you should praise the Lord for your good blessings.
> In fact, _every_ tax season my dad (an attorney, so he paid a smidge in taxes! lol) has always said "Thank God I pay taxes, because the alternative isn't pretty..."
> 
> ...


According to your philosophy, if a thief comes and steals all you have, you should be grateful that you had it to be stolen. If you get up every day to work hard as a slave, you should be grateful that you can work. If the Nazis posted a notice for you to report for deportation to a work camp, you should be grateful you can read. That you should never deem yourself worthy to apply judgement to any situation- just be grateful for those who wish to do you harm.

This is the philosophy of a true "Dr. Pangloss." I never thought to actually meet one. I thought it would be impossible for someone not seriously sedated to not notice the conflicts.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Um yeah. That is my point _exactly_.
> We're at one of the lowest rates since income taxes have existed. (DH's and mine would have been lower in 1940, but that was a few years before my time...As well as my parents' for that matter. Shoot, my _grandparents_ were barely part of the workforce at that point. lol)
> 
> I think I'm confused though. You posted this to prove MY point?


Well since apparently you want to argue about it, it proved your point wrong, it is NOT the lowest in 100 years, its been around the same for the past 70 years though.

The problem with your theory of "taxes" being the same your completely wrong though.Taxes come in many forms. We are paying more TAXES than ever before and now they are about to tack on a healthcare tax. What's next an air tax for every breathe you take?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

blooba said:


> Well since apparently you want to argue about it, it proved your point wrong, it is NOT the lowest in 100 years, its been around the same for the past 70 years though.
> 
> The problem with your theory of "taxes" being the same your completely wrong though.Taxes come in many forms. We are paying more TAXES than ever before and now they are about to tack on a healthcare tax. What's next an air tax for every breathe you take?


Sure is a lot higher now. But when people forget that years ago many more deductions were allowed when the so called tax rate itself was mathematically higher, so were many deductions so in the end you paid LESS then what is going on today. Many deductions back then offset the what some call higher tax rates but as the tax code changed that all should be added in there also.
So with many tax deductions gone it leaves the taxes people pay higher now then then. And in some cases MUCH HIGHER.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

blooba, I don't think you're reading your site correctly.  



> According to your philosophy, if a thief comes and steals all you have, you should be grateful that you had it to be stolen.


Maybe you're not a believer, but I am. 
Christ said render unto Caesar, and was speaking of _taxes_. Interestingly, He didn't refer to Caesar as a thief, or suggest that people should NOT pay taxes in order to avoid being robbed... 
Part of the blessing of living in a civilized society is that we all need to pitch in a bit to keep it that way.

Nobody LIKES paying taxes, but my dad's right; it sure beats the alternative!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I just need to be become more optimistic in my outlook. That will make the prospect of paying $12K in income taxes, $7500 in property/school taxes, plus $4500 in health insurance premiums plus myriad other fees and taxes look so much better. Wait! I have more health care taxes to pay (don't know how much) to look forward to in the coming years. Yay! 

I hope they make Meow Mix in flavors other than seafood.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> That will make the prospect of paying $12K in income taxes, $7500 in property/school taxes, plus $4500 in health insurance premiums plus myriad other fees and taxes look so much better.


_Precisely_. 
There are a lot of people in this country who _wish_ they were making enough money to be paying $12K worth of income tax. Shoot, there are people in this economy who sincerely wish they were just making enough for their tax burden to over-balance their deductions!

Property taxes means you're fortunate enough to own property (in a state where property is quite valuable). 
$4500 in health insurance...well, that's less than _we_ pay... 

That's my point exactly. You're _blessed_. 
Taxes are just irritating proof of it.


----------



## Liberty'sGirl (Jul 7, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The problem with making a living in this country by teaching piano, or selling firewood etc. isn't so much that we can't do it, it is that we wont curb our lifestyles to the level that those activities will support. We all seem to think we need all of the luxuries that everyone else has. Automobiles, cell phones, computers, central air conditioning, homes the size of warehouses.... the list goes on and on of things we seem to think are "necessities" today that didn't even exist 150 years ago. No one is content with the lifestyle of our ancestors who were capable of making their livings cutting firewood or repairing buggy wheels these days.


1. It's not a matter of contentment, it's a matter of being highly impractical. The thought that on $10, 000 would work is highly impractical, although a nice dream and not much above poverty level. 

2. Costs of living vary greatly from state to state one state's $10, 000 cost of living that works may barely be 1/4 year in another. 

3.Several of those items mentioned above are needed to get and keep employment for most...other than the huge homes and central air.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't think most people mind paying "reasonable taxes", but almost everyone hates to see our money wasted, by people who are totally out of touch with reality in DC, in our state capitols and our large cities. The news people who "report" the "news" from the coasts have no sense of reality either, they make millions to be "talking heads", leaving those of us in "fly over" country wondering what is going to happen when the bills become due and the printing presses breakdown.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> I just need to be become more optimistic in my outlook. That will make the prospect of paying $12K in income taxes, $7500 in property/school taxes, plus $4500 in health insurance premiums plus myriad other fees and taxes look so much better. Wait! I have more health care taxes to pay (don't know how much) to look forward to in the coming years. Yay!
> 
> I hope they make Meow Mix in flavors other than seafood.


$7500 in property taxes? I would seriously move... that is crazy.

You know last year we made a little over $50K which is the most we have ever made. We paid about $3000 in federal taxes, which I actually did not think was too bad. We only had Brady as a dependent, the girls are all on their own. We probably will not make that much this year so we will owe even less.

Our property taxes are about $1000a year (this covers our schools, 911 levy, fire department levy, township road levy, community center levy, and senior citizen levy- we voted yes for all of these levies) and I think we paid about $500 in state taxes. Our license plates are about $50 for the trucks and $30 for cars. We have no local or school tax. We did pay some sales tax, but we don't really buy much. I probably spend less than a hundred a month on taxable purchases, so add in another $100-150 in sales tax for the year at the most. 

So our total taxes were a little less than 10% of our income. Considering everything it pays for, I don't think that is too bad...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Region does have a lot to do with it. At our previous place we paid just under 4K for property taxes on a tiny house on 1/5th of an acre (no view either) while we pay now slightly under $400 a year for our whole farm that has 2 residences, barns, shops, greenhouses etc. 

No doubt about ti though taxes and fees are getting out of control and the newest estimate is that the Health Care bill will add 6.2 Trillion (over time) to the budget deficit, and no one has a clue how to pay for it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The problem with making a living in this country by teaching piano, or selling firewood etc. isn't so much that we can't do it, it is that we wont curb our lifestyles to the level that those activities will support.


Speak for yourself, eh? I dropped out of the rat race in 2003, and don't miss it.

You're right that most people don't see things our way, though. Funny story: tonight I was in a Home Depot store, contemplating buying some paint. A young clerk bustled up and asked if I needed assistance (I didn't). He then told me about the store's special promotional offer of the day, that being free in-home kitchen design consultations. 

I chuckled and said, "My kitchen would make a designer cry." 

He said something along the lines of, "Why? What's your house like?"

I said, "It's a 50-year-old trailer."

He said, "Oh. Never mind, then," and turned on his heel and walked away. 

ound: ound: ound:

Ironically, I'm actually planning to re-do our kitchen this year ... but I won't be using any big-box-store cabinetry (with its paper-thin veneers and staple fasteners!) anyway, so he was correct to sense he didn't have a potential customer on the hook.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Melissa said:


> $7500 in property taxes? I would seriously move... that is crazy.
> 
> You know last year we made a little over $50K which is the most we have ever made. We paid about $3000 in federal taxes, which I actually did not think was too bad. We only had Brady as a dependent, the girls are all on their own. We probably will not make that much this year so we will owe even less.
> 
> ...


That's for 115 acres of land with a newish log cabin and large barn it's actually on the low side because I grieve the assessment as often as necessary. I co-own the family dairy farm (383 acres) in another county and the total taxes on that are less than $3K- so it depends on where you live in NY. There are actually decent paying jobs in the county where I live, the county where the farm is not so much. 

That's just what we paid in Federal income taxes NYS was another $4K but we have no dependents so the real estate taxes are a deduction or we'd be paying even more. Our vehicle registrations are less than yours but we do have 8% sales tax.

I should already be ecstatic about paying my taxes (according to some) and now I'll have the unmitigated joy of paying more- so we're back to what flavor Meow Mix I'll be eating in my golden years.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That will make the prospect of paying $12K in income taxes, $7500 in property/school taxes, plus $4500 in health insurance premiums plus myriad other fees and taxes look so much better.


You're paying more in taxes than I earned last year working full-time and then some.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> You're paying more in taxes than I earned last year working full-time and then some.


We didn't drop out of the rat race in 2003 and I'm definitely not a "fly by the seat of my pants" kinda gal.  

This year's income taxes were higher than normal because we thinned timber (bug zapped ash it was do it or lose it) off both properties- unearned income sucks at tax time. In retrospect that will never happen in the same year again.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's for 115 acres of land with a newish log cabin and large barn it's actually on the low side because I grieve the assessment as often as necessary. I co-own the family dairy farm (383 acres) in another county and the total taxes on that are less than $3K- so it depends on where you live in NY. There are actually decent paying jobs in the county where I live, the county where the farm is not so much.
> 
> That's just what we paid in Federal income taxes NYS was another $4K but we have no dependents so the real estate taxes are a deduction or we'd be paying even more. Our vehicle registrations are less than yours but we do have 8% sales tax.
> 
> I should already be ecstatic about paying my taxes (according to some) and now I'll have the unmitigated joy of paying more- so we're back to what flavor Meow Mix I'll be eating in my golden years.


Well you have obviously attained quite a bit of wealth in your life and have quite a large income in order to pay that much in taxes.

I know people who have reconsidered their lifestyle in order to pay less. When I was a tax-preparer I went over the numbers with many people and they often found that downsizing made more sense financially and they were much happier.

Hope you find a solution that works for you in the long run. However with those assets I think you will find that you won't have to eat cat food in your retirement...


----------



## Bob Huntress (Dec 17, 2012)

Originally people paid for their medical care, doctors made house calls and a doctors visit would cost $10. Now people buy insurance to pay the cost of medical care and merely pay a co-pay when they see the doctor etc, of around $10 a doctors visit. We call this "Progress", for reasons that escape me. The only reason we can afford medical insurance, and the co-pay that would equal the entire cost if it weren't for insurance, is directly linked for us to my military service. Ironically, if Congress had not passed an exemption for Tricare and VA, they would not qualify under Obamacare. I have good news, if you don't like insurance companies. In time, Obamacare will put them out of business.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Melissa said:


> Well you have obviously attained quite a bit of wealth in your life and have quite a large income in order to pay that much in taxes.
> 
> I know people who have reconsidered their lifestyle in order to pay less. When I was a tax-preparer I went over the numbers with many people and they often found that downsizing made more sense financially and they were much happier.
> 
> Hope you find a solution that works for you in the long run. However with those assets I think you will find that you won't have to eat cat food in your retirement...


It all depends on how much of the joy of *Trillions!* (estimate) in increased taxes and fees I'll be paying. But you are correct my taxable income will never again be the amount it was this year that was simply poor planning on my part.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Melissa said:


> So our total taxes were a little less than 10% of our income. Considering everything it pays for, I don't think that is too bad...


I find your 10% awfully low but I know we do subsidize children so that is helping you or your math is wrong somewhere. 

Ok, well if we should all be like Caesar even your paying too much. Even he only had a 4% sales tax on slaves, 1% on everything else and a 5% inheritance tax.

So my taxes are about 60% of my income, I have an idea, since taxes are so wonderful lets just raise the tax to 100% and put everyone on welfare, Even Caesar would be turning in his grave with that!!

When is it too much? 50%,60%,70%,80%?

I like Erin's idea, lets go back to Caesar's tax system.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

We only had the personal exemption for one child so it helped a few hundred dollars. I will even run the numbers as if we did not claim him and post those. 

And I assure you my math is absolutely correct~I made a lot of money doing math for many years, I think I have that part covered!


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> It all depends on how much of the joy of *Trillions!* (estimate) in increased taxes and fees I'll be paying. But you are correct my taxable income will never again be the amount it was this year that was simply poor planning on my part.


A few years back there was no tax on capital gain for those in the 10 and 15% brackets. I had several clients at the time who had timber to sell. I recommended selling and they received all of that money tax exempt! 

Sometimes you have to look at it like a game. I think that is what I always loved about doing taxes, it was actually kind of fun~


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Melissa said:


> We only had the personal exemption for one child so it helped a few hundred dollars. I will even run the numbers as if we did not claim him and post those.
> 
> And I assure you my math is absolutely correct~I made a lot of money doing math for many years, I think I have that part covered!


I believe your math but the child helped you more than you think. Not only did you get the extra deduction but you are forgetting about the child tax credit. But that is a whole other ball of wax that trips my trigger....lol


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Child tax credit is only for children under 17. He is 19 so we did not receive it.

You probably won't trip me on any tax-related issue, I read tax code before falling asleep for many, many years~ lol


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Bob Huntress said:


> Originally people paid for their medical care, doctors made house calls and a doctors visit would cost $10. Now people buy insurance to pay the cost of medical care and* merely pay a co-pay when they see the doctor etc, of around $10 a doctors visit.* We call this "Progress", for reasons that escape me. The only reason we can afford medical insurance, and the co-pay that would equal the entire cost if it weren't for insurance, is directly linked for us to my military service. Ironically, if Congress had not passed an exemption for Tricare and VA, they would not qualify under Obamacare. I have good news, if you don't like insurance companies. In time, Obamacare will put them out of business.



Bolding is mine - I currently pay 30.00 per co-pay for a GP doctor's visit and pay 10.00 more for a specialist. It all depends on what the insurance company plan is as to how much the co-pays are. My DH has Tri-Care. We can't live more than 40 miles from a military base..sigh..or he doesn't have the same type of coverage. 
He's retired military.

Not everyone can move because they have jobs, homes, family, etc. in the area. My property taxes in Ga. are higher than they are in Alabama. But sales tax in AL is higher than in Ga. 

I figured out a long time ago, one way or another, the government - whether local, state or federal, is going to get every penny they can out of us for all sorts of "services" whether we want the "services" or not. For example: I just got a notice that my dog's license was due. Ok..I think that is fair enough to make sure dogs are licensed and have their rabies shots, so I read further. If I want to pay in person the cost is 6.00. But if I mail a check or use the internet to pay or pay by debit or credit card - the cost is 7.00. Hello- not everyone can get off during business hours and drive over to find the office to pay to save the dollar. So the animal control folks get an extra 1.00 from practically everyone.

Why try to hide it that way, why not just say: It's 7.00 and be done with it? I know that is a small amount but what about those on fixed incomes who cannot drive due to age/disability? They get zapped just for their condition in life. Not fair at all them but there is no exclusion. 

So we all pay these little hidden fees, ever look at your cell phone bill and add up all the misc. taxes and charges that are listed on there? Multiply those by X amount of customers and that is a right nice chunk of change. 

Health care costs are the way they are partially because we want every single ailment cured, whole lot of tests done, all sorts of treatment options, private hospital rooms, more nurses per patient ratio, research, the best drugs available, and all that costs money. Not to mention lawsuits that have to be defended, and as my doctor once told me - he had to hire two people just to process the insurance paperwork. One does the "regular" insurance and the other one does nothing but Medicare and Medicaid. 

Now granted those two young ladies need a job, but honestly think about how many doctor's offices, clinics and hospitals had to hire staff just to process the paperwork (even in the digital age, there are reams of paper to process). I do not think Obamacare is going to fix any of those issues as there is still going to be private insurance and medicaid and medicare. But maybe now there will be 3rd girl at my doctor's office just to process the Obama Care paperwork. Hey, that may knock unemployment down.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

sidepasser said:


> Bolding is mine - I currently pay 30.00 per co-pay for a GP doctor's visit and pay 10.00 more for a specialist. It all depends on what the insurance company plan is as to how much the co-pays are. My DH has Tri-Care. We can't live more than 40 miles from a military base..sigh..or he doesn't have the same type of coverage.
> He's retired military.
> 
> Not everyone can move because they have jobs, homes, family, etc. in the area. My property taxes in Ga. are higher than they are in Alabama. But sales tax in AL is higher than in Ga.
> ...


The easy solution is for the doctor not to accept insurance payments or Medicare. Cash only. Easy to bill and process. Oh , then his income would drop. Never mind.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The easy solution is for the doctor not to accept insurance payments or Medicare. Cash only. Easy to bill and process. Oh , then his income would drop. Never mind.


Or would it? If people would become more independent and pay their own way he would have a lucrative business, but in this day and age everyone depends on someone else to pay their way........


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

DH and I are both insured through our jobs. He has glaucoma which has been very hard to control, he has lost sight in both eyes due to it. He needed a trabeculectomy, his insurance would cover a very small portion, after his deductible of $6000. I have family in Mexico, they recommended a clinic very highly rated and used by some of the family. DH had his surgery at a fraction of the cost, the clinic was very nice... His stateside doc was impressed with the outcome. 

At this time we are in the process of moving closer to the border and will use the medical services when we can there. I know that is not an option for most folks but for us it is working well.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

blooba said:


> So my taxes are about 60% of my income


This has been pointed out before, but if you're paying 60% of your income in taxes, you _really_ need some help with your tax planning. Either that or you have a LOT of possessions that you're paying personal/sales/property taxes on... Because no one in this country should be paying 60%, unless they're really bad at math. 



Melissa said:


> However with those assets I think you will find that you won't have to eat cat food in your retirement...


I agree. 
In order to reach a tax responsibility of $12K we're talking an ADJUSTED gross income of something like $80,000
That is, _after_ all deductions, write-offs, etc. which usually means an actual income well over $100K. And that's not even including the extremely valuable assets you've listed. 


You're _very_ fortunate, Pixie. Even assuming you haven't saved a dime, you have property that can be sold which would allow you to live quite comfortably in a cheaper part of the US. No cat food needed. 
Though of course it's your right to stay on your valuable property with no savings and eat cat food, if you would prefer.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Ambereyes-I am glad his surgery went well, good for you for thinking outside-the-box.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Ambereyes-I am glad his surgery went well, good for you for thinking outside-the-box.



Thanks Melissa, we have always believed in not restricting ourselves to the main stream thinking. :dance:


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well I have made my share of dumb choices over the years, but Cale and I have always tried to get beyond the mainstream thought process too. There is usually always a way around most problems.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Well I have made my share of dumb choices over the years, but Cale and I have always tried to get beyond the mainstream thought process too. There is usually always a way around most problems.



Oh yeah, me too!! More than I care to think about...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

ErinP said:


> You're _very_ fortunate, Pixie. Even assuming you haven't saved a dime, you have property that can be sold which would allow you to live quite comfortably in a cheaper part of the US. No cat food needed.
> Though of course it's your right to stay on your valuable property with no savings and eat cat food, if you would prefer.


I guess I better keep earning or sell off something so I can subsidize the health care system for others that weren't as "fortunate" to plan as well my family did.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

It's not often "luck" or "good fortune" that makes the difference in how families accumulate wealth or assets. Long term planning, good educations, a commitment to supporting the family , even if it makes you give up the personal "dream job", all make a difference. The people that learn this early have a head start, but it is never too late to learn. If we all knew at 20 the things we know at 60, we would all be better off, but life doesn't work that way!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I guess I better keep earning or sell off something


Well that's what the rest of us do... :shrug:


Personally, though, I've never claimed credit for my good fortune. Or "planning well" as it were. 
A lot of the blessing's in _my_ life are simply due to the fact that we've never been saddled with serious disaster or tragedy. Others _haven't_ been as fortunate... 
Some of life's good fortune is due to our own choices, but some is due to plain old luck and to take credit for that seems extremely arrogant as well as selfish.

ETA: I see we were posting simultaneously Molly.  And that's exactly my point. 
We determine _some_ of our own good fortune with our decisions and some of it is determined by events that are completely beyond our control.

I've known one too many people who was born on third base though, who went through life thinking _they_ hit they the triple. 
As well as some who were born in the batter's box, have fought and clawed their way to first, and are told it's their own fault they haven't gotten any further...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't think "luck" as in good luck has much to do with it. Tragedy, sometimes. Those people that are born into wealthy families, and don't learn to handle money well and work hard often loose much of the money, and don't have a very happy life. They may be the ones we see or hear about.

There are thousands of people that started on "third base", learned to handle money as well as life from a young age, can keep up with others in both physical and mental work, and earned what they inherited. They will pass on much of what they know to their families.

I have found it is not in my best interest to worry about those that have an easy start in life, I do what is right for my family, and find my own "luck".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't think "luck" as in good luck has much to do with it. Tragedy, sometimes. Those people that are born into wealthy families, and don't learn to handle money well and work hard often loose much of the money, and don't have a very happy life. They may be the ones we see or hear about.
> 
> There are thousands of people that started on "third base", learned to handle money as well as life from a young age, can keep up with others in both physical and mental work, and earned what they inherited. They will pass on much of what they know to their families.
> 
> I have found it is not in my best interest to worry about those that have an easy start in life, I do what is right for my family, and find my own "luck".


Exactly Molly. My father was a salesman (not a professional) and my mother was a SAHM. Both were alcoholics that pretty much forgot about their two kids when we were ready to graduate. I had to hold off on college for two years because my father wouldn't give me the necessary financial paperwork (even though it wouldn't have cost him a dime) in order to attend right after high school. I made my first mistake by marrying at 18 and working horses, filling in with minimum wage jobs and renting dumps for two years, I decided then that I was not going to live like that. Divorced the guy that thought that was actually living and never looked back. I did start at home base and over the years ran the bases. No luck, no good fortune involved just hard work and making correct choices. 

I _do_ take credit for my success and I'm beginning to resent having to share great chunks of it with people that just went with the flow.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> There are thousands of people that started on "third base", learned to handle money as well as life from a young age, can keep up with others in both physical and mental work, and earned what they inherited. They will pass on much of what they know to their families.


Absolutely. 
But my concern is with those who seem to think that because they managed to get to home from third, that they've somehow done something better than someone who scraped and scrabbled and got to _first_.

And this really has nothing to do with worrying about others' with an easy start (or hard, for that matter) but rather having enough intellectual honesty to recognize some struggle or succeed more than others and it has _nothing_ to do with personal character or choices, but rather life-events that are out of their control. :shrug:


This is part of what develops that _so_-valuable trait-- compassion.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Those that go from "third base to home" the easy way and don't understand what they've been given don't bother me at all, they will have plenty of problems of their own. The ones that I don't feel much compassion for are the healthy, lazy, people that think its is fine to go from the batters box around to home plate by whining, complaining, out smarting others, and sitting on their bottoms letting the rest of us pull them. IMHO there are way too many of them and we are encouraging more to join them. I think the system is broken or limping along in sad shape. At some point the load is going to get too heavy for the remaining to pull it. 

How can we encourage work ethic in our children when they see little point in working hard to support people that work the system?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Since we're on a binge of "what bothers me"-

Almost everyone has had bad things happen to them. Some spend their life moaning and groaning- some go around, over or through. 

Hard work, resilience and careful judgement does not prevent a tragedy- it does give the best chance of overcoming them. Sitting around expecting others to take up your slack does not. At least not til recently.

And yes- a person who has successfully overcome and still has their priniciples is a "better" person than some one defeated by the same thing- at least one I would look to as an example of how to live well. Why would anyone look to failure as an example?


I think people who have problems command way too much attention currently. A public policy that depends on enforcing the same benefits for those who do not succeed as those who do is doomed to be banckrupty. Rewarding failure makes more failure.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Absolutely.
> But my concern is with those who seem to think that because they managed to get to home from third, that they've somehow done something better than someone who scraped and scrabbled and got to _first_.
> This is part of what develops that _so_-valuable trait-- compassion.


What a load of assumptions to operate under. It seems that, for your overall determination of valuing people, that the person who gets "home" must have started from "third." And that person struggling to get to "first" must have had been held back by things beyond their control. 
A person who has been saddled with a handicap, no matter what, who gets to fairly "home" is a person I admire. And I have seen and admired them, both in my family and outside of it. 
On the other hand, I have seen people, handicapped or not, who make a mess of their life no matter how much help they have been given. They never get their butts into gear at all. Why ever hold such people up as admirable?

Why judge everyone as worthy or unworthy anyway? It's impossible. And it's not important. What is important is not demand that the person who is able to get to "home" on their own is not so burdened by having to carry squalling, uncooperative handicaps and so cause half of them to now fail because of the extra burden.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly Molly. My father was a salesman (not a professional) and my mother was a SAHM. Both were alcoholics that pretty much forgot about their two kids when we were ready to graduate. I had to hold off on college for two years because my father wouldn't give me the necessary financial paperwork (even though it wouldn't have cost him a dime) in order to attend right after high school. I made my first mistake by marrying at 18 and working horses, filling in with minimum wage jobs and renting dumps for two years, I decided then that I was not going to live like that. Divorced the guy that thought that was actually living and never looked back. I did start at home base and over the years ran the bases. No luck, no good fortune involved just hard work and making correct choices.
> 
> I _do_ take credit for my success and I'm beginning to resent having to share great chunks of it with people that just went with the flow.


Sounds like you have made good choices, now continue to make them and learn all the ways you can opt out of the system or work around it. Millionaires don't pay as much taxes as you do because they learn how not to...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Most millionaires pay way more in taxes than non millionaires. Some may pay a smaller percentage in INCOME taxes, that smaller percentage is way more than most people pay, and they pay plenty in other taxes. A few may use out of country bank accounts to hide money, most pay more than their fair share in total. 

The very wealthy lower their tax rates by investing in companies that hire people and they donate money to charities. If you combine the taxes they pay and the money they give, and the money they spend creating jobs, I think you would find as country we would be in much deeper trouble without their contributions. If we keep on this "evil rich" misinformation campaign, started by politicians and news people that are mostly very wealthy themselves, we may find out how much they support this country when they leave.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Molly Mckee said:


> Most millionaires pay way more in taxes than non millionaires. Some may pay a smaller percentage in INCOME taxes, that smaller percentage is way more than most people pay, and they pay plenty in other taxes. A few may use out of country bank accounts to hide money, most pay more than their fair share in total.
> 
> The very wealthy lower their tax rates by investing in companies that hire people and they donate money to charities. If you combine the taxes they pay and the money they give, and the money they spend creating jobs, I think you would find as country we would be in much deeper trouble without their contributions. If we keep on this "evil rich" misinformation campaign, started by politicians and news people that are mostly very wealthy themselves, we may find out how much they support this country when they leave.


To go even farther if people in the middle class are taxed much more they are just going to just stop producing as much. I know that we'll never have the income that we did this year simply because of the income tax burden- if that is multiplied even by tens of thousands of families the drop in revenue is going to be noticeable at best.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't think rich people are evil if they don't pay taxes, they are just smart to take advantage of the laws that eliminate their tax burden.


People who pay no income tax:

http://www.businessinsider.com/7000-millionaires-paid-no-income-tax-2012-9


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

If they don't pay income tax, they are using the system by giving and investing. Both of those do as much good as paying income tax.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I've known one too many people who was born on third base though, who went through life thinking _they_ hit they the triple.
> As well as some who were born in the batter's box, have fought and clawed their way to first, and are told it's their own fault they haven't gotten any further...


We know different people then. The people I know who had a disadvantaged and sad childhood and who had worked even reasonably hard have what I would call successful lives, productive and self-sufficient. None settled for welfare.
The ones who ended up poorly, even from the same family, made poor choices almost continuously. 
There are even a few who have crabbed and unhappy lives who have had material success. There are certainly other issues beside money to an unsuccessful life.

Of course I might have a different standard of successful. It doesn't mean rich to me. It means a person who has done what was needed to have the life they wanted and is pretty content with it. Who has lived a life thoughtfully and with self-discipline and learned from their mistakes. A person who looks to themselves for their happiness.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ok, so since we're now into a baseball analogy.

Why should I even try to hit a home run if I only am gonna get to second? If I have to drag someone to 2nd with me why not just hit a double to begin with? It's alot easier getting to second by myself than dragging someone along to 2nd who isn't trying.

What happens to my homerun when I have to drag 2 people with me? Guess I'm only gonna make it to first!! And before you know it the government is doling out a loaf of bread and glass of water and calling it a meal to everyone since no one wants to even make it to first.

See where this is going?

It's all good when everyone is trying for a homerun but when it becomes disadvantagous to hit that home run the decline in society will begin.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

blooba said:


> ok, so since we're now into a baseball analogy.
> 
> Why should I even try to hit a home run if I only am gonna get to second? If I have to drag someone to 2nd with me why not just hit a double to begin with? It's alot easier getting to second by myself than dragging someone along to 2nd who isn't trying.
> 
> ...


The only reason you could get past first base is because of your teammates. Without them you could not even get in the game.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The only reason you could get past first base is because of your teammates. Without them you could not even get in the game.


Oh geez, the whole "you didn't build that" arguement.....lol

I'm sorry to say but a home run IS a solo venture non dependant on bench warmers!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

blooba said:


> Oh geez, the whole "you didn't build that" arguement.....lol
> 
> I'm sorry to say but a home run IS a solo venture non dependant on bench warmers!!


Thanks, it is always great to have a rolling on the floor laugh. first thing in the morning.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

I have had epilepsy since I was 12, grand mal seizures. I was uncontrolled until I was 35. And to top it all off a forced and abusive marriage. I got a divorce in 1988; part of agreement was I take a cut in alimony and he would help our daughter. He rented her an apartment for one year, no guidance or advice. I found her in a Salvation Army Homeless Shelter and took her home with me. I have tried to get an education, but each time sometime something got in the way. 
The last time I had to get a job with HD to support my daughter while she applied for disability. I worked for 7 years and then had an auto accident. I was in a comma for 2 months. I went back to work 4 months after I got out of the hospital; HD refused to meet any of the DRâs requests for accommodations. HD also started selective scheduling, open and close, open and close, a lot of lifting. I did not give up and so they forced me to leave one year later. 



DON'T YOU JUST LOVE GOV SYSTEMS!!!!!


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

If you sit around waiting for someone else to pull you around the bases, or you wait for good luck to get you home you are going to sit around being miserable and envious of the things others achieve by hard work, you are going to miss a lot of the good things in life. If you sit around patting yourself on the back because you waited for a free ride, you don't even know what you are missing. And when you are sitting around waiting, you are not helping anyone build anything. 

What the heck was this thread about to begin with?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't know Molly, most of those I know who don't try, don't really care. They seem pretty content to get the free ride and just get by. Those who want to get ahead in life and make their own way can't usually understand that mentality. But that is the way some think...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Melissa said:


> I don't know Molly, most of those I know who don't try, don't really care. They seem pretty content to get the free ride and just get by. Those who want to get ahead in life and make their own way can't usually understand that mentality. But that is the way some think...


I have learned you have to be very careful in believing what people tell you. It seems to go hand in hand with the constant bad judgement that, having made a poor choice, you will never hear about that part of the problem. You will never hear about buying a cheap car from a bar buddy heading to jail- you will only hear about not having the money to have reliable transportation. You will not hear about the dogs and cats living in a two room apartment and pooping all over the floor- you will only hear about the evil landlord who kicked them out "illegally" and now they're "homeless." You will not hear about the teenage daughter who missed half her school for years, did drugs or partied constantly- you will hear about how her daught has been unable to find work. You will hear of being kicked off some benefit by a "social worker" who didn't like them- not that they didn't show up 5 times to sign paperwork.
If it sounds like incredible bad luck, remember the "incredible" part and be cautious.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Yes, there is always more to the story.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Yep. 
And generally speaking, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the kinder way to go. 
Assume the best and treat them with compassion. Wait for them to PROVE you wrong, rather than assuming it right off the bat.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Yep.
> And generally speaking, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the kinder way to go.
> Assume the best and treat them with compassion. Wait for them to PROVE you wrong, rather than assuming it right off the bat.


There is a word for that kind of unreasoning accomodation- enabling. 
Me, I rather expect better behavior and see the good things that happen when if occurs.

I guess I just can't see how making it less painful to choose to have a bad life is a good idea. That cruel and self-endulgent. If the point is to make youself feel generous, then OK. But if your goal is to improve someone's life, then you need to ask for that to happen.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

where I want to said:


> There is a word for that kind of unreasoning accomodation- enabling.
> Me, I rather expect better behavior and see the good things that happen when if occurs.
> 
> I guess I just can't see how making it less painful to choose to have a bad life is a good idea. That cruel and self-endulgent. If the point is to make youself feel generous, then OK. But if your goal is to improve someone's life, then you need to ask for that to happen.


Or it's just a way of making oneself look superior...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Yep.
> And generally speaking, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the kinder way to go.
> Assume the best and *treat them with compassion*. Wait for them to PROVE you wrong, rather than assuming it right off the bat.


Perhaps we should define "compassionate" treatment. Would that be like offering an alcoholic a jug, maybe a meal? Or would it be more compassionate to just hand him a few hundred dollars?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

That's my point exactly. You're assuming the worst of people. 
Just because someone is struggling at a single point in time doesn't mean they *always* have, or that its a character defect or that they aren't scrambling to get ahead...
You simply don't know enough about everyone to be able to pass these judgements.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. Assume the best and let them prove you wrong, not vice versa.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> That's my point exactly. You're assuming the worst of people.
> Just because someone is struggling at a single point in time doesn't mean they *always* have, or that its a character defect or that they aren't scrambling to get ahead...
> You simply don't know enough about everyone to be able to pass these judgements.
> Give people the benefit of the doubt. Assume the best and let them prove you wrong, not vice versa.


Naw, I wasnt assuming anything about anyone. I was just wondering what form our compassion might take. I for one do not consider being an alcoholic a "character defect". I figure its a physical impairment more than anything else. Most addictions are like that, yet an awful lot of people dont seem to exhibit much compassion towards them.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Compassionate is one thing, supporting them is another. I have no trouble with the truly needy, the handicapped, the single moms, the vets, the elderly. I don't think the people that are healthy, but have learned how to play the system because they don't want to work, or they think they should only start at the top or what ever the reason they won't get a job is should be supported year after year. I think that for the healthy, that take all the handouts they can get the gravy train should end at some point and the should have to do some type of work to get their checks. They are not only costing all of us, but they are reducing the money we can use to help those who need it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

ErinP said:


> That's my point exactly. You're assuming the worst of people.
> Just because someone is struggling at a single point in time doesn't mean they *always* have, or that its a character defect or that they aren't scrambling to get ahead...
> You simply don't know enough about everyone to be able to pass these judgements.
> Give people the benefit of the doubt. Assume the best and let them prove you wrong, not vice versa.


Nope- I don't assume the worst about people. I assume that they are at least as competent as I am unless they say otherwise. 
I prefer that they keep the whole welfare thing to themselves because, since no one's source of income comes up in casual conversation, the mentioning of welfare is usually accompanied by a complaint or request for sympathy. So if it is brought up, then I feel free to respond appropriately. 
On the other hand, to land a bunch of "you poor little things" in response seems to be an assumption that they are incapable. And that welfare is the best they can do. Which may rarely be true but almost always is not.
In your response that I don't know enough to pass judgement, neither do you. Although you seem free to express it about me based on no information at all. The difference is that I see where people can usually do better for themselves, and you don't.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I get what Erin is saying and though I may not always agree with her I sure as heck like her attitude better than the bitter "all about me" attitude some of you display. It must be hard living in a world where you think everyone is a criminal, everyone is a lazy bum just looking for a hand out, and where the only reason that folks dont do as well as you is because "they just dont try hard enough". Why dont you move if the people you live around are all like that because I dont see that where I live, or where I lived the last 15 places I resided in. 

And oh my gosh the taxes you all pay, what country do you live in exactly? I have been working and paying taxes since 1975 and I pay less percentage now than I ever have and I am actually one of the 53% who actually has to pay net federal income tax. I am amazed that with 47% of the US population paying zero net income tax that we have so many 53%ers here homesteading and yet we have so many threads about how your barely making it and wanting to save money on groceries and live on 1K per month. Your beefs with state and local taxes and fees are not relevant to HC.

Some of you seem to think you have to be handicapped, a single mother (because we all know how helpless they are) or a Vet (?????) to be needy or that you can avoid sickness or injury just be eating right and "being careful". Your probably the same folks who think you dont need a seat belt because you drive safe.

Do some of you actually think all people have the same intellect and ability? Really? I still believe we all have a moral and civic obligation to help our fellow man and HC seems pretty basic to me. If you all think its such a cush gig living on welfare and living the good life why dont you give it a whirl...I doubt you would be so enamored of the lifestyle if you lived it nor would you find it the lucrative gold mine you imagine..

My beef with Obama care is that it wont accomplish much and its a bureaucratic mess that is not funded, the goals however are laudable and the failure to recognize that is clearly recognized by the majority of the US population.

End of rant and flame away.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Surely the flame is coming. 
No one has said that all people getting welfare are lazy bums or criminal. That is the knee jerk accusation that some people seem to have when any criticism of welfare is made. Then it escalates because to criticize any of the many defects of the many welfare systems and the people who use those defects might mean there is a problem with it. It is simply done to stop any reasonable discussion of something that might be better.
It is certainly not a gold mine for the majority of the users, that is also your own personal creation. It can be abused fairly easily.
The real horror of welfare in it's many forms is that it is too easy to get used to living that way- to settle for a poor quality of life for the people using it when there are other options. I have seen what kind of life is lived on welfare.
All these accusations are distortions based on desire that the people who object to this poor system be evil- so misread away. It is such a noble position to be wrong as long as you are wrong in defense of the little guy, isn't it?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> I get what Erin is saying and though I may not always agree with her I sure as heck like her attitude better than the bitter "all about me" attitude some of you display. It must be hard living in a world where you think everyone is a criminal, everyone is a lazy bum just looking for a hand out, and where the only reason that folks dont do as well as you is because "they just dont try hard enough". Why dont you move if the people you live around are all like that because I dont see that where I live, or where I lived the last 15 places I resided in.


Well, I will admit EVERYONE on welfare may not be a lazy bum welfare junkie BUT I would have to say the majority of them are.

In 1992, New Jersey eliminated part of the monthly increase that women received for new children. Even though stopping this stipend only decreased the welfare package 4%, births to welfare mothers went down by 10%. Clearly, many women were getting pregnant as a means of self-support.

When Ohio required capable welfare recipients to work, 40% of them decided that they didn't need help after all. Oregon tried to place its able-bodied welfare population in jobs by offering employers a subsidy to take them. Once welfare recipients found that they were going to have to work for someone, 80% went out and found an unsubsidized job.

In 1987, Wisconsin began requiring people on aid to seek or train for work. By 1997, Wisconsin had 55% fewer families on welfare than it did in 1987, while the rest of the nation experienced an average increase of 16%. In other words, Wisconsin's work program cut welfare by 71% !



salmonslayer said:


> And oh my gosh the taxes you all pay, what country do you live in exactly? I have been working and paying taxes since 1975 and I pay less percentage now than I ever have and I am actually one of the 53% who actually has to pay net federal income tax. I am amazed that with 47% of the US population paying zero net income tax that we have so many 53%ers here homesteading and yet we have so many threads about how your barely making it and wanting to save money on groceries and live on 1K per month. Your beefs with state and local taxes and fees are not relevant to HC.


You maybe paying less taxes (your probably only talking income tax) as our income tax rate has stayed around the same BUT take a look at all the other taxes they have tacked on. And yes Obamacare is just another TAX, the supreme court has even said so. Our TOTAL taxes have gone up.

Think about this, Do you really think that half of the country is incapable of supporting themselves and require a subsidy on their share of the roads,and government infrastructure? Talk about looking down on people. I have faith in people that if they are required to support themselves they will.



salmonslayer said:


> Some of you seem to think you have to be handicapped, a single mother (because we all know how helpless they are) or a Vet (?????) to be needy or that you can avoid sickness or injury just be eating right and "being careful". Your probably the same folks who think you dont need a seat belt because you drive safe.


Umm, yea. I have enough faith in my driving capablities that I usually am not wearing a seatbelt unless its at high speeds or bad weather conditions.If you don't have enough faith in your driving then by all mean put it on, I'm glad they are on all vehicles. Sometimes the officers catch me and "TAX" me for not wearing it but hey, I guess someone's gotta support this government.

Actually, alot of those handicapped,single mother veterans are even capable of going out and getting a job but choose not to because we make it easier if they don't. Let's bring out a work for welfare program at least. That guy in the wheelchair is capable of serving soup at the food pantry, that single mother could paint parkbenches, that veteran can pickup trash alongside the road. If you made them earn their money I'll bet the welfare recipients list would be shortened drastically.



salmonslayer said:


> Do some of you actually think all people have the same intellect and ability? Really? I still believe we all have a moral and civic obligation to help our fellow man and HC seems pretty basic to me. If you all think its such a cush gig living on welfare and living the good life why dont you give it a whirl...I doubt you would be so enamored of the lifestyle if you lived it nor would you find it the lucrative gold mine you imagine..
> 
> My beef with Obama care is that it wont accomplish much and its a bureaucratic mess that is not funded, the goals however are laudable and the failure to recognize that is clearly recognized by the majority of the US population.
> 
> End of rant and flame away.


The reason I don't quit my job and go on welfare is because I have morals, why have others support me if I can support myself? Too bad so many out there don't have them. 

And no I don't think everyone has the same intellect and abilities but even the most mentally retarded person can goto Walmart and push carts for a living, Are you saying that half the country is worse off then them?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Of course people complain about taxes isn't that the American way?









I haven't read where anyone is suggesting we pay no taxes, or have no programs to help the less well planned (







) and no not everyone has the same abilities but most people should contribute _something _in order to feel worthwhile. Everyone has a hot button issue and mine is generations of the same family on public assistance. Everyone needs a hand up at some point in their lives (mine was the government grants to complete an education) but no one should need a life time or generational hand out- according to Irish Pixie anyway. 

What I find annoying about the health care bill isn't the additional taxes to pay for the uninsured it's the money that will subsidize those that are already paying for their own insurance but feel they deserve a break. I want a break too my electric bill is way too high...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

where I want to said:


> Surely the flame is coming.
> No one has said that all people getting welfare are lazy bums or criminal. That is the knee jerk accusation that some people seem to have when any criticism of welfare is made. Then it escalates because to criticize any of the many defects of the many welfare systems and the people who use those defects might mean there is a problem with it. It is simply done to stop any reasonable discussion of something that might be better.
> It is certainly not a gold mine for the majority of the users, that is also your own personal creation. It can be abused fairly easily.
> The real horror of welfare in it's many forms is that it is too easy to get used to living that way- to settle for a poor quality of life for the people using it when there are other options. I have seen what kind of life is lived on welfare.
> All these accusations are distortions based on desire that the people who object to this poor system be evil- so misread away. *It is such a noble position to be wrong as long as you are wrong in defense of the little guy, isn't it?*


You call them distortions and my own personal creation and then in the very next post blooba posts the following "*Well, I will admit EVERYONE on welfare may not be a lazy bum welfare junkie BUT I would have to say the majority of them are.*" which kind of throws your whole argument out because a lot of people feel that way. At least blooba has the integrity and honesty to actually say it unlike the dodge ball games some of you are playing.

I have plenty of criticism of our welfare system and I believe its a trap the way we have it set up because we penalize those who actually obtain employment rather than reward and encourage success. I also understand welfare for work programs...sounds great, have those lazy bums pick up trash...and oh by the way, that will really train them for full time employment wont it? And then there is day care to consider, transportation, supervision, etc....there is a reason those programs have mostly failed in reducing welfare rolls. By all means lets stop rewarding people for having kids on welfare and lets come up with programs to encourage self sufficiency. Limit food stamp use to basic food staples and let them be able to purchase more for making healthy choices and lets get a HC system in place that uses common sense in encouraging preventative HC.

The HC bill is here and not going anywhere anytime soon and I just continue to be amazed at how far from reality so many of you are living. Your already paying for these peoples HC costs, this bill doesnt conjure up 30 millions new people out of thin air ...or do you honestly believe they arent getting any HC now? Most of us here were against this bill but we lost and its clear a plurality of citizens are for it so time to move on.

And blooba, you have a unique way of looking at things and I appreciate your honest responses but man I cant relate. Just in your seat belt comment I am stumped. I dont wear my seat belt because I am not careful or dont trust my own driving, I wear it because of everyone else who is to self absorbed with their cell phones, their makeup, their drinking or drugging etc and their unsafe driving. 

Nope "Where I want to", I make no claim to any noble position, just a practical one.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ok- a change in expression I hope.
1) Welfare is needed for a relatively small percentage of the population that is actually incapable of supporting themselves.
2) A fair percentage of the population sees the benefit of getting tax free, work free income and, although they could support themselves, don't.
3) There is no practical way of bureaucratically telling one from the other in the present that will not generate many loud complaints from those denied benefits or have them stopped. One mistake will generate huge bad press.
4) Once on benefits, a substantial percentage of the population stays there out of convenience and fear of actually of work. This can easily become a generational way of life when children are raised without seeing a person work ever.
5) There is always something more that a person on welfare "needs"- whether it is education, cell phone, utility support, legal advice, etc. The belief is that, if someone who works has these things, it is not fair that welfare people should not have them too. They are by definition "poor people" and ( and here is the most irritating idea to me) "deserve" more assistance.
6) To be on welfare means not having any confidence on your own abilities because you never practice it- it fosters resentment and the constant diddling with getting around the rules to get more stuff creates a lawless mentality.

The net result is that with every increase in welfare entitlement, some of those people and their offspring will stay on welfare forever. The number of people will keep growing, sometimes slowly, sometimes more rapidly, but geometrically with their children. 
There is only one way to get people off is to cut benefits to the horror and fear of those on benefits. The welfare lobby and legal funds frequently make this so costly that it is rarely done. Education, which might be effective, is not really used by the majority as so many don't even make effective use of free education that we have. 
So, since welfare tends to grow like a weed, both in numbers and programs, the only way to keep it in check is to make it unattractive enough so that those who can do something else do it. And to make it unattractive means bare bones benefits without anything above the most basic neccessiities and making sure that it is clear that welfare is not a respectable alternative to work. Being on welfare should not be made comfortable or respectable for the sake of the feeling of those involved. To do otherwise means that a percentage of the people who could stir themselves to action will instead be content to stay on it even though it does not provide a fulfilling life.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I agree with a lot of what you posted Where I want to. Part of the problem is we, as in the system, make it hard to get off public assistance once you get on. But this is a thread about HC and how to afford it and the premise of the Affordable HC Bill is shared risk and lowered cost and whether those goals will ever be met is indeed debatable.

I like some provisions of the bill that reign in some of the more egregious actions by HC Companies and dislike many other provisions because I dont think it will be effective. However, the biggest bee in peoples bonnets seems to be the personal mandate and though I understand the Constitutional argument the Supremes ruled otherwise and without everyone getting on board, willingly or not, you dont spread the costs and it wont work even partially.

Dont get insured and pay the penalty which is your right, I just dont understand the thinking and I sure wouldnt consider people hopefully being able to afford HC insurance as being on welfare.

Look at how many on this very forum who cannot currently afford HC insurance yet try to be as self sufficient as possible; are they going to be considered welfare bums because they purchase HC insurance from a pool created by the bill? Or is it just possible that a great many lower income, disabled, or those who have been dropped or considered uninsurable might be helped by certain provisions of the bill? 

I confess, I have never been unemployed, I make a good living and I have excellent HC insurance currently and have always been able to afford to purchase excellent insurance so maybe I am just missing the point of some of the arguments; and I mean that sincerely. I know plenty of hard working people in my area who cannot get HC insurance or cannot afford it and none of them are on public assistance. They are the working poor who work factory or farm jobs around here and they are exactly the people I see that will benefit most.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I would have been happier with a requirement to have a set basic health policy for all employed people, with a shared cost, with subsidies, if any, going to the employer.
But what we got was a bill that has hundreds of private plans with individual subsidies that are based on income, created a penalty if the employer wants to provide superior health insurance in order to limit access to use of health care and pointedly eliminated the mechanisms for collecting penalties. 
It's a mess. The only hopeful thing is the part about making pre-existing conditions not an exclusion. But that does mean that all the rest will have to pony up more for their own plans. This means a lot of employers are going to be making decisions as to whether it is financially better for them to individually pay a penalty and not pay for insurance. And a number of individuals will decide whether paying a penalty, which may never be collected anyway, is cheaper for them since they can sign up later when they need it. 
I can understand those thoughts.


----------

