# How is a Person to Afford Health Insurance?



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

We have been paying $520 a month for our Pastors Health Insurance $1,000 Deductible.It just jumped $250 more a month which we can't afford.

But he will be able to get Medicare in a year.So we agreed to pay the same amount we are paying just Higher Deductible,if he needs the Insurance we will pay the difference on the Deductible.

And they wonder why so many don't have Health Insurance.I do not have the answer but I don't feel Obamacare is the answer.

big rockpile


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

My best advice for affordable health insurance is to vote for the conservative every time you have a chance.


----------



## Saffron (May 24, 2006)

this is why I have no insurance


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I finally got my SS and medicare going, but it was tough meeting the premiums the last couple years of buying my own. Obamacare has nearly doubled the rates individual have to pay, and its going to get worse. I agree with the above.... vote for the most conservative options on election day.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There are programs out there, one just has to research them.
My friend also is waiting to get on Medicare, but in the meantime, You Sign up for insurance and thing is you Want To Get Turned Down. In the case of my friend he has a hip replaced.
Once turned down then you apply for I believe his is HIPPA, not sure if that is just Wi or nation wide.
He now instead of paying 750 a month with 5K deductible, he pays 475 with that same 5K deductible. Plus One paid for physical, and a colonoscopy all considered preventable type coverage for good health care maintenance..
So there are some ways to get around the way insurance companies are raising their rates getting ready6 for Obama Care.
But thing of it is You HAVE to do that High Deductible whether a person like it or not.
That is the only way a person can get their premiums lowered some.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> My best advice for affordable health insurance is to vote for the conservative every time you have a chance.


And hows that going to do anything? It never has in the past.
Note I am not saying the Dems do better, just that neither party really truely gives a darn about low cost health care.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> And hows that going to do anything? It never has in the past.


thats because too many have been voting for the liberals. I honestly do not believe Obama got elected due to his conservatism.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> And hows that going to do anything? It never has in the past.
> Note I am not saying the Dems do better, just that neither party really truly gives a darn about low cost health care.


 We as conservatives HAVE to Stop this health care from going into effect. The Only way to do that is get as many conservatives as possible in office, including a new President. And that will help this country in many other ways also.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

As long as conservatives are FASCISTS sold out to CORPORATIONS there will be no affordable health insurance under a conservative president. Neither under dems, who are also sold out, but to a lesser extent. Forget them ALL.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> As long as conservatives are FASCISTS sold out to CORPORATIONS there will be no affordable health insurance under a conservative president. Neither under dems, who are also sold out, but to a lesser extent. Forget them ALL.


I agree with you on this to a large extent...... however when I was referring to conservatives, I was referring to real conservatives, not republicans. Think Tparty


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Oh yeah, that will fix it. (sarcasm off)

Seriously, this has been going on since the early 80's. Costs have been rising much higher than inflation and it doesn't matter if it's conservative or liberal in charge - absolutely no difference in the rates.
There are effective solutions being used in other countries, but until we put away the political labels and arrogance, we'll continue the present path.
This is a health issue of our fellow humans, not a political game to be won.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

But you can't deny that rates have really Exploded over the past 2 years. Doesn't matter what was going on years past sure they have gone up things Cost more. But in the past two years rates have sky rocketed. You can't think that if Obamacare had not been put in place they would have not exploded like they have?


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> And hows that going to do anything? It never has in the past.
> Note I am not saying the Dems do better, just that neither party really truely gives a darn about low cost health care.


It won't make a lick of difference voting for conservatives, that's just a pipe dream fed to those who have bought into the propaganda of a 'party'.

Obviously, conservatives were in power for many years and the cost of health insurance went up, under Obama and the dems it seems to be going up even faster. This will continue and soon people will lose their homes and property trying to pay insurance premiums to avoid fines and jail time ( a policy that the 'conservatives' originally came up with ).


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> But you can't deny that rates have really Exploded over the past 2 years. Doesn't matter what was going on years past sure they have gone up things Cost more. But in the past two years rates have sky rocketed. You can't think that if Obamacare had not been put in place they would have not exploded like they have?



Oh brother.
The old, "History doesn't matter" argument again.

If it went up during conservative control, then the statement that the solution to increasing rates is to elect conservatives, is inherently false.
And to realize that in the 80's they were "skyrocketing" too, just makes it more important to know your history before trying to discuss facts.

Some people never learn........


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

deaconjim said:


> My best advice for affordable health insurance is to vote for the conservative every time you have a chance.


Sorry but they have done NOTHING. They have lambasted the dem's about it ever since the Hillary plan debacle, but in all those years they never brought forth a workable plan either. Their plan is to dismantle Obamacare but they don't have a darn thing that is any better in the wings to replace it. 

If we could get the royal health plan that the elected ones enjoy taken away and make them face the same challenges that the rest of us do, THEN we might get some action. 

There are still a lot of good reasons to vote conservative, but health care isn't one of them, IMHO.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> My best advice for affordable health insurance is to vote for the conservative every time you have a chance.


What have conservatives done to make healthcare insurance more affordable?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> But you can't deny that rates have really Exploded over the past 2 years.


I don't know that for a fact.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that for a fact.


 You don't? You should...it's a fact. Thats sounds like something you should know BEFORE defending or attacking Obamacare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> You don't? You should...it's a fact. Thats sounds like something you should know BEFORE defending or attacking Obamacare.


Okay, I haven't personally seen it. All I can say for sure is that healthcare insurance was prohibitively expensive 2 years ago and that hasn't changed.

Actually, the Kaiser Report shows healthcare insurance increasing at a rate of around 3%, pretty close to the normal inflation rate.

******
_The Kaiser report gave absolutely no indication that &#8220;health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare.&#8221; It found that premiums for families with employer-sponsored health care plans rose a modest 3 percent in 2010, but workers&#8217; share of the cost jumped 14 percent as companies shifted health care costs to employees during the recession. None of those increases had anything to do with the new federal law._
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Okay, I haven't personally seen it. All I can say for sure is that healthcare insurance was prohibitively expensive 2 years ago and that hasn't changed.


And has gone UPward ever since at a high rate of speed.~! You Can't dent that~!


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Okay, I haven't personally seen it. All I can say for sure is that healthcare insurance was prohibitively expensive 2 years ago and that hasn't changed.


Yeah it wasn't cheap before but the increases have been drastic. The letter I received informing me of my upcoming increase sighted 'upcoming changes in health care law' as the primary excuse.

Remember there is nothing in the law that keeps them from raising rates as high as they want...and now you HAVE to buy it if you are above the poverty level. This is a very dangerous situation, very poor decision making IMO ( assuming the benefit of the people is the primary objective ).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Yeah it wasn't cheap before but the increases have been drastic.


You consider 3% drastic?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Here's just one chart, and yes, it's from a Marxist, anti-American, and worst of all (unless you use a dictionary) liberal source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html

Since I have paid close attention to this issue for over 30 years (yes, history again) I already know that whatever source you use, whatever decade you use (80's, 90's 00's or now) you will get the same trend with the same numbers and the same trajectory - up at close to a 45* angle.

The point?
Nothing that anyone has done has changed this fact.

Meanwhile, people go without and we all pay more while the mudslinging goes on..........
Congratulations, the powers that be have worked their plan perfectly.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well why do you think they didn't want anybody to read the bill before it was passed? They would See just how bad it isa going to be. Now a few things are getting out and people are getting more the hot under the collar because of the way things were rushed and pushed unto the people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Energy Rebel said:


> Here's just one chart, and yes, it's from a Marxist, anti-American, and worst of all (unless you use a dictionary) liberal source.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/us-healthcare-costs-double-report_n_862677.html
> 
> ...


The increase rate seems pretty constant through the past 10 years. Why was the rate of increase just as high during the previous administration?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Boy where have you been looking anyway. Ask Anybody here anybody and they will tell you that in the past 2 to 3 years their insurance has gone UP much faster then in years past. Boy you are a Obama backer through and through aren't you? You sure have a hard time saying anything bad at all bad about the guy in the white house. Aaaarrrrggg..


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You consider 3% drastic?


Mine went up way higher than 3%...I was already struggling to pay over 500 per month and they raised it to over 700 hundred per month ( this is GHI ) which started in january. I am really going to have to drop it because I cannot justify paying that much for insurance at the expense of so many other things that I need.

I have no doubt that the insurance companies are taking this opportunity to gauge us again and blame it on the new law...but that should have been expected. 

I say again there is nothing in the law that puts ANY limits on insurance premiums, they can ask as much as they want now and you are required BY LAW to pay it. It seemed obvious that this would happen...you have taken away any bargaining power from the consumer, even those few who would choose not to buy it because they are young, healthy, financially well off, or whatever...are now forced to buy this product at limitless premiums. We are now hostage and powerless against this industry.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Get, while the gettin' is good.

IMO, Insurance companies simply used HCR as an excuse to jack up rates.

It's not tlike they were overly-generous, before HCR.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What have conservatives done to make healthcare insurance more affordable?


*Why should they* do anything at all.

It's not the Govt's job to make things "affordable"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You consider 3% drastic?


You once claimed 3 days was a week


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

And when the time is right, and the premiums have risen exponentially, the masses will gladly accept/support/laud the new entirely government healthcare plan. Sorry folks, I only see this as a very short term gift to the insurance industry. I have no doubt there's a much more intrusive end in the works for our healthcare.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> And when the time is right, and the premiums have risen exponentially, the masses will gladly accept/support/laud the new entirely government healthcare plan. Sorry folks, I only see this as a very short term gift to the insurance industry. I have no doubt there's a much more intrusive end in the works for our healthcare.


 Why sure there is why is AARP wanting Obamacare? Because not only did they have many of the older folks now, but they can SELL them United Health Care~! Because they are a underwriter for said company, and can sell it now.
As AARP has already split into 2 companies, one being the insurance side.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Here's another graph for the historical and mathematically challenged.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/u-s-health-care-costs-since-1980/

Remember to open both eyes when reading it, not just the right one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You consider 3% drastic?


Increases from 350 bucks a month to over 7 hundred a month in less than 3 years is a wee bit more than 3 percent, and thats exactly what happened to my rates. I will admit that I did get hit with yet another across the board rate increase based on my age not too long prior to Obama getting elected, but that only kicked it up about 40 bucks a month.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Why should they* do anything at all.
> 
> It's not the Govt's job to make things "affordable"


And that's where this discussion always ends-up. Conservatives don't want to make health care affordable. They like it the way it is.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

No We Just Don't Want the Government Mandating it saying you HAVE TO BUY IT.. That is against the constitution, course you should already know that. LOL


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> No We Just Don't Want the Government Mandating it saying you HAVE TO BUY IT.. That is against the constitution, course you should already know that. LOL


Just to keep it honest, conservatives came up with the individual mandate and Mitt Romney implemented it in Mass. This just proves my point that you aren't going to find any remedy in the republican party.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I suspect that the mandatory provision is a dead issue now.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that the mandatory provision is a dead issue now.


Its not a dead issue, it's very much in play..only a few state judges ruled it unconstitutional but the supreme court is yet to hear it and they may not. As it stands it is in effect, the whole health care reform law hinges on it. State laws against it are irrelevant and are superseded by the federal law.

In my opinion it will go through as it is integral to Obamacare....without it the whole bill will go down. Obama put us in a very bad pickle with this thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And that's where this discussion always ends-up.
> Conservatives don't want to make health care affordable.


And liberals want everything to be *given* to them.

I want Harley Davidsons to be affordable


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Its not a dead issue, it's very much in play..only a few state judges ruled it unconstitutional but the supreme court is yet to hear it and they may not. As it stands it is in effect, the whole health care reform law hinges on it. State laws against it are irrelevant and are superseded by the federal law.


There have also been federal district court rulings against it, which is why it's headed to the Supreme Court.

I honestly believe that the mandatory provision is on thin ice legally. I don't believe it's going to pass constitutional muster. I've read to many good legal arguments against it to believe otherwise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I want Harley Davidsons to be affordable


Not everyone needs a Harley, but everyone needs health care.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

The system is not sustainable. Period, end of story. Many of us will not be able to afford to die, at least with a roof over our heads.:grump:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

edcopp said:


> The system is not sustainable. Period, end of story.


It's not sustainable. That's the one thing we all agree on.

If the system isn't radically changed it will collapse. Hospitals across the country will close their doors and a national emergency will result. The government will have no choice except to step-in and take over. That's exactly where the conservative path will lead us, and no one even denies it.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And liberals want everything to be *given* to them.
> 
> I want Harley Davidsons to be affordable




That calls for a new award.

:umno:The Ridiculous POTD



In order to answer the OP, the only way to have affordable health insurance is to eliminate (uh oh that's NOT CAPITALISM) or bypass insurance companies.
Some places in the NW U.S, have successfully done this using co-ops. (uh oh, that sounds like communism)
Example:
1,000 people pool $1,000 apiece. 
That's a $1,000,000.
They then hire a physician, usually a GP and a nurse to take care of their basic needs in a modest office.
A catastrophic policy is an option in case something serious comes up.
At $1,000, that's less than 10% of a typical cost per person annually now.
(Whew, that sounds like capitalism again - after all what we call it is far more important than the results, isn't it?)


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And liberals want everything to be *given* to them.
> 
> I want Harley Davidsons to be affordable


That was a good one. And that is the reason we are in such deep poo poo now. All those that want cradle to grave government care.
Well there is nothing in the constitution saying the government is to furnish a thing to anybody.
But that Harley idea does sound neat.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

When you run a whole segment of the economy(healthcare) on insurance, it eventually becomes unaffordable.

If it was cash ran like everything else, it would be affordable to everyone and much less likely to suffer the abuses you see with the current system.

(Insurance could be bought for longterm care if desired).


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

kirkmcquest said:


> Just to keep it honest, conservatives came up with the individual mandate and Mitt Romney implemented it in Mass. This just proves my point that you aren't going to find any remedy in the republican party.


Well said.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

It's interesting to note that the ones on here that find the frivolousness of a Harley equal to life and death are the same ones that repeatedly support their party blindly.
NO, we DO NOT believe the gov't should give us everything.
NO, we DO NOT believe the constitution guarantees this.
But WE ARE TIRED OF BEING RIPPED OFF, WE ARE TIRED OF SEEING FRIENDS AND RELATIVES SUFFER NEEDLESSLY.

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Energy Rebel said:


> Some places in the NW U.S, have successfully done this using co-ops. (uh oh, that sounds like communism)
> Example:
> 1,000 people pool $1,000 apiece.
> That's a $1,000,000.
> ...



I am part of what would be called a nation-wide co-op. Christian Care Medi-Share. I am 62, which is a high premium group for health insurance. Through Medi-Share, I pay $316.00 a month with a $1250.00 annual deductible and 100% pay after that. If I were to go out today and purchase standard health insurance, I'd pay upwards of $600.00 a month for $1500.00 deductible and 20% co-insurance. There is no way I could afford that. And the new insurance regulations exempt people from buying mandatory insurance if they are part of such a group.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> I am part of what would be called a nation-wide co-op. Christian Care Medi-Share. I am 62, which is a high premium group for health insurance. Through Medi-Share, I pay $316.00 a month with a $1250.00 annual deductible and 100% pay after that. If I were to go out today and purchase standard health insurance, I'd pay upwards of $600.00 a month for $1500.00 deductible and 20% co-insurance. There is no way I could afford that. And the new insurance regulations exempt people from buying mandatory insurance if they are part of such a group.


That's pretty good. Is it subsidized somehow? How do they keep premiums so low?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Sounds to me like the libs are just learning about the republican rinos.
Where have you all been this past 3 years. Wake UP.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Belfrybat said:


> I am part of what would be called a nation-wide co-op. Christian Care Medi-Share. I am 62, which is a high premium group for health insurance. Through Medi-Share, I pay $316.00 a month with a $1250.00 annual deductible and 100% pay after that. If I were to go out today and purchase standard health insurance, I'd pay upwards of $600.00 a month for $1500.00 deductible and 20% co-insurance. There is no way I could afford that. And the new insurance regulations exempt people from buying mandatory insurance if they are part of such a group.


I checked it out, too.
That's the kinda thing I was referring to. It wouldn't have to be exactly the same, but at the price you quoted, you're paying 20-25% of what the average is and getting better benefits.
And I'm guessing this is done by cutting out the middle man, along with some tighter requirements, but something is going on to cut 3/4 of the cost.


----------



## Our Little Farm (Apr 26, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> And hows that going to do anything? It never has in the past.
> Note I am not saying the Dems do better, just that neither party really truely gives a darn about low cost health care.


I agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not everyone needs a Harley, but everyone needs health care.


Everyone I know GETS "health care"

Some just whine about having to pay for it themselves


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Sounds to me like the libs are just learning about the republican rinos.
> Where have you all been this past 3 years. Wake UP.


You know what? You need your RINOs, and their supporters too. If you continue to shrink the republican party every time someone isn't pure enough for you, some day you'll look around there won't be anyone left.

Conservatives talk like the want another Reagan, but you didn't listen to him. Evidently his "big tent" theory has totally escaped you.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You know what? You need your RINOs, and their supporters too. If you continue to shrink the republican party every time someone isn't pure enough for you, some day you'll look around there won't be anyone left.
> 
> Conservatives talk like the want another Reagan, but you didn't listen to him. Evidently his "big tent" theory as totally escaped you.


What we really need is for the RINO's and their supporters to wise up and embrace conservatism. What we don't need is Democrats giving us advice on how to defeat them in elections.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Touche.~~


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone I know GETS "health care"
> 
> Some just whine about having to pay for it themselves


I'm just wondering, how does someone get cancer treatments with no money or insurance? It's not like ongoing chemo treatments can be obtained in the ER. Where does someone in that situation go for treatment?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Health insurance is not health care.


----------



## lamoncha lover (Mar 1, 2009)

All I know is that we pay over 800 a month for health insurance.
when you make 16 $ an hour cause the economy stinks and you have to take any job you can find..that's a huge chunk.
On the other hand COBRA ended up going to 1200 $ a month,,,and when you are unemployed how you going tpoo pay that. we went almost 2 years with no insurance. Just thankkful we didnt have a dire emergency.
I have no idea what the answer is. Do know when they made auto insurance mandatory,.,.the cost really soared,. Don't think we are on the right path at all.


----------



## ghmerrill (Feb 22, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I'm just wondering, how does someone get cancer treatments with no money or insurance? It's not like ongoing chemo treatments can be obtained in the ER. Where does someone in that situation go for treatment?


You wait until you have the money, or it isn't problem any more. A friend is going through this now. She has uterine cancer. The doctor wants the money that is not covered by the insurance company to be paid in cash up front. 

IF YOU THINK IT'S BAD NOW, WAIT TILL OWEBAMAS PLAN HAS BEEN IN EFFECT A FEW YEARS. you will be wishing you would have stockpiled some bullets, because health care will be paid for by all, But available to a few. If you have ever seen someone in the end stages of some cancers, when it happens to you, one bullet will be a godsend.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Where does someone in that situation go for treatment?


Someone with no assets can get Medicaid



> I'm just wondering, how does someone get cancer treatments with no money or insurance?


Do you think health care should be *free*?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you think health care should be *free*?


Yes. Free for all Americans. Why not?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Free health care?
No country on earth could afford that! 

Oh wait a sec... um.. nevermind. I'm wrong again. Darn.

lol


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Well, we do have the RIGHT to LIFE, liberty and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Bullets and iceflows don't really fit into society's plans for cancer treatment then do they. And no, the way things are now, you cant have cancer and get your MILLION DOLLAR CHEMO unless you are meeting the medicaid marker for whatever poverty level you need to be at to qualify. I have a friend going thru treatments now without insurance, she's thinking about the iceflow so she doesn't pay out her children's future. SORRY but, UHHHH, either medicaid or MILLION dollar chemo isn't a workable situation for MANY MANY MANY REAL PEOPLE. When yall talking about bullets and medicaid get cancer, dont come on here looking for prayers. Good luck with that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes. Free for all Americans. *Why not*?


You fooled me *again* into thinking you wanted a SERIOUS discussion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Free health care?
> *No country *on earth could afford that!
> 
> Oh wait a sec... um.. nevermind. I'm wrong again. Darn.


Which country gets all the healthcare free?


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Last time insurance was really affordable was when Clinton was in. I just don't get why people don't wake the heck up & realize the Republicans are NOT for "the little guy"... is it just because they are just too lazy to READ THE FACTS, & just want to take the easy way, & listen to & believe the BS that's being handed out??? The ONLY frickin that Bush did was _*OPEN THE FREAKING BORDERS,*_ so his cronies could have cheap labor, & put this country in a huge, sucking world of hurt, w/ all the ---- ILLEGALS that "Do the work Americans won't do". Ignorant, smug little jerk that he is, SHOULD have closed the borders, after 9?11, for "national security". Hmmmmmmm..... _why _DIDN'T he???? 

$$$$$$$

_THAT_ is the Rethuglican legacy.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which country gets all the healthcare free?


Iraq and Afghanistan - provided by USA war funding

http://www.freebase.com/view/wikipedia/images/en_id/12550149













.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

We don't have Health Insurance we just plain cannot afford it. I have discussed th eissue for years with my DH about how at least in Canada as a child my parents paid for it with taxes. Being self emplyed I can't afford Ins now and Obamacare seems to think I can afford to pay a lot more than what I can't pay now. My DH & I are planning on goig to my country so we do get HC


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There have also been federal district court rulings against it, which is why it's headed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> I honestly believe that the mandatory provision is on thin ice legally. I don't believe it's going to pass constitutional muster. I've read to many good legal arguments against it to believe otherwise.


It already has been implemented in Mass.. The people of that state enjoy the same supposed constitutional protections as you, yet they are being forced to buy a product.

Make no mistake, it's going to go through, or the whole bill falls apart. What you are saying is, you don't think Obamacare is going to happen at all. The individual mandate is the beating heart of the entire bill which will be completely scrapped if it is removed.

My prediction is to look for premiums to continue to rise at a faster rate in the coming years than before Obamacare under the pretext of 'changes in healthcare law'. Watch for healthy people to start losing their homes, businesses, and property as they struggle to comply with the mandate or become angry with having to pay 'fines' for not being able to afford a mandated product.

Premiums will rise higher and higher because there is no cap or limit set in the bill. Nothing in the bill stops them from raising the premiums as high as they want, and we will HAVE to continue to pay them *BY LAW*.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Free for all Americans. Why not?


The only way to get 'free healthcare' is to kidnap all the doctors, invade the hospitals and medical manufacturing operations and force them all to work for free.....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> The only way to get 'free healthcare' is to kidnap all the doctors, invade the hospitals and medical manufacturing operations and force them all to work for free.....


I meant free, as in single-payer. Not free, as in it doesn't cost anything.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I meant free, as in single-payer. Not free, as in it doesn't cost anything.


My point was that single payer isn't free at all....you can pay for your healthcare through your taxes or through private insurance or directly to your Dr. or hospital but either way you pay for it. I don't know why some find it preferrable to pay through taxes for something they may never need.

I would like to just touch on one more point...you did remark 'everyone needs healthcare', this is a false statement. It just illustrates how parties can repeat lies and get others to repeat lies and everyone silently agrees to believe the lie. Strictly speaking, and considering only the facts and not sentiment;

Everyone does *not* need healthcare, that is a fact. My father was healthy his whole life. Never had more than common cold and flu, never had an operation. He had the best health insurance money could buy and had regular check ups which always concluded that he was in excellent health. He had a massive heart attack and died in his car on his way home from work. He did not need healthcare.

My friend Matt was a young man of 32 in excellent health never had an operation or anything worse than a common cold or flu...he died in a car accident....four car pile up he died instantly. He did not need health care.

I could go on...in fact I think I know more people who have wasted money on insurance premiums, who didn't ever need or receive any benefit from healthcare than those who did. I think we can both agree that statistically speaking, there is a fairly good percentage of people that don't ever have need of healthcare in their lives. So why do we repeat things that aren't true? It's propaganda that appeals to sentiment, not logic.

You will probably say 'you never know if you'll need it' and that would be a truthful statement as opposed to "everyone needs healthcare" or "everyone will need healthcare at some point", those statements are false. I just can't stand to see party propaganda repeated and people repeating lines that they have never really thought about but if they did they would have to admit were false. Like any kind of "free" health care which doesn't exist anywhere.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> My point was that single payer isn't free at all....you can pay for your healthcare through your taxes or through private insurance or directly to your Dr. or hospital but either way you pay for it. I don't know why some find it preferrable to pay through taxes for something they may never need.


There are a number of reasons why a single-payer system would work better than private insurance.



Everyone is covered.
Covering everyone gives more clout to the insurer, so collective bargaining will result in more cost savings.
Premiums will be based on ability to pay.
The billions in corporate insurance profit will be removed from the equation.
No one will be killed-off because they have expensive problems, the way private insurance does.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Everyone does *not* need healthcare, that is a fact.


Get a grip in reality.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> There are a number of reasons why a single-payer system would work better than private insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are dreaming. It always leads to rationing and breaking the taxpayers. The truth is, we have more healthcare available than we can afford. It used to be that when your hips or knees gave out, you were crippled. Transplanted knees and hips are great but they are also expensive. We need to seriously examine whether we can afford such things for everyone who needs them. Heart and lung transplants are the same. Does Viagra need to be covered by health insurance? Many people live long productive lives without sex and I haven't heard of anyone dying due to lack of sex. There are many examples.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Get a grip in reality.


He is correct. The odds of a healthy 25 year old needing health insurance are slim. The person is money ahead to pay his rare office visits out of pocket
rather than pay monthly premiums.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> He is correct. The odds of a healthy 25 year old needing health insurance are slim. The person is money ahead to pay his rare office visits out of pocket
> rather than pay monthly premiums.


Yeah, it's too bad we don't stay 25 our entire lives.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, it's too bad we don't stay 25 our entire lives.


What's your point? Lot's of people don't need eye glasses until they are older either. Are you saying young people should be forced to buy them too? What about Depends? I don't need them yet but should I be forced to buy them anyway just because I will get older someday?


----------



## ghmerrill (Feb 22, 2011)

The way I see it, the reason this is such a huge issue is that america, with it's constitutional protections is the last place like it on earth. There is no where for those of us who believe in the constitutional tenets to go. Rather than leaving america to the people who believe in it's founding principals the liberals want to re define the constitution, and make us into another europe. It really should be simple. If you dont like it here, go there. WE dont have that option, and like the signers of the declaration of independence, we are going to have to fight to the bitter end to keep america free. There is no other choice.

Oh... am I pro bush, anti owebama? 

I think ALL politicians should serve three mandatory terms- two in office, one in prison. Until we get rid of the professional politicians, we won't change anything.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, it's too bad we don't stay 25 our entire lives.


As I explained, many older people never have need of healthcare either. If you insist on lying to yourself that is one thing, but the facts are irrefutable.

Are you claiming that every single human being on the planet, at some point in their lives needs a doctor? That there isn't now, nor has ever been a person who didn't?

I gave you several examples, in my own life of people who lived their whole lives and never benefited one bit from any type of healthcare....are you saying those people don't count?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes. Free for all Americans. Why not?


Come on even you know better, or are you one of those people who beleive in Obama Money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Iraq and Afghanistan - provided by USA war funding


It's not *free* if someone is paying for it


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

So Sorry to hear of your troubles.

Our insurance did the same thing. We are self employed, so pay it all ourselves. Our BCBS went up to over a thousand dollars this year. We switched to a different insurer after having been with BCBS for over a decade.

We were able to cut our premiums in half with the new insurance, but had to raise our deductible to 5000.00.


BTW, we looked at a place in Wheatland when we were looking at farms in MO. PRetty place, you are lucky to be there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The billions in corporate insurance profit will be removed from the equation.


Their profit *margins* are lower than lots of other businesses.

But why stop at healthcare?

Why not "free" food and housing for everyone, and "free" cars and fuel?

How about free clothes?

Everyone needs those, so on one should have to *pay* for them


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I meant free, as in single-payer. Not free, as in it doesn't cost anything.


I didn't realize this had turned into a political thread.

Nothing is free, it's always someone's money, and socialism never works.

Feel free to move to Cuba, or Canada, or Britian. Then when you need an organ transplant or an MRI, you can just fly back to the good ol' USA, because govt run ANYTHING destroys whatever the govt run thing is.

Government has no business being in business, and why people continue to think the bloated dead pig of a beauracracy in DC is preferable to private business is beyond me.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

ghmerrill said:


> The way I see it, the reason this is such a huge issue is that america, with it's constitutional protections is the last place like it on earth. There is no where for those of us who believe in the constitutional tenets to go. Rather than leaving america to the people who believe in it's founding principals the liberals want to re define the constitution, and make us into another europe. It really should be simple. If you dont like it here, go there. WE dont have that option, and like the signers of the declaration of independence, we are going to have to fight to the bitter end to keep america free. There is no other choice.
> 
> Oh... am I pro bush, anti owebama?
> 
> I think ALL politicians should serve three mandatory terms- two in office, one in prison. Until we get rid of the professional politicians, we won't change anything.


I would agree if i thought the constitution was still in use today. Let's face it, it has been warped and circumvented so much that it is no longer valid. "The Patriot Act" is a perfect example of our constitutional rights being ignored...and without any consequences.

The constitution is a nice set of principles, from some well meaning people that didn't really set it up to be followed...if they did they would have put some teeth on it. How is it that congress can pass a law, and then LATER, IF it's challenged, it can be found unconstitutional? Why doesn't every bill have to pass constitutional muster BEFORE it becomes law? I don't believe that the founders never considered that.

Bottom line is the government can do whatever it wants. You have no constitutional protections that it doesn't allow you to have. They can turn off the constitution at will and there are no consequences, examples;

Wickard vs Filburn

Patriot Act

Individual mandates to buy products

Gun control

people arrested and held without trial

etc,etc


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Their profit *margins* are lower than lots of other businesses.
> 
> But why stop at healthcare?
> 
> ...


Don't forget free internet.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I meant free, as in single-payer. Not free, as in it doesn't cost anything.


As did I. Commonly called "free" as in end user free on site. Of course, it is paid for by higher tax rates.

But asking for a higher tax rate to pay for something that everyone would benefit from makes people cry that they are being oppressed.

Because the heath and well being of our fellow countrymen is absolutely not our problem.
Go sell pop cans if you want your chemotherapy, you losers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But asking for a higher tax rate to pay for something that *everyone would benefit* from makes people cry that they are being oppressed.


The only ones to benefit are the ones who pay no taxes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Del Gue said:


> Because the heath and well being of our fellow countrymen is absolutely not our problem.
> Go sell pop cans if you want your chemotherapy, you losers.


And that's why I can't support republican candidates.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > I meant free, as in single-payer. Not free, as in it doesn't cost anything.
> ...


I don't consider universal healthcare to be a political issue. I consider it to be a moral issue.



earthkitty said:


> Government has no business being in business, and why people continue to think the bloated dead pig of a beauracracy in DC is preferable to private business is beyond me.


I've lived in a country where the government was entirely supported by government business. The government earned all of its own operating money with no taxes. We really should consider it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> > Iraq and Afghanistan - provided by USA war funding
> 
> 
> It's not *free* if someone is paying for it


It's free for Iraq and Afghanistan and you're the one who's paying for it.

.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I've lived in a country where the government was entirely supported by government business. The government earned all of its own operating money with no taxes. We really should consider it.


Maybe you should live there again because that goes directly against how this country was founded, and to get there, there would be a civil war.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've lived in a country where the government was entirely supported by government business. The government earned all of its own operating money with no taxes. We really should consider it.


Which country was that?

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Which country was that?
> 
> .


Saudi Arabia


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> Maybe you should live there again because that goes directly against how this country was founded


I'm not familiar with that. Is it in some founding document?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Ok back to the OP I have a question. bear with me as I live under a rock and the rock is in a godless liberal progressive field.



> We have been paying $520 a month for our Pastors Health Insurance $1,000 Deductible.It just jumped $250 more a month which we can't afford.


Why are you paying for your pastor's health insurance? He works one day a week for you, has he no regular job?

Most preachers I've ever met had a regular job and preached on sunday.

Are there such things as full time preachers? (other than priests?)


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Saudi Arabia


And just exactly how has that worked out for the benefit of all Saudis? Seems to be the elites got the better end of that deal, more so than the worst corporate profits you can come up with in America.....

Great plan, lets all go back to living in huts, while the leaders/elites get to live like Kings, literally.....

The left has no idea what they want is exactly is what they claim they despise, but they think somehow, it will be different than historically proven, if THEY are allowed to do it......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tgmr05 said:


> And just exactly how has that worked out for the benefit of all Saudis? Seems to be the elites got the better end of that deal, more so than the worst corporate profits you can come up with in America.....


All of the Saudis are elite. The only poor people are their third country nationals, who do all the real work. The Saudis do very well financially.



tgmr05 said:


> Great plan, lets all go back to living in huts, while the leaders/elites get to live like Kings, literally.....


Saudis don't live in huts.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> All of the Saudis are elite. The only poor people are their third country nationals, who do all the real work. The Saudis do very well financially.
> 
> 
> 
> Saudis don't live in huts.


Oh, right, my bad, the Saudi women their live lifestyles free and clear of any worries, they can do whatever they want, when they want, dress how they want, etc. All freedom loving American women are jealous of the way the Saudi women live.......

Please, Nevada, .......... Do you really think the US wants to live like the Saudi's???? Sharia law, slavery of third country nationals, etc....???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tgmr05 said:


> Oh, right, my bad, the Saudi women their live lifestyles free and clear of any worries, they can do whatever they want, when they want, dress how they want, etc. All freedom loving American women are jealous of the way the Saudi women live.......
> 
> Please, Nevada, .......... Do you really think the US wants to live like the Saudi's???? Sharia law, slavery of third country nationals, etc....???


If you are really this interested in Saudi culture, we should start another thread.

I don't see what women's rights and Sharia law have to do with the subject at hand, but I'll answer your question anyway. Saudi Arabia is particularly strict with respect to Sharia law because they think they need to be. They need to keep the area in and around Mecca & Medina holy for both economic and religious reasons. They're probably right about that too.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well move there~1 Don't like what we have Move.
SA Ya right. Gas is then 35 cents, they GET their Money From US and the rest of the world so they sure as heck CAN offer things free.
But that is not how the world works.
We have the best around, ask those Saudis that COME HERE to get care for. They sure as heck don't do it in their country. SA has good care tell that to those that COME HERE. If it was so dern good there why come to America then?
Let PRIVATE Enterprise settle in and take over. Let Competition drive the prices down as companies could sell across state lines. where they can't now.
The government just messes up everything they touch.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And that's why I can't support republican candidates


The Demoncrats haven't done anything either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't consider universal healthcare to be a political issue. I consider it to be a* moral issue*.


Then it's not a GOVT issue


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And no where does anything say health care must be given to every America. Nor Should it be. Lots of folks Don't want to have coverage. Why do they then HAVE to buy it?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

No one beleives the constitution says we need to all have health care, they only wishes we all could. THey also don't really want to live in a country that demands we all pay for it either. Most people who think goverment health care is free are only supporting it cause they think they are smart enough to game the system and get it for free. They know deep down some one has to pay for it, but it's alright as long as it isn't them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm not familiar with that. Is it in some founding document?


Yes, it is in several of them. You can start with the Declaration of Independence, then move on to the Articles of Confederation.... which basically served the same function as does our current Constitution. Then of course you could easily find where such nonsense is strictly forbidden in our current Constitution, and again in the amendments.... just to make sure foolish folks dont ever allow it to become part of how our nation functions. Article one, section eight of our Constitution grants a few (and I mean a very precious few) powers to our federal government, then section nine goes on to place very specific limits upon our federal government. The first ten amendments further places those same restrictions on our government.... followed up by even further amendments restricting the fed powers. Have you by chance EVER READ our Constitution? From the above comment it would appear not. just for your reference I am going to copy and paste the tenth amendment to our Constitution here.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." 

Now, if you can find somewhere in our Constitution that delegates the power to seize private property, and to use it to operate any form of for profit business.... please, feel free to educate me.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by Belfrybat
> I am part of what would be called a nation-wide co-op. Christian Care Medi-Share. I am 62, which is a high premium group for health insurance. Through Medi-Share, I pay $316.00 a month with a $1250.00 annual deductible and 100% pay after that. If I were to go out today and purchase standard health insurance, I'd pay upwards of $600.00 a month for $1500.00 deductible and 20% co-insurance. There is no way I could afford that. And the new insurance regulations exempt people from buying mandatory insurance if they are part of such a group.





Nevada said:


> That's pretty good. Is it subsidized somehow? How do they keep premiums so low?


No, it is not subsidized. It's non-profit, so costs are lower than for-profit companies. Their entrance requirements are rather strict as well. One must be a Christian in good standing with their church, not smoke or be on illegal drugs. Because they are not considered insurance, they do not have to pay for what they call "lifestyle illnesses" -- out of wedlock pregnancy, aids and such. One must be in good health to get in or go through their Restore Program which is a higher premium for the first year. But once in, they won't kick you out for health problems. They don't pay for doctor's visits unless the deductible is met and only pay for med for up to 3 months. But they have a medication discount card that is pretty good. Although I am Anglo Catholic, and not a conservative evangelical Christian, I have been happy with the care I've received from them.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'm just wondering, how does someone get cancer treatments with no money or insurance? It's not like ongoing chemo treatments can be obtained in the ER. Where does someone in that situation go for treatment?


There are non-profit groups that help. We have one in Abilene called the Medical Mission that assists people with chronic diseases. Unfortunately, they are stretched beyond their resources right now. 
Also, non-profit hospitals have plans for people with no insurance and are lowish income. A friend of mine had a triple bypass at a non-profit hosp. and his total bill was $10,000. payable over 4 years at no interest.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Someone with no assets can get Medicaid
> 
> ?


That depends on the State you live in. In Texas an adult cannot get Medicaid unless they have young children. A single adult, no matter how ill is not eligible unless they can somehow get on SSI. But a person with cancer, for example, would die before SSI is approved.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> There are a number of reasons why a single-payer system would work better than private insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct! Single-payer is the ONLY sustainable and moral healthcare system
that exists.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Too bad capitalism and free enterprise isn't moral or they could do the job.


----------



## ghmerrill (Feb 22, 2011)

Wait! If the liberals are mostly non faith people, aren't we all on the wrong sides here? The liberals should be screaming about making health care available, as their bible, the one written by darwin, would indicate we are going to destroy our species by taking care of the unhealthy! :banana:

:duel:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Now, if you can find somewhere in our Constitution that delegates the power to seize private property, and to use it to operate any form of for profit business.... please, feel free to educate me.


I think the Sixteenth Amendment covers the right to seize property. But they don't need to seize property to run a business.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ghmerrill said:


> The liberals should be screaming about making health care available, as their bible, the one written by darwin, would indicate we are going to destroy our species by taking care of the unhealthy!


There are problems with perpetual life, such as global overcrowding and world hunger, but we're not there yet. At this point we're just trying to help the suffering and let most people live a normal life expectancy. That's not too much to ask.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> At this point we're just trying to help the suffering and let most people live a normal life expectancy.


A "normal" life expectancy is about 35 years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A "normal" life expectancy is about 35 years.


It's closer to 78. 

******
_ATLANTA &#8212; U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high, rising above 78 years. The estimate of 78 years and 2 months is for a baby born in 2009, and comes from a preliminary report released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention._
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/us-life-expectancy-_n_836662.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's closer to 78.





> U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high, rising above 78 years


Not without *artificial* means, like "healthcare", but I guess the number of folks over 35 proves they must all be getting it, huh?

And life expectancy in Saudi Arabia is 6 years* less *than ours


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think the Sixteenth Amendment covers the right to seize property. But they don't need to seize property to run a business.


The sixteenth amendment gives them the right to tax without apportionment. They had the right to tax in the Constitution as originally written as well as in the Articles of Confederacy. They are also granted the right to "regulate" business across state lines or business with foreign countrys.... but the federal government is PROHIBITED the right to actually run any business.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's closer to 78.
> 
> ]


YA NOW.
Guess what?
That is because of GOOD Health Care and medicines that have done this.
Not man on his own.
Hmmmmm Health Care Means we already HAVE a good health car system set in place.
Sure it needs to be tweaked, but not torn about.~!


----------



## lorian (Sep 4, 2005)

Don't have time to read all the responses but here is the answer for Christians: http://www.samaritanministries.org/monthlyshare/

$270 a month for families.

It works well, They've been around for a long time and it's a reliable program...just don't call it "insurance".


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

lorian said:


> Don't have time to read all the responses but here is the answer for Christians: http://www.samaritanministries.org/monthlyshare/
> 
> $270 a month for families.
> 
> It works well, They've been around for a long time and it's a reliable program...just don't call it "insurance".


That is a similar program to Christian Medi-Share I posted about earlier. There are several different programs across the country. They work well and are usually less costly than tradtional insurance, although at times a bit more restrictive.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Hmmmmm Health Care Means we already HAVE a good health car system set in place.


When an insured 85 year-old woman lies intubated in an ER in Las Vegas for 17 hours waiting for an ICU bed somewhere in the city, something is terribly wrong. You can expect that in a war zone, and we might even expect it if the patient were uninsured, but what witnessed on the 18th of last month has convinced me that we are living in absolute medical Siberia.

You picked a very bad time to try to convince me what a great medical system we have. I believe our medical system is dysfunctional, and it's the direct result of the money factor.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> When an insured 85 year-old woman lies intubated in an ER in Las Vegas for 17 hours waiting for an ICU bed somewhere in the city, something is terribly wrong. You can expect that in a war zone, and we might even expect it if the patient were uninsured, but what witnessed on the 18th of last month has convinced me that we are living in absolute medical Siberia.
> 
> You picked a very bad time to try to convince me what a great medical system we have. I believe our medical system is dysfunctional, and it's the direct result of the money factor.


It's the economy. Every thing is messed up.
Did she get good care in the ER? Was she negected? I doubt it.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

SquashNut said:


> Did she get good care in the ER? Was she negected? I doubt it.


Sounds like she did very well to me. She got the care she needed in a timely manner and survived. What more can he expect? People can be treated very well without being in a certain room in peek-a-boo ICU.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Did she get good care in the ER? Was she negected? I doubt it.


I'm not suggesting that the ER was substandard in any way. She got as good of care as possible for an ER, but that wasn't what she needed. She needed to be in a hospital with a neuro department, and she needed the level of care that only a neuro-ICU can provide.

Let's make no mistake about it, a number of HT members in Countryside Families who are medical professionals believed that her condition was grave beyond hope that weekend. The doctor in charge of her case believed that I was being unreasonably optimistic because I was talking about her surviving the event and coming home. No one suggested that her condition was anything less than grave.

But still, I had to watch and wait from 4 am until 9 pm that evening before a mobile ICU finally came to transfer her to a neuro-ICU. I mean seriously, in Las Vegas, Nevada? That's an absolute disgrace, and they were upfront about the reason for the delay -- it was because her insurance company didn't like the financial conditions at the only hospital with a neuro-ICU bed available.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You picked a very bad time to try to convince me what a great medical system we have.


When she has to sit at home with *no care *at all, then you will have reason to complain.

As it is , she got great care, and it was covered by insurance.



> we are living in absolute medical Siberia


Melodrama doesn't help support your claims

(Life Expectancy in Siberia is 71 years for women, 58 for males)


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

If they have to start rationing care, 85 year old woman will get to sit at home with no care.
Face facts we each as individuals are not alone, to be fair some times we have to take turns. Most likely they had the ICU on speed dial in case some thing went terribly wrong.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

This has devolved into a childish argument. There is no socialist utopia where the government runs all the business and magnaminously doles the profits out to everyone equally.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that claims ownership of all the oil reserves. That accounts for 75% of the country's total exports...they then generously give the people a few scraps, like healthcare. Anyone suggesting that this is anything but pure tyranny and oppression should have their head examined. The people do not own the means of production...the government does and they give you what they say you need.

Nevada, if you want to be taken care of like a child then check into a hospital and tell them you are hearing Karl Marx's voice in your head. They will provide all your needs for you, as they see fit.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> As it is , she got great care, and it was covered by insurance.


We'll see. Since her private insurer is regulated by Medicare I've opened a complaint through Medicare. I'm also trying to get the ear of the state insurance commission. In the surface, they both agree that 17 hours in the ER waiting for an ICU bed is outside of reasonable care guidelines.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that claims ownership of all the oil reserves.


There is a great deal of private oil industry in Saudi Arabia. Fact of the matter, US oil companies are heavily invested in Saudi oil operations, and even operate a few refineries and chemical plants.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

kirkmcquest said:


> This has devolved into a childish argument. There is no socialist utopia where the government runs all the business and magnaminously doles the profits out to everyone equally.
> 
> Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that claims ownership of all the oil reserves. That accounts for 75% of the country's total exports...they then generously give the people a few scraps, like healthcare. Anyone suggesting that this is anything but pure tyranny and oppression should have their head examined. The people do not own the means of production...the government does and they give you what they say you need.
> 
> Nevada, if you want to be taken care of like a child then check into a hospital and tell them you are hearing Karl Marx's voice in your head. They will provide all your needs for you, as they see fit.


Those who think they are going to get free health care have been scammed. I kinda feel sorry for them. The cost of their health care will leave little in their pocket for food. Or any thing else and nothing to pay the doctors.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There is a great deal of private oil industry in Saudi Arabia. Fact of the matter, US oil companies are heavily invested in Saudi oil operations, and even operate a few refineries and chemical plants.


"More than 95% of all Saudi oil is produced on behalf of the Saudi Government by the parastatal giant Saudi ARAMCO..."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm


Also, I made a mistake....oil accounts for roughly *90%* of total exports and 75% of government revenues.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kirkmcquest said:


> "More than 95% of all Saudi oil is produced on behalf of the Saudi Government by the parastatal giant Saudi ARAMCO..."


I don't doubt that, but there's a lot more to the oil business than oil production. One monster refinery in Yanbu was a joint venture with Mobile. Then the Jeddah refinery is a join venture with private Saudi investors. There's even more US owned activity on the eastern side of the country.


----------



## samm (Dec 6, 2008)

maybe if we took the medical insurance and the retirements benefits away from the politicians they might be more concerned about the insurance/medical predicament that folks are in.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then it's not a GOVT issue


***Cough** ABORTION **Cough***


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

samm said:


> maybe if we took the medical insurance and the retirements benefits away from the politicians they might be more concerned about the insurance/medical predicament that folks are in.


I've wondered that too. If we can't afford to honor our agreement to Social Security recipients, it follows that we can't honor our agreement to retired congressmen, retired military, and retired government employees.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> In the surface, they both agree that 17 hours in the ER waiting for an ICU bed is outside of reasonable care guidelines.


Of course they told you they "agree"

It's called PR

It won't create more hospital beds.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Ridiculous to go on with this.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

lorian said:


> Don't have time to read all the responses but here is the answer for Christians: http://www.samaritanministries.org/monthlyshare/
> 
> $270 a month for families.
> 
> It works well, They've been around for a long time and it's a reliable program...just don't call it "insurance".


Well, that would help...IF I was a christian! Guess I'll have to grab a bible and start spouting gibberish. 

Oh, and that ridiculous 3% figure??? Not! Last year my health insurance was $1,200.00 a month. This year its $1,500.00 a month. That's more than my paycheck!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It won't create more hospital beds.


There were beds available in town that day, it's just that she wasn't allowed to have one.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> When an insured 85 year-old woman lies intubated in an ER in Las Vegas for 17 hours waiting for an ICU bed somewhere in the city, something is terribly wrong. You can expect that in a war zone, and we might even expect it if the patient were uninsured, but what witnessed on the 18th of last month has convinced me that we are living in absolute medical Siberia.
> 
> You picked a very bad time to try to convince me what a great medical system we have. I believe our medical system is dysfunctional, and it's the direct result of the money factor.


You can look forward to a lot more of the "medical Siberia" dysfunctions as Obamacare takes hold in a couple years. I am already seeing serious changes in our area too thanks to the mess they (congress and Obama) made with their health care bill.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Buffy in Dallas said:


> Well, that would help...IF I was a christian! Guess I'll have to grab a bible and start spouting gibberish.
> 
> Oh, and that ridiculous 3% figure??? Not! Last year my health insurance was $1,200.00 a month. This year its $1,500.00 a month. That's more than my paycheck!


'just dont call it insurance'

It shouldn't be to hard to convince them you meet all their guidelines.
If not we can form a church online, and make anyone who wants cheap "not insurance" a good standing member.

We wont call the insurance insurance of you don't call our church not really a church.

lol


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There were beds available in town that day, it's just that she wasn't allowed to have one.


Dude, there are some rock solid ice cold souls here, if you get to involved in this topic you'll just go crazy.

"If they are to die, let them die.... and decrease the surplus population."

She made it past 35, cheer up. She beat the odds.

I can see my own breath while reading this thread. 
Brrrrrr.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There were beds available in town that day, it's just that *she wasn't allowed to have one*.


Then none were available .


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Del Gue said:


> Dude, there are some rock solid ice cold souls here, if you get to involved in this topic you'll just go crazy.
> 
> "If they are to die, let them die.... and decrease the surplus population."
> 
> ...



I know what you mean.
Whenever this topic comes up, I can't help but think of Dickens........


A Christmas Carol (1951) 
Scrooge (original title)


First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute. 
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons? 
First Collector: Plenty of prisons. 
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation? 
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not. 
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it. 
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. 
Ebenezer: Why? 
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for? 
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing! 
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous? 
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there. 
First Collector: Many can't go there. 
Second Collector: And some would rather die.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

I dont think anyone is saying that health care should be free. But when you have to pay $1000+ PER MONTH (!!!!) plus the $1200 deductible?? WELL THAT AINT RIGHT. Thats a royal SCREWJOB. That is a MESS. It needs FIXED. Maybe stopping pointing fingers we get something done. PPPFFFHHHT!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There is a great deal of private oil industry in Saudi Arabia. Fact of the matter, US oil companies are heavily invested in Saudi oil operations, and even operate a few refineries and chemical plants.


US oil companies are indeed vested in Saudi oil operations. Think back a few years... who was it that invested heavily in exploration, developing and putting Saudi... along with the other opec countries, oil fields into production only to have those same countries nationalize (fancy word for steal) those oil fields from the very US companies that had bought and legally owned the oil rights.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Del Gue said:


> Dude, there are some rock solid ice cold souls here, if you get to involved in this topic you'll just go crazy.
> 
> "If they are to die, let them die.... and decrease the surplus population."
> 
> ...


Perhaps a nice cup of hot tea would warm you up?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't consider universal healthcare to be a political issue. I consider it to be a moral issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I've lived in a country where the government was entirely supported by government business. The government earned all of its own operating money with no taxes. We really should consider it.


In order to do that we would have to close all corporations and all work for the goverment and buy what they told us to buy.
Is that what you want to happen? We can all be little cookie cutter worker dolls.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> In order to do that we would have to close all corporations and all work for the goverment and buy what they told us to buy.
> Is that what you want to happen? We can all be little cookie cutter worker dolls.


I wouldn't like to see it go that far. If the government only participated in large industry to the extent where taxes didn't have to be paid it would be a good thing. Most large industry would still be private, and all of the small business service sector shops would be private, as would be all retail business.

The idea of the government earning its own money is a foreign concept to us now, but if it got rid of taxes I doubt that Americans would want it any other way.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Like the post office and GM. Those gotta be the junkiest cars ever.
And the goverment would mandate that we buy them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> Like the post office and GM. Those gotta be the junkiest cars ever.
> And the goverment would mandate that we buy them.


GM wouldn't be a good business for the government to try to make money on. A business that exploits natural resources more directly would be better suited for that. Consider oil, steel, and various mining products.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I guess Big Rockpile dropped his bomb and left the room but I sure would have liked an explanation for why he is paying for his pastor's health care insurance.

Something that blows me away is that you folks can all argue so much about health care insurance but not a single person blinked an eye or questions it that USA is footing the bill for health care out of American war funding for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

What's up with that? Why is it okay with all of you for you all to be paying for the health care for 2 other countries that you're involved in a war with but you can't come to any agreements about health care coverage for yourselves in your own country? :huh:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I sure would have liked an explanation for why he is paying for his pastor's health care insurance.



Evidently it's a part of his contract for the church to pay


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Something that blows me away is that you folks can all argue so much about health care insurance but not a single person blinked an eye or questions it that USA is footing the bill for health care out of American war funding for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> What's up with that? Why is it okay with all of you for you all to be paying for the health care for 2 other countries that you're involved in a war with but you can't come to any agreements about health care coverage for yourselves in your own country? :huh:


You know what, I wouldn't go there if I were you, you don't want to open up that can of worms here on this board. :nono:

I'm betting 9/10ths of the general American population now don't even know what actually happened to the healthcare infrastructures and medical personnel over there so the folks here haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Those countries state healthcare systems and medical institutions and teaching facilities got trashed and medical personnel all had to escape for their lives from those countries or else get held as hostages for ransom after their respective invasions. The USA and coalition forces had to do _something_ to help fix what got broke but what really happened there is not something that was widely advertised information to the general public in USA.


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

> I don't consider universal healthcare to be a political issue. I consider it to be a moral issue.


Yes, people can't afford the insurance or the cost of healthcare, both are out of control, but that's the free market system, right? So let's just keep voting (IF our votes count) for the old system so someone can get really rich. The rest of us can just die.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Paumon said:


> Those countries state healthcare systems and medical institutions and teaching facilities got trashed and medical personnel all had to escape for their lives from those countries or else get held as hostages for ransom after their respective invasions. The USA and coalition forces had to do _something_ to help fix what got broke but what really happened there is not something that was widely advertised information to the general public in USA.


Maybe that's what our health care system needs.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I guess Big Rockpile dropped his bomb and left the room but I sure would have liked an explanation for why he is paying for his pastor's health care insurance.
> 
> Something that blows me away is that you folks can all argue so much about health care insurance but not a single person blinked an eye or questions it that USA is footing the bill for health care out of American war funding for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is OK, with any one. But at this point the US goverment is out of control. They are in bed with the big corporations (think Insurance companies) and are doing things to drive up the cost of health care. They are engaging in wars that we don't belong in and have drove our entilements through the roof. I don't know at this point if we will ever fix our country. I wouldn't say this is alright with any of us, it is how ever over welming at times, and hard to get every thing they are doing in one conversation.
I would think they pay the pastor's insurance because it's in the contract as part of his pay. Some churches also provide housing for their pastor.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Ana Bluebird said:


> Yes, people can't afford the insurance or the cost of healthcare, both are out of control, but that's the free market system, right? So let's just keep voting (IF our votes count) for the old system so someone can get really rich. The rest of us can just die.


:rock::rock::rock:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ana Bluebird said:


> Yes, people can't afford the insurance or the cost of healthcare, both are out of control, but that's the free market system, right? So let's just keep voting (IF our votes count) for the old system so someone can get really rich. The rest of us can just die.


Healthcare cost needs to be regulated. Not only is the health of our nation suffering, but this unchecked rise in health care cost will eventually result in the collapse if the entire system, all in the name of profit.

If you think it can't happen, just look at what the free market system did to the banking system in 2008. Do we have the money to bailout hospitals too?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Healthcare cost needs to be regulated. Not only is the health of our nation suffering, but this unchecked rise in health care cost will eventually result in the collapse if the entire system, all in the name of profit.
> 
> If you think it can't happen, just look at what the free market system did to the banking system in 2008. Do we have the money to bailout hospitals too?


I have a theory that the housing bubble created the health care mess.
I mean it cost's more for every peice of land you put the hospitals on, or the places to build or manufacture medical equipment ect. There is the problem.
What the answer to that is I don't know.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> I have a theory that the housing bubble created the health care mess.
> I mean it cost's more for every peice of land you put the hospitals on, or the places to build or manufacture medical equipment ect. There is the problem.
> What the answer to that is I don't know.


Then things should be in a steady reversal with the real estate price crash. Any sign of that yet?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There is still WAY more houses on the market YET for that to happen. People need JOBS. Then watch the housing pick back up. 
it is the economy that is holding things back now. No JOBS.
And a horrible Failed economic policy from the Obama administration.
It did not take more then a few months to get the economy running at full tilt when Reagan got in after the MESS that Carter made of things.
What in the world has Obama been doing besides golfing. Nothing but making things Worse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Healthcare cost needs to be regulated


You keep saying that, and all the while demanding the very best of treatments with the latest technology.

It doesn't come cheap.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Then things should be in a steady reversal with the real estate price crash. Any sign of that yet?


No instead we get inflation, high gas prices and QE2.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying that, and all the while demanding the very best of treatments with the latest technology.
> 
> It doesn't come cheap.


I never asked for the best care available, just appropriate care.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I never asked for the best care available, just appropriate care.


Sorry.

I mistook you for the one who complained about not being able to get a room in an ICU on demand.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sorry.
> 
> I mistook you for the one who complained about not being able to get a room in an ICU on demand.


To sort of take your side, An ER's ICU is not the place a terminal patient who is having trouble in their last stages of life to be treated. I spent some time in a trauma unit, an ICU and more than my share of ER's as a patient.

I can understand when In ICU or an ER says "we have no room" and they have 6 beds empty.
if there is a major accident they will need those 6 beds, it's an ER. The ICU works the same way.

If I understand Nevada's plight correctly, he's talking about an elderly terminally ill person who needs care in their end stages. That's not what an ER is for. That's what a hospice care is for. When my grandmother was dying at home with cancer, as she got so bad we needed her to have better care for the short time she had, she was sent directly to a hospice center from the ER.
Maybe she had ins. to do that I dunno. Maybe we made arrangements ahead of time. it was a long time ago. I do know that cloggin the er up with old folks on their last leg would really mess up the function of an ER/ICU.

Er's are not for coughs cold and sniffles. Old people and terminally ill people DO need ER care sometimes. If you can lie on a cot for 17 hours waiting for a hospital bed, I'm not sure why that 17 hours wasn't spent at home while waiting to go to a hospice center.

Maybe I missed something in the story, but I can see BFF's points about the ER.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sorry.
> 
> I mistook you for the one who complained about not being able to get a room in an ICU on demand.


A neuro-ICU bed was appropriate care for her condition, but I wasn't demanding it be at the Mayo Clinic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Del Gue said:


> If I understand Nevada's plight correctly, he's talking about an elderly terminally ill person who needs care in their end stages. That's not what an ER is for. That's what a hospice care is for.


To be clear, she has no terminal illness. Her problems were acute. Potentially fatal, but still acute. She had a subdural hematoma, a stroke, and a pulmonary embolism all within a 2 month period, and that was in addition to dehydration and a few other complicating problems. But there is every reason to believe that she will recover and live for years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> A neuro-ICU bed was appropriate care for her condition, but I wasn't demanding it be at the Mayo Clinic.


 What are YOU a doctor now? Do you have a MD degree? 
Prescribing things you know nothing about, but are only hoping you are right at.
You sure sound you know more then those that have a Degree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A neuro-ICU bed was appropriate care for her condition, but I wasn't demanding it be at the Mayo Clinic.


She got one and you still complained because it wasn't "fast enough".


----------



## Just Cliff (Nov 27, 2008)

The high cost of health insurance is one reason I still work. If it was not for that. I could/would leave my job and work the farm full time.

What I see is everyone buying into what your told too by TPTB.

*Health insurance is not the problem!!* The cost of health care is the problem. Until people start concentrating on $35 Tylenol,$400 crutches, nurses that make $68 an hour and doctors that make $7000 an hour. None of us will ever be able to afford much of anything except health care.
I don't begrudge people making a good living. I have many friends that are nurses and a few that are doctors. Even they are shocked at how much they are paid at times. (hoilday pay) 

A good many hospitals are for profit, run by corporations with stock holders now. I don't have a problem with a company making an honest profit of 30%. Thats business. The profit margins are out of this world now. Even the non-profit hospitals are raking in the cash. 
We have all heard over the last several years of almost every type of business there is having hard times. Anyone hear any health care companies P&Ming?? Not at all. They keep their heads down and mouths shut all the while busting Medicaid and Medicare a new one. (Our tax dollars) 

I went to the ER on the 1st of this year for a massive sinus infection. Woke up and couldn't see and was sick to my stomach. I couldn't even get myself dressed. 2 hours later after a shot in the butt and a prescrition for anti-biotics I still had a headache and a $3000 bill from 5 yes 5 different sources. The ER, ER doc, Radiology, Radiologist and the in house pharmacy. 
The wife went last year for a severly sprained ankle. She got even more. A 6th bill for a "kit" that included crutches,ace bandage and an ice pack, $475 for that special equipment. The whole thing only cost her $4382. 

Insurance, Not the problem.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> To be clear, she has no terminal illness. Her problems were acute. Potentially fatal, but still acute. She had a subdural hematoma, a stroke, and a pulmonary embolism all within a 2 month period, and that was in addition to dehydration and a few other complicating problems. But there is every reason to believe that she will recover and live for years.


I see. Then I guess an ER was the proper place. 
If she isnt terminal, then one would think they would do whatever was needed ASAP.

When I get to where I can't wipe my own behind I think I'll just shoot myself.... it'll be easier.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> What are YOU a doctor now? Do you have a MD degree?
> Prescribing things you know nothing about, but are only hoping you are right at.
> You sure sound you know more then those that have a Degree.


Not that you've ever given a rip about the degree that I do have, but the Dr in the ER told me that she needed to be in a neuro-ICU. But her need for a neuro-ICU is self-evident, otherwise the insurance company would never let her go to one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Del Gue said:


> I see. Then I guess an ER was the proper place.
> If she isnt terminal, then one would think they would do whatever was needed ASAP.


Let's be even a little more clear. A bilateral pulmonary embolism can have grave consequences. It is not uncommon for people to die from a PE. However, it's not a terminal illness. It's an acute condition, and once the danger period is past there is no reason why someone who has had a PE can't live a long and productive life.

Her case was particularly grave, since she also had an active brain bleed, also an acute condition. It was that complication that made the ER Dr want to send her to a neuro-ICU. The ER was not equipped to treat her beyond intubating her, since that hospital doesn't have a neuro department. She laid in the ER intubated and heavily sedated for the entire 17 hour wait. I don't mind telling you that it wasn't easy on me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> To be clear, she has no terminal illness. Her problems were acute. Potentially fatal, but still acute. She had a subdural hematoma, a stroke, and a pulmonary embolism all within a 2 month period, and that was in addition to dehydration and a few other complicating problems. But *there is every reason to believe that she will recover and live for years.*


So it would appear that the level of care received was indeed adequate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So it would appear that the level of care received was indeed adequate.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Why do you say that?


I didnt say it.... you did. She is alive and expected to live for many years. Obviously the care she received was adequate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didnt say it.... you did. She is alive and expected to live for many years. Obviously the care she received was adequate.


She is alive, but no one expects her to live for "many" years. If she has more than year or two I'll be surprised.

But the question isn't whether she survived, the question is whether the 17 hour wait in the ER was appropriate. An 85 year-old woman with an active brain bleed needs to be admitted to a neuro-ICU at once. Anything could have happened in the ER during that 17 hours, and they didn't even have a neurologist on staff.

You hear about delays like that in remote desert areas, in county supported hospitals, and of course in war zones. But this was an insured woman at a private hospital in Las Vegas, NV. There is absolutely no excuse for it.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Nevada said:


> She is alive, but no one expects her to live for "many" years. If she has more than year or two I'll be surprised.
> 
> But the question isn't whether she survived, the question is whether the 17 hour wait in the ER was appropriate. An 85 year-old woman with an active brain bleed needs to be admitted to a neuro-ICU at once. Anything could have happened in the ER during that 17 hours, and they didn't even have a neurologist on staff.
> 
> You hear about delays like that in remote desert areas, in county supported hospitals, and of course in war zones. But this was an insured woman at a private hospital in Las Vegas, NV. There is absolutely no excuse for it.




The neurologist was probably at one of the area prisons tending to a death row inmate.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well if you think it is going to get better under Obamacare you have another thing coming. It will be NMuch worse. You may have never even Had her moved. She would have remained right there in the hospital. And the that wait time which you think is bad will be a Short time compared to what is in store in the next few years, unless the HealthCare bill is STOPPED and stopped in its tracks fast.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> She is alive, but no one expects her to live for "many" years. If she has more than year or two I'll be surprised.
> 
> But the question isn't whether she survived, the question is whether the 17 hour wait in the ER was appropriate. An 85 year-old woman with an active brain bleed needs to be admitted to a neuro-ICU at once. Anything could have happened in the ER during that 17 hours, and they didn't even have a neurologist on staff.
> 
> You hear about delays like that in remote desert areas, in county supported hospitals, and of course in war zones. But this was an insured woman at a private hospital in Las Vegas, NV. There is absolutely no excuse for it.


Ummm, Last time I scanned a map, Las Vegas was in a remote desert area... right along with the rest of Nv. 

Since there was no neurologist on hand... what difference would having a "neuro-ICU" label on the door to a room have made? 

The point here Nevada is that she received adequate care.... maybe not the care you would have liked her to receive but it was obviously sufficient. Perhaps they should have put her on a plane to India... I understand they have superior medical care facilities there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Well if you think it is going to get better under Obamacare you have another thing coming. It will be NMuch worse. You may have never even Had her moved. She would have remained right there in the hospital. And the that wait time which you think is bad will be a Short time compared to what is in store in the next few years, unless the HealthCare bill is STOPPED and stopped in its tracks fast.


That's a point that I'm glad you brought up. I'm dealing with a private insurance company that wants my friend dead, and have taken specific steps to try to accomplish that. They were even rude and abusive with me when I intervened.

I never had that with Medicare. In fact, I never talked to Medicare at all unless I called them and asked for help. Medicare just stayed in the background and paid the bills.

Yes, if it will be like Medicare then I say the more government intervention the better.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Well if you think it is going to get better under Obamacare you have another thing coming. It will be NMuch worse. You may have never even Had her moved. She would have remained right there in the hospital. And the that wait time which you think is bad will be a Short time compared to what is in store in the next few years, unless the HealthCare bill is STOPPED and stopped in its tracks fast.


There is a pretty good possibility that this situation was a direct result of Obamacare. Even though its not been fully implemented yet, med care facilities are making a lot of changes in preparation for when the debacle does go into effect.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's a point that I'm glad you brought up. I'm dealing with a private insurance company that wants my friend dead, and have taken specific steps to try to accomplish that. They were even rude and abusive with me when I intervened.
> 
> I never had that with Medicare. In fact, I never talked to Medicare at all unless I called them and asked for help. Medicare just stayed in the background and paid the bills.
> 
> Yes, if it will be like Medicare then I say the more government intervention the better.


so your insurance company has tried to kill your friend, you intervened and they became rude with you? Perhaps criminal charges would be in order.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

chickenslayer said:


> The neurologist was probably at one of the area prisons tending to a death row inmate.




:hysterical:ound::hysterical:ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummm, Last time I scanned a map, Las Vegas was in a remote desert area... right along with the rest of Nv.
> 
> Since there was no neurologist on hand... what difference would having a "neuro-ICU" label on the door to a room have made?


Now you are being deliberately obtuse.

Las Vegas is a large metropolitan area with 1.5 million people, and even has it's own medical school (UNLV). While Las Vegas is situated in a remote location, live in Las Vegas is not that of a remote desert community.

The particular hospital where she was taken for emergency intubation did not have a neuro department. She had to be transferred to a different hospital to get to a neuro-ICU. They have plenty of neurologists available at a number of other hospitals around town.

The fact that she survived does not establish that she had adequate care, any more than her dying would have established that her care was inadequate. What I'm saying is that she survived in spite of inadequate care, much to the dismay of her insurance company.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so your insurance company has tried to kill your friend, you intervened and they became rude with you? Perhaps criminal charges would be in order.


I doubt it. They will argue that letting her die would have been the best thing for her welfare. Her insurance company could parade any number of doctors that work for them through the courtroom claiming the hopelessness of her condition. I would have an uphill battle on my hands.

But let's make no mistake about the fact that Alma is costing the insurance company plenty. Her death today could easily save them hundreds of thousands. They have a huge incentive to want her dead.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Fowler said:


> :hysterical:ound::hysterical:ound:


Please, let's keep it serious and in topic. We're talking about the survival of someone I am very close to.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Please, let's keep it serious and in topic. We're talking about the survival of someone I am very close to.


And I was not replying to your statement, the caveman made me do it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I doubt it. They will argue that letting her die would have been the best thing for her welfare. Her insurance company could parade any number of doctors that work for them through the courtroom claiming the hopelessness of her condition. I would have an uphill battle on my hands.
> 
> But let's make no mistake about the fact that Alma is costing the insurance company plenty. Her death today could easily save them hundreds of thousands. They have a huge incentive to want her dead.


I doubt seriously that her insurance company had much say as to whether or not she was denied a room in neuroICU. Or any of the other medical decisions her doctors make. They simply treat the patients, and then bill the insurance companies. At least thats the way its done in my state.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I doubt seriously that her insurance company had much say as to whether or not she was denied a room in neuroICU. Or any of the other medical decisions her doctors make. They simply treat the patients, and then bill the insurance companies. At least thats the way its done in my state.


The insurance company tried to find an ICU bed in a hospital with a neuro department throughout the day. They called every hospital in town. They were aware early-on that Sunrise Hospital had a bed available (they told me that), but Sunrise is not a preferred provider for financial reasons.

Throughout the day they were hoping for an opening at another hospital, but it never happened. Begrudgingly, by evening they approved the transfer to Sunrise because they realized that Sunrise was the only option.

Alma could have transferred to Sunrise at any time that day, since they had beds. It was not approved until evening solely for financial reasons.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The insurance company tried to find an ICU bed in a hospital with a neuro department throughout the day. They called every hospital in town. They were aware early-on that Sunrise Hospital had a bed available (they told me that), but Sunrise is not a preferred provider for financial reasons.
> 
> Throughout the day they were hoping for an opening at another hospital, but it never happened. Begrudgingly, by evening they approved the transfer to Sunrise because they realized that Sunrise was the only option.
> 
> Alma could have transferred to Sunrise at any time that day, since they had beds. It was not approved until evening solely for financial reasons.


Hmmm, seems to me like if someone had simply authorized payment for this transfer... Alma could have been tucked in where you wanted her early in the day. I sign good for any bills that my insurance refuses and receive treatment accordingly. One major difference though seems to be that her insurance company got involved rather early in the process... my insurance company never hears about much until the bills are presented to them... at which time they decide which portion they will pay, and which I am responsible for. This is usually several weeks to couple of months AFTER the treatments have been administered. I presume at her age, Alma is dealing with Medicare, and some form of supplemental policy?? I have no real experience with those folks as I have yet to file a claim with medicare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm, seems to me like if someone had simply authorized payment for this transfer... Alma could have been tucked in where you wanted her early in the day. I sign good for any bills that my insurance refuses and receive treatment accordingly. One major difference though seems to be that her insurance company got involved rather early in the process... my insurance company never hears about much until the bills are presented to them... at which time they decide which portion they will pay, and which I am responsible for. This is usually several weeks to couple of months AFTER the treatments have been administered. I presume at her age, Alma is dealing with Medicare, and some form of supplemental policy?? I have no real experience with those folks as I have yet to file a claim with medicare.


Yes, she is a member of an HMO. They assign a "care manager" as soon as one of their subscribers enters the hospital. Everything goes through the care manager. Since they are paying the entire bill, they watch things pretty closely. They have complete control.

I'm learning that there isn't much recourse with a Medicare Advantage HMO. They basically do what they want. If something happens that's either unethical or contrary to normal medical standards then you do have the right to file a complaint through Medicare, which I am pursuing, but that doesn't help at the time of an emergency.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes, she is a member of an HMO. They assign a "care manager" as soon as one of their subscribers enters the hospital. Everything goes through the care manager. Since they are paying the entire bill, they watch things pretty closely. They have complete control.
> 
> I'm learning that there isn't much recourse with a Medicare Advantage HMO. They basically do what they want. If something happens that's either unethical or contrary to normal medical standards then you do have the right to file a complaint through Medicare, which I am pursuing, but that doesn't help at the time of an emergency.


So basically this is a result of how our government health care system works. So far I am not impressed, and from the sound of things.... neither are you. I see Obamacare as being even worse than medicare... it was a rushed through job with no oversight from anyone with a modicum of relative intelligence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So basically this is a result of how our government health care system works. So far I am not impressed, and from the sound of things.... neither are you.


No, she doesn't have government health care coverage at all any longer.

To be precise, her care problems are the result of her Medicare benefits being administrated by a private insurance company instead of the government. This is what happens when corporate greed is allowed to take priority over patient care.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It OS still mandated by what they can and can not do by the government because it is the Government that have given such companies money to go ahead and issue their coverage.
I know for a fact IF I would have to back on the High Powerful drugs for my RA I would HAVE to ASK Humana IF they would pay it through my D drug coverage. No different from what is happening here.
And as far as waiting for a room to get moved into.
I waited from 3:00 in the afternoon to after Midnight to get into the ICU and have the Kidney Dialysis machine put on.
Both my kidneys and Liver were completely shut down for about 3 days. I was in pretty rough shape.
But went in got attached and everything turned out fine.
Things just do not move as fast as some think they should I guess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It OS still mandated by what they can and can not do by the government because it is the Government that have given such companies money to go ahead and issue their coverage.


She didn't have these problems when she had straight Medicare. She got whatever she needed -- no questions asked. The copays were a lot higher, but she always got what she needed. The problems started with the new set of rules the HMO has.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Since they are paying the entire bill, they watch things pretty closely. They have complete control


In other words, they do exactly what was agreed upon when she signed on to the contract?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No, she doesn't have government health care coverage at all any longer.
> 
> To be precise, her care problems are the result of her Medicare benefits being administrated by a private insurance company instead of the government. This is what happens when corporate greed is allowed to take priority over patient care.


I have a feeling the government is in control somewhere behind the scenes. It sounds like the HMO is merely handling the governments money.

It also seems like I recall a time when she was not getting the best of care and her hip was broken as a result. Was this while she was on medicare... or was the private insurance in effect at that time?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Whether it be "gov't" insurance, private insurance or a mixture of both (very common) it's all the same. Some are worse in a matter of degrees but they all try to deny care since they are paying for it. The fact that you paid in premiums to supposedly cover that care doesn't matter when it comes time to collect for that service.
Most people aren't even aware of who is actually authorizing and controlling their treatment. And 99 times out of 100 it isn't you and the doctor. 
That is the myth.

I went through this with my wife under workers comp. 
Gov't insurance, right?
Wrong. Look it up in your state and you'll find a private insurance company "managing" that account.
In her case it was Gallagher-Bassett.
Because of their denial of care, in violation of Florida statutes, she now has permanent nerve damage in her neck. Had she had the corrective surgery within the 6 month window (doctor's opinion - not mine) instead of band-aid attempts for 9 months, chances are this wouldn't be the case.

There were many times over the course of 3 years that I literally had to threaten the insurance company and it's lawyers in order to force them to consent to medically necessary treatment.
Being nice doesn't work. I wish it did.
Knowing the statute number by heart and quoting it was very effective.
In one particular incident, we ended up in the ER on a Saturday, but my phone calls to them and their attorney did prevent further damage and/or death. This is not an exaggeration. When someone has uncontrolled vomiting after a serious spinal surgery to their neck - it's dead serious.

I had to be vigilant with the doctors as well.
Despite their PhD's, they can be quite dense at times, and very stubborn if they're convinced they're not wrong.
The point is, you need to be a constant, present advocate for anyone you love when they are in this position.
I care not "who" the entity is, public or private, in whose hands her life is in, the "bulldog" as she calls me, is always on watch.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It also seems like I recall a time when she was not getting the best of care and her hip was broken as a result. Was this while she was on medicare... or was the private insurance in effect at that time?


Yes, that was at a private hospital while she was on regular Medicare. As I've been saying all along, we are in medical Siberia.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes, that was at a private hospital while she was on regular Medicare. As I've been saying all along, we are in medical Siberia.


Yep, and we are on the fast track from Siberia to the north pole... more government involvement is not the answer. As a matter of fact, its government involvement that has put us in Siberia. Think about it for a moment. Our medical care was perking along pretty well until Medicare was started back in the sixties, by the time the eighties rolled around things were beginning to accelerate in a bad direction... now its forty years later and things are totally out of hand.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and we are on the fast track from Siberia to the north pole... more government involvement is not the answer. As a matter of fact, its government involvement that has put us in Siberia. Think about it for a moment. Our medical care was perking along pretty well until Medicare was started back in the sixties, by the time the eighties rolled around things were beginning to accelerate in a bad direction... now its forty years later and things are totally out of hand.


I don't believe that government involvement caused the decline in medical care. I don't know the exact cause, but the problem seems to be economic. The problems I've encountered are mostly limited to 1) insurance authorizations, and 2) nursing care.

I've been impressed with most of the medical community. For the most part doctors are well-trained, professional, and very good at what they do. Medical equipment is the best, and hospitals have certainly made the necessary investment in the right kind of things. Technicians who do various diagnostic and treatment procedures are very good too. Our country is also very proud of our emergency medical system (fire rescue services, for example), and we deserve to be. Where we drop the ball is in making the right kind of definitive care available and in providing personal care to the patient in the hospital.

As far as personal care quality, I think nursing talent is spread too thin. Nurses have too much to do. That becomes obvious when I suspect that something is wrong with Alma's medication, such as her not being given her arthritis or thyroid medication within a few days after admission. I'll ask, "Is she getting a steroid for her arthritis?" To which I'll normally get the reply, "I don't know. I'll have to look." When a nurse doesn't know what one of his/her patients is being treated for, it's a sure sign that he's spread too thin.

Insurance companies have far too much clout in medical authorizations. That has evolved from authorizing major procedures to actually determining the patient's course of treatment. They decide which procedures will be done, where they will be done, when they will be done, and what follow-up care the patient will get. That means that instead of simply saying "Yes, the patient may have that operation", the insurance company is telling the doctor what procedure to do and what level of care they will pay for. That goes far beyond anything the medical community ever envisioned that medical authorizations would do.

If we fix insurance authorizations and improve nursing care, that would fix 90% of what's wrong with our medical system today. I don't see how government intervention caused either of those problems.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Nevada said:


> If we fix insurance authorizations and improve nursing care, that would fix 90% of what's wrong with our medical system today. I don't see how government intervention caused either of those problems.



Exactly what I said in my post above.
People who think the gov't is the one to worry about interfering with the doctor/patient relationship, just haven't been paying attention. It happens now everyday. It's called a case manager from an insurance agency.

As suggested earlier in this thread as a good answer to the OP's question........cut out the insurance companies. 
This is actually more a capitalist idea than socialist.
Let the consumer and market decide what's best and cheapest for us.

Any objections? Besides health insurance salesman, of course.


----------



## Qhorseman (Jul 9, 2010)

I have read this thread with interest. Paying for health care is an alien concept for me. I joined the Navy right out of HS, went on and retired. I have had non-contributory healthcare all of my adult life. Some of you folks are paying more in healthcare premiums than my retirement check from the Navy.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I can post on here a youtube video where VP Bidden says this:
"We Will Take Over The Insurance Companies"
Wow how stupid is that?
Government again Trying their dardest to take over yet another section of private companies.
Dumb dumb dumb.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Qhorseman said:


> I have read this thread with interest. Paying for health care is an alien concept for me. I joined the Navy right out of HS, went on and retired. I have had non-contributory healthcare all of my adult life. Some of you folks are paying more in healthcare premiums than my retirement check from the Navy.


Your health care and retirement might be at risk too. If congress would consider cutting retirement and health care benefits that Americans have bought and paid for out of their wages, I don't see why they wouldn't cut military retirement and health care benefits too. If they don't have the money to honor Social Security and Medicare obligations, it follows that they don't have the money to honor military retirement obligations either.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I can post on here a youtube video where VP Bidden says this:
> "We Will Take Over The Insurance Companies"
> Wow how stupid is that?
> Government again Trying their dardest to take over yet another section of private companies.
> Dumb dumb dumb.


The government needs to. When private insurance companies are killing Americans for profit, it's time for the government to step in.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The government has Never ever solved one cotton picken thing. They have messed up everything they have touched bar NONE.
So NO they can not do some insane move like that. Since when it is Constitutional for Government to Take Over A Private Company??????
Get off this dreamland thinking that Government is the answer, it is NOT, and never has been.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The government needs to. When private insurance companies are killing Americans for profit, it's* time for the government to step in*.


Because they do such a great job?

Get real




> If *they don't have the money *to honor Social Security and Medicare obligations, it follows that they don't have the money to honor military retirement obligations either.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> I can post on here a youtube video where VP Bidden says this:
> "We Will Take Over The Insurance Companies"
> Wow how stupid is that?
> Government again Trying their dardest to take over yet another section of private companies.
> Dumb dumb dumb.


Correct.



Nevada said:


> The government needs to. When private insurance companies are killing Americans for profit, it's time for the government to step in.



Nope.
Don't take them over - cut them out of the whole transaction.





arabian knight said:


> *The government has Never ever solved one cotton picken thing. They have messed up everything they have touched bar NONE.*
> So NO they can not do some insane move like that. Since when it is Constitutional for Government to Take Over A Private Company??????
> Get off this dreamland thinking that Government is the answer, it is NOT, and never has been.


Now, I realize that this is a wildly popular myth that makes Ronnie Raygun so-called conservatives enter nirvana.
But in the interest of honesty, would you consider our military an arm of the government?
If so, would you admit that that is at least one example of something the gov't does well and constitutionally ordained?
Would you admit that Harry S. Truman (a gov't employee) did an excellent job solving that pesky Pearl Harbor problem?
And that isn't the only military example.
How about that thing you drive on to work everyday?
I realize road work crews are deservedly maligned as we watch them lean on shovels, but I'm referring to the original idea that Eisenhower had. (Another gov't and military employee)
Do you not think the interstate system was a good idea?

How about police, fire and EMS? Do they generally do a good job in your area? Aren't they a function of gov't?

Yes, back to topic, the gov't should stay out of the Dr's office, but that popular statement about the gov't ALWAYS doing it wrong, should really be examined.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The government has Never ever solved one cotton picken thing. They have messed up everything they have touched bar NONE.
> So NO they can not do some insane move like that. Since when it is Constitutional for Government to Take Over A Private Company??????
> Get off this dreamland thinking that Government is the answer, it is NOT, and never has been.


I have been impressed with the way Medicare is administrated. Private insurance can only aspire to operate as effectively and efficiently as Medicare. I can tell you this right now, Alma would never have waited 17 hours in the ER for a neuro-ICU bed if she was a regular Medicare patient.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Time for you to step aside, and take a more objective look at things. You are WAY to deeply involved to make any kind of a rational thought process on how things should be corrected.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Energy Rebel said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > The government needs to. When private insurance companies are killing Americans for profit, it's time for the government to step in.
> ...


I'd like to see that too, but it is too radical of a change to be realistic in my lifetime. I suppose if the entire medical system collapsed the change would happen overnight, but that would be a disaster in itself.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

But military health care is becoming unsustainable too and many VA hospitals are places to avoid like the plague, so government is not doing that too well either. Military healthcare was a benefit to induce people to enlist back in the days when military pay was very low. I was making less than $100 a month when I enlisted back in the 60's.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Time for you to step aside, and take a more objective look at things. You are WAY to deeply involved to make any kind of a rational thought process on how things should be corrected.


On the contrary, I've had a good look at the state of the medical system lately. That doesn't disqualify me from the argument, it makes me knowledgeable enough to give an authoritative opinion.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread yet. I'm still stuck on how Conservatives keep health care costs down. If that's the case then why did the premiums my DH's company paid their insurance company go up at least 12% every single year W was in office? The biggest increase was 28%. Last I checked 12% was more than the cost of inflation. And to add insult to injury, our co-pays went up, too. Where we paid $20 before it's now $50. Since Obama came in office they have actually leveled off to a more reasonable 3% per year increase. 

As it is now, if DH didn't have to pay for insurance he could (and would!)afford to employ at least one more full time person. He pays more for insurance than he does in taxes.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> I haven't read the whole thread yet. * I'm still stuck on how Conservatives keep health care costs down.* If that's the case then why did the premiums my DH's company paid their insurance company go up at least 12% every single year W was in office? The biggest increase was 28%. Last I checked 12% was more than the cost of inflation. And to add insult to injury, our co-pays went up, too. Where we paid $20 before it's now $50. Since Obama came in office they have actually leveled off to a more reasonable 3% per year increase.
> 
> As it is now, if DH didn't have to pay for insurance he could (and would!)afford to employ at least one more full time person. He pays more for insurance than he does in taxes.





Shhhhhhhhhhh..................They don't have a good answer for that (other than "let the free market take care of it") and you're not supposed to remember those facts
My favorite response is, "That's not our problem." And I guess if you're healthy and/or rich, that would certainly be the case.
Now, as for the rest of us.................



Heeeeeeerrrrreeeeeee's your sign.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Odd how all this stuff was going downhill for 8 years, and yet the first week O takes the office suddenly the past 8-10 yrs of problems were his fault.
I tell you that dude is amazing.


----------



## Qhorseman (Jul 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Your health care and retirement might be at risk too. If congress would consider cutting retirement and health care benefits that Americans have bought and paid for out of their wages, I don't see why they wouldn't cut military retirement and health care benefits too. If they don't have the money to honor Social Security and Medicare obligations, it follows that they don't have the money to honor military retirement obligations either.


They are already trying to play with how our COLA is computed.As much as I would like to say I don't think they would play with military retirement, I know that isn't so. I think more realistically they will cap our benefits. At this time I don't think they want to play with a recruiting tool. Ya never know up in Washington.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Qhorseman said:


> They are already trying to play with how our COLA is computed.As much as I would like to say I don't think they would play with military retirement, I know that isn't so. I think more realistically they will cap our benefits. At this time I don't think they want to play with a recruiting tool. Ya never know up in Washington.


There's one thing we know for sure in Washington, they won't fool with retirement or healthcare for congressmen.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As far as personal care quality, I think nursing talent is spread too thin. Nurses have too much to do. That becomes obvious when I suspect that something is wrong with Alma's medication, such as her not being given her arthritis or thyroid medication within a few days after admission. I'll ask, "Is she getting a steroid for her arthritis?" To which I'll normally get the reply, "I don't know. I'll have to look." When a nurse doesn't know what one of his/her patients is being treated for, it's a sure sign that he's spread too thin./QUOTE]
> 
> If you seriously want to learn why nurses won't give you a direct answer, ask any of the multititude of shyster lawyers who make their living suing hospitals.
> 
> If you seriously want to learn why the nurse/patient ratio is at its current level, ask Medicare not only why its reimbursement rates are so low, but also why their reimbursement runs months to years behind.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Nevada said:


> The government needs to. When private insurance companies are killing Americans for profit, it's time for the government to step in.


And replace the private insurers trying to kill your friend, and replace it with the government trying to kill your friend... Does it really make a difference? Private vs. Government? 

Do you think once every citizen is under the single payer system, that folks without any chance of an improvement in quality of life, will get millions of dollars in end of life services?

I feel for your friend Alma, I really do. I've went thru the same thing, with both private and govt. funded insurance. Private insurance spent 3/4Million on my mother... seriously doubt if mom had made it to medicare they'd'a been overjoyed spending that much, on a very lost cause.

Instead of "Almas" bankrupting private insurers, they'll bankrupt the govt. Oh wait, they're already bankrupt.

No one makes it out of this world alive.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

texican said:


> No one makes it out of this world alive.




That's something we all can agree on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Qhorseman said:


> I have read this thread with interest. Paying for health care is an alien concept for me. I joined the Navy right out of HS, went on and retired. I have had non-contributory healthcare all of my adult life. Some of you folks are paying more in healthcare premiums than my retirement check from the Navy.


You payed for yor health care as part of your compensation package. You earned it, although you never really saw the cash, and my thanks to you for your years of service.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Del Gue said:


> Odd how all this stuff was going downhill for 8 years, and yet the first week O takes the office suddenly the past 8-10 yrs of problems were his fault.
> I tell you that dude is amazing.


It has been going downhill for a lot longer than 10 years...

Look at the factual changes since the federal government overstepped its bounds back in the early sixties. They stepped up to the plate (illegally) and installed medicare and medicaid. Those programs paid whatever fees were being charged. it didnt take the health care industry too long to figure that out and they began upping their rates in short order. By the early eighties things were getting out of hand. through the eighties and ninetys, things spiraled out of control in the medical world. Obamacare is only making it worse. get the feds out of the game and the markets will balance again.... all by their lonely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You payed for yor health care as part of your compensation package. You earned it, although you never really saw the cash, and my thanks to you for your years of service.


Don't I deserve Social Security & Medicare just as much as retired military deserve their retirement benefits? I'm not taking anything away from retired military, I'm just saying that I paid for it too.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And I think it is about time for a few to take it easy on a Saturday, and do what I just did Take In A Movie.
Relax and get away from the rat race.
I laughed throughout the new movie that just opened this weekend. Zookeeper.
One movie that a person can just relax to laugh some, and forget the troubles of the world.
Real Good Therapy.
And it awhile now a Nascar race is on and again I will sit back and not give a hoot about the rest of the world.
Good thing for all to do once in awhile. Just forget things of the day, forget the politicking, and just take a deep breath, and say it is really a nice world and free country after all.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

ghmerrill said:


> Wait! If the liberals are mostly non faith people, aren't we all on the wrong sides here? The liberals should be screaming about making health care available, as their bible, the one written by darwin, would indicate we are going to destroy our species by taking care of the unhealthy! :banana:
> 
> :duel:


You start off with an incorrect assumption. As my neighbor's 
bumpersticker says, "Jesus was a Liberal" ;-)


----------



## Qhorseman (Jul 9, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You payed for yor health care as part of your compensation package. You earned it, although you never really saw the cash, and my thanks to you for your years of service.


I have learned these past few years just what a valuable benefit it is to have the health care I have. I watched an ailing father struggle to pay for medication before he passed on. I hear from friends how much they are paying for health insurance and medication. I wonder how they do it. 

I have no answers for the health care dilema, I do lean towards socialized medicine, reining in the fraud, waste and abuse in medicare would go a long way I think.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Your health care and retirement might be at risk too. *If congress would consider cutting retirement and health care benefits that Americans have bought and paid for out of their wages, I don't see why they wouldn't cut military retirement and health care benefits too.* If they don't have the money to honor Social Security and Medicare obligations, it follows that they don't have the money to honor military retirement obligations either.


We have automatic weapons.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We have automatic weapons


They just waste ammo.

Only hits count


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They just waste ammo.
> 
> Only hits count


 True but the libs are afraid of the big black assault rifles so I figure that will be enough without expenditure of ammo....kinda like Pelosi as a dietary aid...you know one look and you lose your appetite.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> kinda like Pelosi as a dietary aid...you know one look and you lose your appetite.


LOL 
You got that right


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

This thread seems to be running off the rails for lack of meaningful content.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This thread seems to be running off the rails for lack of meaningful content.


That happened about 200 posts back


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Don't I deserve Social Security & Medicare just as much as retired military deserve their retirement benefits? I'm not taking anything away from retired military, I'm just saying that I paid for it too.


You really do need to look through a copy of our Constitution sometime. Congress is granted the power to keep and maintain our military which obviously includes compensation for our soldiers. Congress however is denied the power to provide services to individual citizens or run insurance companies such as Social Security or Medicare, Medicaid. In short.... NO, you do not deserve to collect anything from the government when said benefits are part of an illegal program. None of us are.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You really do need to look through a copy of our Constitution sometime. Congress is granted the power to keep and maintain our military which obviously includes compensation for our soldiers. Congress however is denied the power to provide services to individual citizens or run insurance companies such as Social Security or Medicare, Medicaid. In short.... NO, you do not deserve to collect anything from the government when said benefits are part of an illegal program. None of us are.


You'll find plenty of case law to the contrary.

As far as I'm concerned, premiums for Social Security & Medicare were taken for my pay with an "ironclad commitment" that I would receive benefits, so I deserve either the promised benefits or full reimbursement (with interest) of all payments made.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

nevada said:


> don't i deserve social security & medicare just as much as retired military deserve their retirement benefits? .



Absolutely not.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Qhorseman said:


> , I do lean towards socialized medicine, reining in the fraud, waste and abuse in medicare would go a long way I think.


How can you lean toward socialized medicine when the waste and abuse in Medicare is a direct result of a government that is too big to patrol the programs they already have?


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I deserve either the promised benefits or full reimbursement (with interest) of all payments made.


Good luck to ya, cause the government that you love so dearly has spent all of your money on other things.


And boy do I despise the words,_ "I deserve"._


If a thief takes your money with the promise that he will give it back to you later, would you believe him?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> Good luck to ya, cause the government that you love so dearly has spent all of your money on other things.
> 
> 
> And boy do I despise the words,_ "I deserve"._
> ...


I would expect the judge to compel restitution from the thief. Why should I expect any less from our own government?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> And boy do I despise the words,_ "I deserve"._


I bought and paid for it. If the words "I deserve" don't apply when I bought & paid for something, when might they apply?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You'll find plenty of case law to the contrary.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, premiums for Social Security & Medicare were taken for my pay with an "ironclad commitment" that I would receive benefits, so I deserve either the promised benefits or full reimbursement (with interest) of all payments made.


Really? You got a copy of some kind of contract from SS? I never received anything from Social Security promising me anything by way of benefits. The money was just taken out of my pay by my employers when I worked for wages, and I sent them the money as requested later on when I was self employed. Good luck on getting your money back with interest. 

As to your argument about case law... I agree, lots of judges have usurped their powers, and have granted rulings supporting the unConstitutional practices of Social Security, medicare, medicade, food stamps and numerous other activities by our government.... but that doesnt alter the fact that they are unconstitutional and therefore quite illegal.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I would expect the judge to compel restitution from the thief. Why should I expect any less from our own government?


Because in this case the thief and the judge are the same...Congress.


I am consistently in wonder at people who expect dishonorable people to do the honorable thing.


"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I bought and paid for it. If the words "I deserve" don't apply when I bought & paid for something, when might they apply?


You "deserve" the government you have.

You didn't buy anything. You gave your money, willingly, to con artists.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I bought and paid for it. If the words "I deserve" don't apply when I bought & paid for something, when might they apply?


Ummm, exactly what did you buy and pay for? Got a copy of your contract handy? You were taxed... period, and just like with all other taxes the money is spent as the government sees fit.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

I am afraid they are right, we've been conned. They spent the money for what they felt they could most benifit on. Your vote went for empty promises.


----------



## ghmerrill (Feb 22, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I bought and paid for it. If the words "I deserve" don't apply when I bought & paid for something, when might they apply?



You didnt buy and pay for it, it was taken from you. Saying you bought it implies you had a choice in the transaction. You have as much of a choice about SS taxes as you would if someone stuck a gun to your head and said give me your wallet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> You didn't buy anything. You gave your money, willingly, to con artists.


I don't remember being asked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? You got a copy of some kind of contract from SS? I never received anything from Social Security promising me anything by way of benefits.


I've got something better than a written contract. I've got the word of a conservative president. In fact I have the word if the high priest of conservatism -- Ronald Reagan.

You aren't telling me that Ronald Reagan was lying and stealing, are you?


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't remember being asked.


Every year, they "ask", just like Al Capone asked.

And you did not protest. And from what I see here on this thread, you trust government to spend that money wisely.

Well they don't. And you would trust them with your health care?

I just don't understand. Remember the footage of the looting after Hurricane Katrina? That is where we are as a country. BOTH sides want access to YOUR money to do with what they see fit, which usually means doing whatever will get them re-elected, good or bad. That, and favors for their friends, The Lobbyists.

And everyone who is currently getting "free stuff", well they want more. And neither side is willing to cut the parsasite from the host.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I've got something better than a written contract. I've got the word of a conservative president. In fact I have the word if the high priest of conservatism -- Ronald Reagan.
> 
> You aren't telling me that Ronald Reagan was lying and stealing, are you?


Ronald Reagan is dead. No one man is responsible for where we are now, not Reagan, not Bush, not Obama. We have been digging this hole for over fifty years, but certainly the spending under Bush and Obama has hastened our demise, but even still, there is also CONGRESS. 

535 people incontrol of every move you make; 535 people in control of 300 million people, and all we do is wring our hands.

The odds are in our favor, if only we would work together.

As long as conservatives and liberals keep infighting, it is fantastic for lifetime politicians. Keep the little morons fighting amongst themselves while we do what we want, then pretend we give a crap when we give our re-election speeches.

I have always said that I do not blame people in Congress for being idiots, I blame the people who put them in office.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I've got something better than a written contract. I've got the word of a conservative president. In fact I have the word if the high priest of conservatism -- Ronald Reagan.
> 
> You aren't telling me that Ronald Reagan was lying and stealing, are you?


You should have gotten it in writing, because as it is, you have NOTHING. And yes, Ronald Reagan was a liar and a thief. (he was a politician wasnt he?)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> Ronald Reagan is dead. No one man is responsible for where we are now, not Reagan, not Bush, not Obama. We have been digging this hole for over fifty years, but certainly the spending under Bush and Obama has hastened our demise, but even still, there is also CONGRESS.


Let's back up 30 years. By the early 1980s baby boomers caught-on to the fact that they were paying-in substantially more than Social Security & Medicare was paying-out, and that the difference was being being removed from the fund to be spent by congress. There was an uprising over that, and the Reagan administration was faced with an entire generation who wanted out. To say that we took it laying down is not really true, because many of us took to the streets in protest.

Reagan's response to that uprising was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. The pivotal provision of that act was to create a system where FICA contribution funds would have to be guaranteed by treasury notes of borrowed. Since no treasury note has ever not been paid, that seemed to be a reasonably good guarantee. We were even told by Reagan that this provision made an "ironclad commitment" (his exact words). Here, listen for yourself.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8[/ame]

Taking Reagan at his word, we believed that our contributions were safe.

Today, the treasury notes in the Social Security fund amount to about $2.5 trillion. I expect every dime to be repaid.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Let's back up 30 years. By the early 1980s the baby boomers caught-on to the fact that they were paying-in substantially more than Social Security & Medicare was paying-out, and that the difference was being being removed from the fund to be spent by congress. There was an uprising over that, and the Reagan administration was faced with an entire generation who wanted out. To say that we took it laying down is not really true, because many of us took to the streets in protest.
> 
> Reagan's response was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. The pivotal provision of that act was to create a system where FICA contribution funds would have to be guaranteed by treasury notes of borrowed. We were told by Reagan that this provision made an ironclad commitment. Here, listen for yourself.
> 
> ...


I believe that Clinton and that congress used SS money to pay down the deficit, creating the illusion of a balanced budget. Shuffling paper around to change the numbers has been going on for decades.

In reality, they took that money and spent it on more crap.

You will NEVER get the money you paid in. Politicians do not have your best interest at heart, only theirs. Do you really think Pelosi, or any of them, give a crap what you think?

Do you honestly believe that the people in DC are worried about you and your retirement?

,


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Why should they be... they have a different pension system, its not as if what they do will ever impact them personally.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> I believe that Clinton and that congress used SS money to pay down the deficit, creating the illusion of a balanced budget. Shuffling paper around to change the numbers has been going on for decades.
> 
> In reality, they took that money and spent it on more crap.


I don't care who spent it or what they spent it on. Where the money went has no relevance to the fact that they owe the debt.



earthkitty said:


> You will NEVER get the money you paid in.


Actually the democratic plan is to make good on the Social Security & Medicare obligation. Even the republican plan is to give me benefits at the current rate. I'll actually get a lot more than I paid in, and I'll deserve it with up to 40 years of interest owed. However, republicans want to cut benefits for my kids. Republicans might think that cutting benefits for their kids makes sense, but I'm not going to stand for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Del Gue said:


> Why should they be... they have a different pension system, its not as if what they do will ever impact them personally.


Will they continue to find the money to fund congressional retirement & healthcare? How about federal employees? Retired military?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You Are NOT going to stand for it? Just what in the world can You One Person out of 300+ Million think he can do. You WILL do just what the Government sets out to do Period. If it means that things have to get tighter in years to come, then that is the way it is. None of this The Government is there at every little whim of your fancy.
It has gotten way out of hand, and if years to come the benefits can no longer be at what they are now and still have the country as free as we are now. Then that is what will have to happen. Like it or not. It is not a free ride for ever.
Just like the unions can no longer sustain the same coverage they did in the hay day, they have to cut back it is better to hurt a little now then be in a slaughter plant of hurt years from now.


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't care who spent it or what they spent it on. Where the money went has no relevance to the fact that *they owe the debt*.


You should care, that is the whole point. Politicians hell bent on re-election do not do, _with your money_, what they are entrusted to do.

Do you really think you have some sort of recourse if they don't pay it? 



> Actually the democratic plan is to make good on the Social Security & Medicare obligation. Even the republican plan is to give me benefits at the current rate. I'll actually get a lot more than I paid in, and I'll deserve it with up to 40 years of interest owed. However, republicans want to cut benefits for my kids. Republicans might think that cutting benefits for their kids makes sense, but I'm not going to stand for it.



:hysterical:

What are you going to do, vote??????? Keep on trusting them, though, it's done us a world of good up to this point.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Nevada said:


> I bought and paid for it. If the words "I deserve" don't apply when I bought & paid for something, when might they apply?


 I always kind of looked at SS and Medicare tax as something I pay as a citizen to support the older folks or those people in need, not something I am banking for myself; I am actually surprised you feel the way you dowith your stance on other issues. According to my last SS statement I have paid in about 75K into social security since I started working and I am due to receive something like $1200 a month if I retire and start drawing it at age 67. If my math is correct thats only about 5 years....it just doesnt pencil out to me. Social Security was originally designed I believe to support widows and seniors with working people paying to support them and with the knowledge that lots of folks would die before they received any payments so in theory it would work...in other words, it wasnt designed to be a personal retirement plan where you payed in your money and then drew it out. You paid in now to help support folks in need now..unfortunately its been expanded to include people who dont need it, people who are young enough to work but claim some sort of disability, and its become transferable to surviving family members.

Maybe those are noble aims but social security was never designed for that and now people think of it as their retirement plan and they think the money they pay in has been bookmarked for them. Its just more entitlement thinking from people who didnt plan for taking care of themselves as they get older. I mean, do people just wake up one day and go "dang, I'm 70 now...it just snuck up on me and I better think about what I am going to do for money"?


----------



## earthkitty (Mar 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Will they continue to find the money to fund congressional retirement & healthcare? How about federal employees?


Of course they will.

I can't fiure out if you love them or hate them, but you need to make up you mind. Are they your friend, or enemy?

Will they do what is in your interest, and the interest of your children, or will they do what they can to save thier own skins?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

earthkitty said:


> You should care, that is the whole point. Politicians hell bent on re-election do not do, _with your money_, what they are entrusted to do.


Why should I care what it was spent on? Does the bank care what you bought when you maxed-out a credit card? No, because what you spent the money on has no relevance to owing the debt.



earthkitty said:


> Do you really think you have some sort of recourse if they don't pay it?


There will be a political price to pay.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

earthkitty said:


> How can you lean toward socialized medicine when the waste and abuse in Medicare is a direct result of a government that is too big to patrol the programs they already have?


Its not that the govt is too big to patrol its programs, its that the 
legislators (predominantly Repubs) keep gutting the funding to the 
institutions that are supposed to be the watchdogs!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pcwerk said:


> earthkitty said:
> 
> 
> > How can you lean toward socialized medicine when the waste and abuse in Medicare is a direct result of a government that is too big to patrol the programs they already have?
> ...


Actually, Medicare runs a pretty tight ship. Private insurance can't do it with a 3% overhead they way Medicare can.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Anyone have the stats on how many people die before they can collect SS after paying into it for say.... 20 years?

Where does that money go?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Actually, Medicare runs a pretty tight ship. Private insurance can't do it with a 3% overhead they way Medicare can.


Wait... you mean government run health care CAN work?
Oh say it ain't so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Del Gue said:


> Anyone have the stats on how many people die before they can collect SS after paying into it for say.... 20 years?
> 
> Where does that money go?


The money goes to support those who live to be very old.

Social Security is an "annuity", which is a form of insurance. You pay into it during your working years, then draw benefits at retirement. Your monthly benefit never changes, even if you live to be over 100. 

Some die sooner than others, which makes the system work. Some who die young never get any benefit at all, while others who live to be very old get several times what they paid in.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Some who die young never get any benefit at all,


And THAT is where the trouble with SS is. It Never Has Kept UP with the folks living Longer and Longer.
When SS stated One in Ten Collected.
Now it is more like Eight in Ten, Soon to be Nine in Ten.
They HAVE to Lengthen the time so it gets more in line to at least 50/50.
In No Way can it get back to One in Ten.
But Somehow, it Has To Be changed. Whether that means the Age has to be raised before you can collect 100%. 
IT MAY even come down to No ONe can Collect at 62~!! That may have to go UP as well. Things Have to Change as it has not since Reagan did lengthen the time, but that was just a stop gap measure.
Now it may have to go up higher still.
And at the Same time Those that at the Highest Amount MAY HAVE to get cut back some, or at the very least more taken out for Medicare Making their checks smaller.
Something HAS to be Done.
Hurt a little now or it WILL really Hurt later on.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

So this is simple.... we just need to convince people not to live so long.

Like maybe, making health insurance so hard to get, they die after about 20 yrs of hard work from preventable diseases.

Oh wait.... is that what we're doing?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And THAT is where the trouble with SS is. It Never Has Kept UP with the folks living Longer and Longer.


Nonsense. They can make that up with only small adjustments in premiums, which have been made all along.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Keep thinking that and when reality comes home you just may wake up and see the real world for what it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Keep thinking that and when reality comes home you just may wake up and see the real world for what it is.


You really believe that the annuity fund concept can't work? You are aware that some of the largest insurance carriers in the world offer annuities, aren't you? Maybe you should consider a piece of the rock yourself.

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACEW_ENUS346&q=annuity+funds[/ame]


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You really believe that the annuity fund concept can't work? You are aware that some of the largest insurance carriers in the world offer annuities, aren't you? Maybe you should consider a piece of the rock yourself.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACEW_ENUS346&q=annuity+funds


Ah, YES, and are now saying Private Companies actually CAN run things better then the Federal Government can????
Are you sure you wanted to Post what you did?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ah, YES, and are now saying Private Companies actually CAN run things better then the Federal Government can????
> Are you sure you wanted to Post what you did?


Are you SURE I said that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, Medicare runs a pretty tight ship. Private insurance can't do it with a 3% overhead they way Medicare can.


Actually most private insurance companies "do it" much more efficiently than Medicare does. Its all a number shuffle by the proponents of Obama care that keeps insisting that the government runs on 3 percent margin. (which only happened in one year... with a lot of number fudging) They are figuring their 3 percent of funds paid out by medicare for admin costs. They also do not count many of the expenses when figuring Medicares percentage of admin costs. Little things like Medicares share of the national debt load.. IE the interest payments are not included which would kick their percentage rate to closer to 10 percent instead of three. Also medicare is not required to pay taxes... private insurance companies do. The average medicare patient claim is also much higher than private insurance claims simply because of the age and health of the average medicare patient. It costs no more to do the paperwork on a 10k medicare claim than it does for the docs visit claim for 90 bucks paid by a private ins co. These factors also skew the numbers when doing a comparison of admin costs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Del Gue said:


> So this is simple.... we just need to convince people not to live so long.
> 
> Like maybe, making health insurance so hard to get, they die after about 20 yrs of hard work from preventable diseases.
> 
> Oh wait.... is that what we're doing?


I see several flaws in this ointment jar.... for one americans are living longer every decade than the previous decade... two... the average american doesnt do very much hard work... particularly not for 20 years.... thats what the illegals are here for.


----------



## samm (Dec 6, 2008)

i aint trying to be a trouble maker, cuz i really dont know...but what is the difference between obamacare and what they call romney care ??

samm


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There really is not much difference at all. Obamacare is modeled after the MA one.
And now it is failing in MA, and Romney said it needed to be tweaked and that was not done so now it is going in a bad way.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

I don't see anything wrong with people having to wait longer to be eligible for SS. People are living alot longer now than they did in the 1930s, so I don't see the problem making all the politicians want to kick the can down the road so they don't have to grow a backbone and deal with it. 

I also think (the way the politicians are talking about it) that not implementing the age adjustment for the next 20-40 years is ridiculous. All they're trying to do is BUY VOTES from the over 65 set by promising them everything, and they just keep doing it generation after generation. I don't think that people who are 65+ now should have any changes made to when they can start collecting, but I think that people 50-60 should have to wait until they're 68, and people from 45-50 should have to wait until they're 69, and the people from 40-45 should have to wait until they're 70, and so on. 

I know people will probably scream at me for the suggestion, but somethings gotta give, and to me that is the fairest way to do it. 

jmho of course

*and yes, I'm between 55 & 60, so it would affect me by making me wait to collect.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerpat said:


> I don't see anything wrong with people having to wait longer to be eligible for SS. People are living alot longer now than they did in the 1930s, so I don't see the problem. I also think (the way the politicians are talking about it) that not implementing the age adjustment for 20-40 years is ridiculous. I dont' think that people who are 60+ now should have any changes made, but I think that people 50-60 should have to wait until they're 68, and people from 45-50 should have to wait until they're 69, and so on.
> 
> jmho of course


I'm not comfortable with the idea that my kids' social security will be cut. Delaying retirement for 3 years is a huge cut in benefits. It will cut our kids' benefits by around $50,000 each. I don't know if they will be able to afford a hit like that or not, but I want it available to them either way.

The idea that my benefits won't be cut doesn't help me all that much. I'm concerned about my kids too.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What in the world do you mean CUT????.
There comes that Fuzzy Math again. 
It just means they will WORK longer, which Also means they are EARNING A PAYCHECK. While waiting to retire. How in the world is THAT losing 50K?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> What in the world do you mean CUT????.
> There comes that Fuzzy Math again.
> It just means they will WORK longer, which Also means they are EARNING A PAYCHECK. While waiting to retire. How in the world is THAT losing 50K?


Retirement delayed from 65 to 68. That means a loss in benefits for three years. At a $800/month benefit, that would be almost $30,000. Then there is three years of healthcare insurance premiums lost, which would amount to $20,000 if you assume a $550/month premium. I don't think that $50,000 is much if a stretch.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I'm not comfortable with the idea that my kids' social security will be cut. Delaying retirement for 3 years is a huge cut in benefits. It will cut our kids' benefits by around $50,000 each. I don't know if they will be able to afford a hit like that or not, but I want it available to them either way.
> 
> The idea that my benefits won't be cut doesn't help me all that much. I'm concerned about my kids too.



Where did I say or insinuate anything about benefits being CUT? I'm talking about DELAYING when they can start drawing social security by roughly the same number of years that it would be extended at the other end by them living longer?????

So, I guess that would mean by YOUR figuring that even if people routinely lived to be 110, that they should STILL start collecting it at 65 because in your view to start later (and finish later) would mean their benefits would be CUT??????


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

I give up. This is why NOTHING can get settled with Soc Security. <shakes head>

I didn't think my idea was soo off the wall. But I guess those who don't want to give up ANYTHING will see it that way. I'm living longer than someone in 1930 did, and I certainly don't expect to start collecting at 65 when I could live to be 100 or more. I will be taking OUT waaay waaay more than I had ever paid in that time, and that's not what it was set up to do. THAT is why Soc Sec has been a pyramid scheme from day one, in my opinion. You had people that hadn't contributed one cent to it that collected full benefits for many years, and from that day on the younger generations were paying for the older ones, and the older ones were not self-supporting.

But I guess that's what everyone seems to want, even though it's not fair to the younger generations (even though they are the ones that people profess to want to protect). Sorry, but I don't see a darn thing wrong with delaying it by a year or two as people are living longer and longer than ever before.

But I guess I'm just :bdh:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Retirement delayed from 65 to 68. That means a loss in benefits for three years. At a $800/month benefit, that would be almost $30,000. Then there is three years of healthcare insurance premiums lost, which would amount to $20,000 if you assume a $550/month premium. I don't think that $50,000 is much if a stretch.


ANd working those extra years you Make More in WAGES, so nobody has Lost a cotton Picken thing. Look Into the future NOT backward.
And working you will get at least health coverage. SO no lose there either. LOL Man oh man NOW we can see first hand why this country not only IS in trouble but WILL REMAIN so with that kind of thinking in Washington, and those on the left that vote. 
YIKES they vote, no wonder this country is in a mess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerpat said:


> So, I guess that would mean by YOUR figuring that even if people routinely lived to be 110, that they should STILL start collecting it at 65 because in your view to start later (and finish later) would mean their benefits would be CUT??????


If I really believed that then I would accept your point. But I don't know that life expectancy is going to increase as much as some think it might. With the epidemic of obesity, the number of new potentially carcinogenic materials all around us, and the proliferation of greasy fast food outlets, we may actually lose ground with life expectancy. Time will tell, but cutting insurance benefits on this kind of speculation is premature at this point.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> ANd working those extra years you Make More in WAGES, so nobody has Lost a cotton Picken thing.


Sure, if you can still work. Some can't. The fact is that working until 68 isn't an option for everyone. What's your plan for those people?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There has been NO Talk at all as to stopping any SS Disability. SO IF they can't work due to a Disability they WILL be taken care of. So that is not part of the equation at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> There has been NO Talk at all as to stopping any SS Disability. SO IF they can't work due to a Disability they WILL be taken care of. So that is not part of the equation at all.


I've never tried, but I understand that SS disability can be difficult to qualify for. From watching TV I get the impression that SS disability cases keep a small army of lawyers busy. I'm not so sure that everyone will be taken care of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've never tried, but I understand that SS disability can be difficult to qualify for


Not if you have a REAL disability


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not if you have a REAL disability


 Ya no kidding. They used my 6 months of Medical leave from work as my so called "Waiting Period". Even though I was still getting a paycheck. I had short term disability leave and got 85% of my gross pay each week.
Then at the end of that 6 months I filled out the SS Disability form on line, had a 10 minute meeting at the SS Office and within one month the first SS Check was in my checking account.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

"...I could live to be 100 or more." 

good luck with that my friend...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually most private insurance companies "do it" much more efficiently than Medicare does. Its all a number shuffle by the proponents of Obama care that keeps insisting that the government runs on 3 percent margin. (which only happened in one year... with a lot of number fudging) They are figuring their 3 percent of funds paid out by medicare for admin costs. They also do not count many of the expenses when figuring Medicares percentage of admin costs. Little things like Medicares share of the national debt load.. IE the interest payments are not included which would kick their percentage rate to closer to 10 percent instead of three. Also medicare is not required to pay taxes... private insurance companies do. The average medicare patient claim is also much higher than private insurance claims simply because of the age and health of the average medicare patient. It costs no more to do the paperwork on a 10k medicare claim than it does for the docs visit claim for 90 bucks paid by a private ins co. These factors also skew the numbers when doing a comparison of admin costs.


you have a link to back any of this up? i have an acct with the govt retirement fund called TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) and i've seen MANY
folks trying to get into it due to the fact that the benefits are usually
higher than in the private sector, primarily because of the lower admin
costs...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> There has been NO Talk at all as to stopping any SS Disability. SO IF they can't work due to a Disability they WILL be taken care of. So that is not part of the equation at all.


I have a feeling that will become the solution to the SS funding problem eventually. People will be expected to work as long as they are able, and then when they are simply no longer able to work, they will receive disability benefits instead of automatically drawing old age benefits. After all, 62 isnt really old in todays world, nor is 65 or even 75 if one is healthy and active.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> you have a link to back any of this up? i have an acct with the govt retirement fund called TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) and i've seen MANY
> folks trying to get into it due to the fact that the benefits are usually
> higher than in the private sector, primarily because of the lower admin
> costs...


This article will explain it much better than I can. The touted 3% myth is just that, A myth that was developed to further the agenda of Obamacare by using skewed numbers. Actually, different sets of numbers were used when making the comparisons. The administrative costs for medicare were based on percentages of dollars paid out for care, while costs for private insurance was based on percentages of dollars taken in via premiums collected. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/27/the_adminstrative_cost_benefit_myth_97193.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm not comfortable with the idea that my kids' social security will be cut. Delaying retirement for 3 years is a huge cut in benefits. It will cut our kids' benefits by around $50,000 each. I don't know if they will be able to afford a hit like that or not, but I want it available to them either way.
> 
> The idea that my benefits won't be cut doesn't help me all that much. I'm concerned about my kids too.


Just balance out those imaginary "cuts" against all the benefits your kids will get by having the imaginary free health care beginning in a couple years thanks to Obamacare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just balance out those imaginary "cuts" against all the benefits your kids will get by having the imaginary free health care beginning in a couple years thanks to Obamacare.


Obamacare has been watered-down to the point where it won't accomplish anything. There is no health care reform coming in a couple of years.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Sure, if you can still work. Some can't. The fact is that working until 68 isn't an option for everyone. What's your plan for those people?


It's that way now. 2 friends of mine worked every day of their adult life, and BOTH died (one in an accident, one from a stroke) before they hit the age of 45. If they both hadn't died, they'd have both been disabled. There is NO guarantee anyone will live to be 90, or can work till they're 68


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmerpat said:


> It's that way now. 2 friends of mine worked every day of their adult life, and BOTH died (one in an accident, one from a stroke) before they hit the age of 45. If they both hadn't died, they'd have both been disabled. There is NO guarantee anyone will live to be 90, or can work till they're 68


Bingo!!!! Life comes with no guarantees.... in spite of our socialist brothers demands for them. We get what we get, some will work and earn it and desire to hang on to their earnings while others want what others have obtained and insist that our government take it from the rightful owners and give it those unwilling to work, earn, and save for their own future.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Obamacare has been watered-down to the point where it won't accomplish anything. There is no health care reform coming in a couple of years.


So what was the point of Obamacare? Why are they taxing and forcing businesses out of business with their 2300 page "health care reform legislation"?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Bingo!!!! Life comes with no guarantees.... in spite of our socialist brothers demands for them. We get what we get, some will work and earn it and desire to hang on to their earnings while others want what others have obtained and insist that our government take it from the rightful owners and give it those unwilling to work, earn, and save for their own future.


But Social Security isn't socialism, it's insurance. There is nothing wrong with expecting your insurance carrier to make good on benefits.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But Social Security isn't socialism, it's insurance. There is nothing wrong with expecting your insurance carrier to make good on benefits.


Interesting concept..... except our Congress is strictly forbidden to issue insurance of any kind. (and yeah, I know they do it all the time, but its still unconstitutional) Social Security is an attempt at socialism. Otherwise everyone would pay premiums based on age and health, not taxes based on amount of income.
Insurance companies give you exact details in a printed document called a "policy" which includes exact amounts to be paid in given circumstances. I havent seen anything remotely close to that with SS. As a matter of fact, no where have I seen anything in writing that guarantees any benefits to anyone! We are taxed, and they pay what they want, when they want to who they want.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a feeling that will become the solution to the SS funding problem eventually. People will be expected to work as long as they are able, and then when they are simply no longer able to work, they will receive disability benefits instead of automatically drawing old age benefits. After all, 62 isnt really old in todays world, nor is 65 or even 75 if one is healthy and active.


I get threatened sometimes for just thinking what you posted. It's only been in the 20th century that the poor and middle class have been "allowed" the luxury of retirement at any age let alone health insurance at any price.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Energy Rebel said:


> Oh yeah, that will fix it. (sarcasm off)
> 
> Seriously, this has been going on since the early 80's. Costs have been rising much higher than inflation and it doesn't matter if it's conservative or liberal in charge - absolutely no difference in the rates.
> There are effective solutions being used in other countries, but until we put away the political labels and arrogance, we'll continue the present path.
> This is a health issue of our fellow humans, not a political game to be won.


Well as an employer who pays 100% insurance for all employees I'll say baloney on that claim..

My insurance rates for our group policy rose right about with inflation, it even went down one year..

Since the health care bill was signed it has almost doubled in the last two years. I searched high and low and changed providers and I still now have to have employee pay a % as the money just isn't there to pay 100%.

It's taken away a couple of jobs I would love to have been able to fill, and is the main reason I suspect unemployment is stagnant, as drastic health care increases have eaten up cash that wuld normally be used for to hire some new workers.

This is pretty darn simple. If your going to insure 30k+ people who can't afford insurance, and make insurance companies have no limits on benefits by law, and accept anyone even with preexisting conditions, it's going to cost trillions of dollars.

The only place those trillions can come from is businesses, and small business are bent over because they don't have the negotiating leverage of large corps, who are also seeing several times the normal increase in costs.

Business buy most of the health insurance in this country, and the massive cost increases are at least keeping me from hiring, and may well make me drop health care coverage next year or close the doors.

The health care bill that was passed is atrocious, and the Dems could not have possibly picked a worse time to pass it in this economically hard time. 

By passing that bill they pretty much insured that we would have a jobless recovery, and with so many out of work and so many fewer taxpayers that we would have declines in tax revenue and a debt crisis that didn;t need to be so bad.

Instead of pushing through a turd just to get something passed while they thought they had a window to do it, good or bad, they should have waited until jobs had recovered and passed a bill they at least had read before voting and thought out a little better.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Actually, Medicare runs a pretty tight ship. Private insurance can't do it with a 3% overhead they way Medicare can.


Bwahaha.. I want some of what you have been smoking.. 

Medicare/aid is a mess.. I don't even know where to start.... 

The TV commercials saying "If we can't get you a free scooter, we'll pay for it" is a decent place though.. Carry it on down through everything else.

Like my grandmother who needed a wheel chair, was sent to the place to get one on medicare... over $1000... We bought the same chair for cash for $300 elsewhere, medicare would have ponied up the $1000 without issue.

Ripping us off through medicare is big business.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But Social Security isn't socialism, it's insurance. There is nothing wrong with expecting your insurance carrier to make good on benefits.


Unless you haven't paid premiums for those benefits... Many folks are collecting a lot more than they have paid in benefits for.

SSI needs to have the retirement age raised a little, and more importantly needs to have the cap on payroll taxes raised.. 

There is nothing wrong with a people who are living longer working a little longer.. And as salaries rise the cap on payroll tax needs to rise as well. I hit the cap myself, and should IMO be paying more in.

And on top of that a means test should be a part of it. If you have a retirement plan, or have wealth to live on, you should have no "insurance" claim to make and not be drawing SSI...

Those things would fix SSI right quick..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txrider said:


> And on top of that a means test should be a part of it. If you have a retirement plan, or have wealth to live on, you should have no "insurance" claim to make and not be drawing SSI...


A means test on insurance benefits? How does that make sense?

What I mean is, if a wealthy person's house burns down, the insurance company would be justified in refusing funds to rebuild on the basis that the insured has plenty of money to rebuild himself?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Re back to the OP's problem....

Ever consider telling the preacher that he might want to get a Job (if he doesn't have one other than preaching under contract from your church) and buy his own ins because the church just can't afford it anymore?

Hard times.... just renegotiate his contract.
or lay him off and share the Sunday sermon giving duty between the members of the congregation. (Do you really need a preacher under contract?)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> A means test on insurance benefits? How does that make sense?
> 
> What I mean is, if a wealthy person's house burns down, the insurance company would be justified in refusing funds to rebuild on the basis that the insured has plenty of money to rebuild himself?


See what happens when you start thinking that SS is insurance instead of a social program? It just doesnt make sense.


----------

