# How affordable is the Affordable Care Act?



## RWeThereYet (Aug 31, 2014)

We have always known, some will win, more will lose, in paying for the ACA.
It is not about afford-ability, but taking your money and giving it to someone else who did not work as hard as you.
And there are those who are perfectly fine with you paying for their lifestyle!



> A survey out on Thursday suggests many Americans who signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) find their coverage affordable.
> 
> Thatâs particularly true for people with low incomes who are paying less than $125 a month in premiums, similar to people that get coverage at work. To be sure, there were good deals for consumers in the first year of the ACA.
> 
> ...


http://www.marketplace.org/topics/health-care/how-affordable-affordable-care-act


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

One thing she fails to point out is that people who get coverage through an employer have subsidized insurance. The employer pays a major portion of the insurance bill.


----------



## Solar Geek (Mar 14, 2014)

We just got our Obamacare insurance hit from DH's employer. Due to the big O believing you should be happy for any insurance,* after 33 years with our PPO through the company*, they have to discontinue it due to it being taxed too high as another form of payment to employees. So we will pay $250 more per month! for a non-PPO we don't want. That is $3000 THREE THOUSAND MORE THAN BEFORE for crummier insurance with higher deductibles. (Jumps from $2500 to $4000 before they pay dollar 1). 

I wish everyone would scream this from the housetops.


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

My insurance went from 600 a month with a 500 deductible to 800 a month with a 7500 deductible. And that is with my employer paying 90 percent. Its a scam.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

I think the whole thing is an outrage and I really think those judges who ruled the mandate constitutional should be disrobed. However, we are stuck with it now until it fails so how to work it to our advantage? Seems to me that if you are self employed but not making a big income you are in the best situation. Before I had to buy an individual plan and pay over $500 just for myself. Now it looks like I can get a plan for under $100.

Might be very good for small income, self employed guys like me. Before alot of people wouldn't ever leave their jobs to run their own business because they were afraid of losing insurance benefits.

So though I think it is an outrage, there might be a silver lining.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

If I might give a different perspective. 
I have been paying property taxes for over 20 years where I am. 40% of those property taxes were for Medicaid in my state. 

I now get a substantial subsidy.
Do not tell me I am getting something for nothing!

I might also suggest that if you see a hike in your rates from your employer see what is available through the exchange. It might surprise you.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

RWeThereYet said:


> It is not about afford-ability, but taking your money and giving it to someone else who did not work as hard as you.


I take exception to this statement. I am self employed and work practically 7 days a week, 14-16 hours a day. 

Until recently I did not have my own insurance because I was uninsurable due to the fact that I had my first case of cancer 25 years ago. I went without coverage until 8 years ago when I was diagnosed with breast cancer for the first time. Lucky for me there is a Federal law mandating that any uninsured woman with breast or cervical cancer is to be included in the State's Medicaid program. I was very lucky that this program exists.

When the ACA became effective I finally was able to get my own insurance. It is costing me more for my monthly treatments, office visits and medication, but I am thrilled.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well the simple fact is my insurance for the wife and I is going up 41% as well as the deductible. 

It seems that the only ones to benefit from this is the big insurance companies. Since they are the only ones who can "comply" with the Governments new "rules"

Ironic how those who complain about big business tend to make "rules" that benefit big business and drive little and local businesses out of business. 

So much for freedom, because it's being sold to the biggest insurance companies.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

hawgsquatch said:


> My insurance went from 600 a month with a 500 deductible to 800 a month with a 7500 deductible. And that is with my employer paying 90 percent. Its a scam.


So your employer pays around $7200/ month or $80000+ / year to insure you? They really should shop around.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Trainwrek said:


> I think the whole thing is an outrage and I really think those judges who ruled the mandate constitutional should be disrobed. However, we are stuck with it now until it fails so how to work it to our advantage? Seems to me that if you are self employed but not making a big income you are in the best situation. Before I had to buy an individual plan and pay over $500 just for myself. Now it looks like I can get a plan for under $100.
> 
> Might be very good for small income, self employed guys like me. Before alot of people wouldn't ever leave their jobs to run their own business because they were afraid of losing insurance benefits.
> 
> So though I think it is an outrage, there might be a silver lining.


Someone correct me but I think the SCOTUS only ruled on a part...that it's a TAX...wait til more 'parts' get challenged.
Seems to me when 35-40mil had no ins& goal was to get ALL insured...5 mil are on ObummerUncare...that is FAIL in most books.


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> So your employer pays around $7200/ month or $80000+ / year to insure you? They really should shop around.


To insure me, all my kids and my ex wife. I have no choice if it is available from an employer, I have to take it. I did misquote, they pay 60%.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Trainwrek said:


> I think the whole thing is an outrage and I really think those judges who ruled the mandate constitutional should be disrobed.


No judge has ruled that the mandate is constitutional. They ruled that it may be considered a tax and therefor able to be passed by Congress.

In order to rule on the mandate it has to go into effect first. Once someone has damages they may bring forth a case regarding it's Constitutionality. That is why OBama continues to delay the mandates.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

JillyG said:


> If I might give a different perspective.
> I have been paying property taxes for over 20 years where I am. 40% of those property taxes were for Medicaid in my state.
> 
> I now get a substantial subsidy.
> Do not tell me I am getting something for nothing!


Have you ever ran the numbers on how much you receive versus what you pay in? Government is horribly inefficient and wasteful with money. If you had 40% of your property tax for 20 years you would be able to purchase an equivalent to Medicaid and more.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

hawgsquatch said:


> To insure me, all my kids and my ex wife. I have no choice if it is available from an employer, I have to take it. I did misquote, they pay 60%.


You list your ex wife. I imagine you have COBRA for her, which means you are paying the full rate and the employer is not covering anything for her portion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

hawgsquatch said:


> To insure me, all my kids and my ex wife. I have no choice if it is available from an employer, I have to take it. I did misquote, they pay 60%.


A apologize. My initial math was wrong. But running your new, more accurate figures, it seems that your employer and you are paying a combined $24,000/ year for this coverage. The Kaiser foundation pegs the average family plan provided by employers in the $16,000/ yr range. Buoy seem to be getting not enough for way to much. I'd suggest you look at who paid for the last vacation whoever bought this policy for you took.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

beowoulf90 said:


> Well the simple fact is my insurance for the wife and I is going up 41% as well as the deductible.
> 
> It seems that the only ones to benefit from this is the big insurance companies. Since they are the only ones who can "comply" with the Governments new "rules"
> 
> ...


 Yes even medicare supplemental insurance is going up as well, my premium will RAISE 27% on Jan 1. And who knows if anybody on SS will get a COLA increase, and who knows if medicare itself will go up it has the pat year. 
I am doing a happy dance at this INCREASE not sure yet if the co-pays will go up or not, but if they do you can rest assure I will be on here telling everybody about it.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nate_in_IN said:


> No judge has ruled that the mandate is constitutional. They ruled that it may be considered a tax and therefor able to be passed by Congress.
> 
> In order to rule on the mandate it has to go into effect first. Once someone has damages they may bring forth a case regarding it's Constitutionality. That is why OBama continues to delay the mandates.


Hm. I didnt know that. I guess I just assumed that their ability to levy a fine and call it a tax on 'not buying a product' was what was being decided. I'm no lawyer so I can't say I really understand what you are saying. It's ok to fine us for 'not buying a product' until the fine actually happens?

Why would they be allowed to levy the fine in the first place if it's constitutionality is suspect? Why aren't they able to decide it's constitutionality before it happens as obviously the intent is to levy the fine?


----------



## simplegirl (Feb 19, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> A apologize. My initial math was wrong. But running your new, more accurate figures, it seems that your employer and you are paying a combined $24,000/ year for this coverage. The Kaiser foundation pegs the average family plan provided by employers in the $16,000/ yr range. Buoy seem to be getting not enough for way to much. I'd suggest you look at who paid for the last vacation whoever bought this policy for you took.


Do you really think that their employer is not offering the best plan that was quoted to them by the insurance company? Yeah maybe then need to shop around a little more but with things the way they are out there, I doubt they will find anything cheaper. 

Obamacare sucks.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Trainwrek said:


> Hm. I didnt know that. I guess I just assumed that their ability to levy a fine and call it a tax on 'not buying a product' was what was being decided. I'm no lawyer so I can't say I really understand what you are saying. It's ok to fine us for 'not buying a product' until the fine actually happens?
> 
> Why would they be allowed to levy the fine in the first place if it's constitutionality is suspect? Why aren't they able to decide it's constitutionality before it happens as obviously the intent is to levy the fine?


The Federal Courts have to hear actual cases. In order to hear a case someone has to have damages, so your statement "It's ok to fine us for 'not buying a product' until the fine actually happens" is entirely correct from a courts point of view.

The courts are supposed to look and rule on a specific case. They do not review all laws as they are passed. I really think that the first time this fine/ tax is applied the mandate portion of the law will be deemed unconstitutional. That is exactly why this administration has delayed imposing the fine. I predict fines will not be collected come tax time for this year either; they need to give Obamacare more time to become entrenched.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I predict fines will not be collected come tax time for this year either; they need to give Obamacare more time to become entrenched.


And more people to get really ticked off. Not just a few before the up coming election but the tide sure will be different in a couple of years if all these fines and such go forward and the people that think wow this is cool now, but will get hit hard as the fines go higher the longer ObamaUncare is in effect.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> And more people to get really ticked off. Not just a few before the up coming election but the tide sure will be different in a couple of years if all these fines and such go forward and the people that think wow this is cool now, but will get hit hard as the fines go higher the longer ObamaUncare is in effect.


I was more thinking about the court challenges for how the fines are administrated.

I believe it is unconstitutional to tax an individual based on their religious practices. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The Constitution, when it is followed, forbids government from having the ability to destroy a religion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> The Federal Courts have to hear actual cases. In order to hear a case someone has to have damages, so your statement "It's ok to fine us for 'not buying a product' until the fine actually happens" is entirely correct from a courts point of view.
> 
> The courts are supposed to look and rule on a specific case. They do not review all laws as they are passed. I really think that the first time this fine/ tax is applied the mandate portion of the law will be deemed unconstitutional. That is exactly why this administration has delayed imposing the fine. I predict fines will not be collected come tax time for this year either; they need to give Obamacare more time to become entrenched.


The ACA isn't going anywhere. Republicans might as well start trying to improve on it.


----------



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

Dutchie said:


> I take exception to this statement. I am self employed and work practically 7 days a week, 14-16 hours a day.
> 
> Until recently I did not have my own insurance because I was uninsurable due to the fact that I had my first case of cancer 25 years ago. I went without coverage until 8 years ago when I was diagnosed with breast cancer for the first time. Lucky for me there is a Federal law mandating that any uninsured woman with breast or cervical cancer is to be included in the State's Medicaid program. I was very lucky that this program exists.
> 
> When the ACA became effective I finally was able to get my own insurance. It is costing me more for my monthly treatments, office visits and medication, but I am thrilled.


And , if you paid the full cost, along with others, then obamacare would be a good thing. But that's not what happens- the rest of America gets to pay for it and yet has no access to it's benefits.


----------



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

JillyG said:


> If I might give a different perspective.
> I have been paying property taxes for over 20 years where I am. 40% of those property taxes were for Medicaid in my state.
> 
> I now get a substantial subsidy.
> ...


So have I yet where's the advantage for my payments? You have yours, but is it ok that I don't?

BTW if you have employer arranged insurance, you are not even eligible for obamacare in almost all cases.


----------



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

Danaus29 said:


> One thing she fails to point out is that people who get coverage through an employer have subsidized insurance. The employer pays a major portion of the insurance bill.


Yep- that is why I worked at a lower salary because the employer offered good health insurance. The employer did that as an alternative to more in wages. The "subsidized" health insurance did not fall from the magic money tree. I worked and earned it for the employer.
Now people get to work for their insurance and pay for other's at the same time. For them, obamacare is a lose/lose situatiin.


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> A apologize. My initial math was wrong. But running your new, more accurate figures, it seems that your employer and you are paying a combined $24,000/ year for this coverage. The Kaiser foundation pegs the average family plan provided by employers in the $16,000/ yr range. Buoy seem to be getting not enough for way to much. I'd suggest you look at who paid for the last vacation whoever bought this policy for you took.


I work for the government, we both paid for it.:facepalm:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The ACA isn't going anywhere. Republicans might as well start trying to improve on it.


If the court were to rule that it was unconstitutional today Obamacare would go away as there is still a viable private held market. In two years when the court case would first be heard there may very well not be a private market. If that is the case you are correct the ACA will still be here.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> If the court were to rule that it was unconstitutional today Obamacare would go away as there is still a viable private held market. In two years when the court case would first be heard there may very well not be a private market. If that is the case you are correct the ACA will still be here.


Some sort of government program or regulation was inevitable. There were just too many people uninsured and unable to get lifesaving care. It really isn't anybody's fault. It's just the way medicine developed.

You see, when I was a kid in the 1950s they didn't have a lot of procedures they have today. No heart bypass procedures, no stints, and not even a coronary care unit to take you to if you had a heart attack. When my grandfather has his heart attack they put him in a bed, started oxygen, and loaded him up on morphine. He survived his first heart attack, but not his second. There wasn't much they could do. He died when he was 45, but today he would probably have lived into retirement.

But the point is that loading people up on morphine is cheap. Compare that to the $400,000 heart attacks that are so common today. That money has to come from someplace.

When I was born a lot of people didn't have insurance at all, because they could afford to pay for the limited care available. By the 1960s most people had hospitalization (major medical) insurance because they couldn't afford the cost of a major illness, but that didn't pay for doctor visits or prescriptions. The 1970s brought us HMO insurance, because routine care was becoming unaffordable. The crisis today exists because medical care has become so expensive that even the insurance premium is unaffordable. We all knew that something had to give eventually.

Government intervention in the medical industry is here to stay.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Some sort of government program or regulation was inevitable. There were just too many people uninsured and unable to get lifesaving care. It really isn't anybody's fault. It's just the way medicine developed.
> 
> You see, when I was a kid in the 1950s they didn't have a lot of procedures they have today. No heart bypass procedures, no stints, and not even a coronary care unit to take you to if you had a heart attack. When my grandfather has his heart attack they put him in a bed, started oxygen, and loaded him up on morphine. He survived his first heart attack, but not his second. There wasn't much they could do. He died when he was 45, but today he would probably have lived into retirement.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with any of your reported history. I just disagree with the fact have the government involved makes things improved.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I don't disagree with any of your reported history. I just disagree with the fact have the government involved makes things improved.


Like Medicare covering the elderly, I don't see any way around government involvement in medical coverage for all ages. If you know of another way I'd like to head it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Like Medicare covering the elderly, I don't see any way around government involvement in medical coverage for all ages. If you know of another way I'd like to head it.


Personal responsibility!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Personal responsibility!


Isn't that the system we had before Obamacare? How was that working out?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

He doesn't pay attention to the definition of words like "personal" and "responsibility", otherwise things like large insurance pools and unpaid bills and the scarce ability to self pay a negotiated treatment would not have been the comparison to Obamacare.
Never mind the fact that one system wasn't an improvement over the previous one, as it was promised, only that it isn't much worse than before.
That means you're trying to change an opinion that is oblivious to simple facts.





'


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Never mind the fact that one system wasn't an improvement over the previous one


I don't know that it's not an improvement overall. I know that it's an improvement for me. But time will tell if society on the whole will benefit. I suspect it will.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I might also suggest that if you see a hike in your rates from your employer see what is available through the exchange. It might surprise you.


Unless things have changed, I believe you're only eligible for Obamacare if insurance isn't offered through your employer.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I was posting on the subject of Obamacare's affordability on another forum, where I noted that the average deductible for a bronze plan is about $5,000. That means that aside from some newly-mandated preventative screenings, the policyholder has to pay $5,000 out-of-pocket before his insurance will kick in. Most healthy people will not need medical care in excess of that deductible. 

What this means is that the average low-income working-class person won't be much better off with Obamacare than without. Their access to care for routine health problems will still be limited. Wake up with a fever and a sore throat, and you'll still be scrambling to come up with 100 bucks or so to see a doctor, just like before Obamacare. 

So who does the ACA really protect? It protects hospitals from absorbing the cost of catastrophic care provided to people who probably would have been uninsured otherwise. If that low-income person who couldn't afford to see a doctor for a suspected case of strep throat instead has a $400,000 heart attack, most of THAT bill will be paid. This is not really a boon to the patient -- your average waitress or part-time retail clerk wouldn't have been paying that $400,000 bill in any case; they wouldn't have had the means. The hospital would have written off most of the charges, or the patient would have filed for bankruptcy to escape them. 

Hospitals are the ones who really benefit from this law -- and insurance companies, because they now have a pool of people compelled to buy their product. Ordinary citizens? Not so much.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> The crisis today exists because medical care has become so expensive that even the insurance premium is unaffordable. We all knew that something had to give eventually.
> 
> Government intervention in the medical industry is here to stay.


LOL. The reason insurance is so unaffordable is because of all the government interference in the insurance market to begin with. In AZ I could get a plan for $150. In Vermont, the same plan is $500. The difference was all the government regulation/taxes/requirements that usually happen in an extremely liberal state.

So that's the government for you. They break your legs then they hand you a pair of crutches and tell you how lucky you are to have them around. One thing we do agree on, more is unfortunately inevitable.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The ACA isn't going anywhere. Republicans might as well start trying to improve on it.


Only way I'll agree w/you on this is the 5 mil who have obummerUncare can keep it...IF they like it! ( will those folks believe the Rs if they tell 'em that?)


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that it's not an improvement overall. I know that it's an improvement for me. But time will tell if society on the whole will benefit. I suspect it will.


But you DO already know, you just can't admit it because it would mean you and Obama are wrong.
You know if the national debt has gone up or down, you know if diagnostic tests and office visits have gotten cheaper, you know if spending per capita on health care is more or less than before..........YOU KNOW ALREADY.
Know what else?
The rest of us know too!



willow_girl said:


> I was posting on the subject of Obamacare's affordability on another forum, where I noted that the average deductible for a bronze plan is about $5,000. That means that aside from some newly-mandated preventative screenings, the policyholder has to pay $5,000 out-of-pocket before his insurance will kick in. Most healthy people will not need medical care in excess of that deductible.
> 
> What this means is that the average low-income working-class person won't be much better off with Obamacare than without. Their access to care for routine health problems will still be limited. Wake up with a fever and a sore throat, and you'll still be scrambling to come up with 100 bucks or so to see a doctor, just like before Obamacare.
> 
> ...



That's about all that's changed. The care didn't become "more affordable", it became easier for the gov't to confiscate the income to pay for it, that's all.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Unless things have changed, I believe you're only eligible for Obamacare if insurance isn't offered through your employer.


No during open enrollment you can cancel the policy you have now and get one through the marketplace.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

And to be clear , you are not buying insurance through the ACA, Obamacare. You are buying it through an insurance company.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Isn't that the system we had before Obamacare? How was that working out?


Quite well actually. At least for those who took responsibility for themselves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I was posting on the subject of Obamacare's affordability on another forum, where I noted that the average deductible for a bronze plan is about $5,000. That means that aside from some newly-mandated preventative screenings, the policyholder has to pay $5,000 out-of-pocket before his insurance will kick in.


I hear this a lot, but it has never been that way for me. I had a 5k deductible insurance plan when I went through the cancer treatments, (BCBS) and they paid 80 percent of all costs up until my portion (the other 20 percent) amounted to 5k during that year. After that they paid 100 percent. This same deal seems to be how my current plan works with the exception that my out of pocket now has to reach 6700 instead of 5K. I am now with Humana.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> LOL. The reason insurance is so unaffordable is because of all the government interference in the insurance market to begin with. In AZ I could get a plan for $150.


You don't think the fact that heart attacks cost six figures today might be the cause?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Trainwrek said:


> LOL. The reason insurance is so unaffordable is because of all the government interference in the insurance market to begin with. In AZ I could get a plan for $150. In Vermont, the same plan is $500. The difference was all the government regulation/taxes/requirements that usually happen in an extremely liberal state.
> 
> So that's the government for you. They break your legs then they hand you a pair of crutches and tell you how lucky you are to have them around. One thing we do agree on, more is unfortunately inevitable.


 And THAT is the MAIN reason for SELLING Across State lines. But nope. Competition WOULD bring down prices just like prices for Auto insurance has or at the very least become a very very competitive world for them.


----------



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

JillyG said:


> No during open enrollment you can cancel the policy you have now and get one through the marketplace.


No-one of the requirements for a subsidy, the only thing that make obamacare an affordable alternative, is that you are not covered by an employer's health plan with very, very limited exceptions. Anything you get from obamacare without the subsidy is very likely to be a much more restrictive and expensive plan than the one from an employer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And THAT is the MAIN reason for SELLING Across State lines. But nope. Competition WOULD bring down prices just like prices for Auto insurance has or at the very least become a very very competitive world for them.


It's already legal to sell insurance across state lines.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Isn't that the system we had before Obamacare? How was that working out?


Lol. I think it was working fine for those who took responsibility. For those who didn't, not so much.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Lol. I think it was working fine for those who took responsibility. For those who didn't, not so much.


A system of haves and have nots. But we're not talking about who gets to have a new smart phone. We're talking about who gets to live or die.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> A system of haves and have nots. But we're not talking about who gets to have a new smart phone. We're talking about who gets to live or die.


A system of choosing what worked or what was just convenient at the time. That does work out to some having when it is needed and others finding it's too late to have it when it is needed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> That does work out to some having when it is needed and others finding it's too late to have it when it is needed.


Doesn't that fall into the category of a "I've got mine, so the heck with everyone else" system?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Doesn't that fall into the category of a "I've got mine, so the heck with everyone else" system?


Yes. Sad to say, but that seems to be the way that much of the world functions.......



Nevada said:


> I don't know that it's not an improvement overall.* I know that it's an improvement for me.*
> But time will tell if society on the whole will benefit. I suspect it will.









Nevada said:


> A system of haves and have nots. But we're not talking about who gets to have a new smart phone. We're talking about who gets to live or die.


:hijacked:
Strange, I could have swore the topic was whether or not it was affordable.
I'm almost certain that everyone already knew that in a life or death situation, care was available to all who sought it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm almost certain that everyone already knew that in a life or death situation, care was available to all who sought it.


OK. If someone is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo or radiation treatments to survive, where does he go for treatments he can't afford? The ER doesn't do that.

I know a diabetic who was poorly managed for a long time because he didn't have insurance. They've started regular dialysis treatments, which means he's got maybe two years. He'll never make it to 50, while well managed diabetics often live to normal life expectancy. Care wasn't available for him when it would have made a difference.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> OK. If someone is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo or radiation treatments to survive, where does he go for treatments he can't afford? The ER doesn't do that.
> 
> I know a diabetic who was poorly managed for a long time because he didn't have insurance. They've started regular dialysis treatments, which means he's got maybe two years. He'll never make it to 50, while well managed diabetics often live to normal life expectancy. Care wasn't available for him when it would have made a difference.


What you are saying is that having not done anything to get insurance that he might need in the future, the future caught up with him. Nothing is that simple- there are a few people who get caught by circumstances that left no alternative but they are few. What happens most of the time is people choose to take chances and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. But they almost all had a point where they could have made a different choice that would lead to a different result.
It is irritating to those who made good choices for themselves to be called simply lucky and then be expected to take care of those who made poor but convenient choices that caught up with them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> What you are saying is that having not done anything to get insurance that he might need in the future, the future caught up with him.


No. What I'm saying is that your suggestion that medical care has been available to everyone who sought it is false. I don't know if conservatives repeat that myth because it clears their conscience, or of they do it to make their political view not seem so heartless. Either way it's not true.

But I think you know that people who can't pay have been going without proper medical care. Knowing that, why do you repeat the myth?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No. What I'm saying is that your suggestion that medical care has been available to everyone who sought it is false. I don't know if conservatives repeat that myth because it clears their conscience, or of they do it to make their political view not seem so heartless. Either way it's not true.
> 
> But I think you know that people who can't pay have been going without proper medical care. Knowing that, why do you repeat the myth?


I have to wonder who it was that "couldnt get care"? Was it maybe those who couldnt be bothered to insure themselves?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> No. What I'm saying is that your suggestion that medical care has been available to everyone who sought it is false. I don't know if conservatives repeat that myth because it clears their conscience, or of they do it to make their political view not seem so heartless. Either way it's not true.
> 
> But I think you know that people who can't pay have been going without proper medical care. Knowing that, why do you repeat the myth?


There was nothing special about it. I simply looked for job with health insurance. If you are employed with a company with a group policy, there you are. Covered. It was a priority. More than increased wages. 

What you can't do is wait til you are desperate to have then try to get it. Trying to convince an employer to hire you when you are sick? Too late. 

As to why people keep saying it? Because they did it. They know lots of people who did it too. They stayed at a job for the health insurance. They did not just quit and try to skate by.

There are cases where a person was unexpectedly laid off and, during the last decade it has been harder to find a job with insurance. COBRA can help if it was affordable but for some it was not. But again that is not how most people got there. They got there by not worrying about it until it was too late.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

DH closed his company about the same time his prostate cancer came back. Thanks to the ACA he was able to get insurance on the exchange. Yes, we are paying more per month and have a higher deductible, but when the bill is $87,000 for just the hospital it's a good deal. If the ACA had not been in place we would not have gotten insurance and most likely he would have not gotten care and left me and the kids without a bread winner or we would have to declare bankruptcy. Not a choice anyone should have to make when facing something like cancer. 

Does anyone get who ISN'T complaining about the ACA? The INSURANCE COMPANIES. At the request of the Republicans, they got invited to help write the laws. You better believe the CEO's and top brass are still getting their multimillion dollar bonuses and they are still donating tons of cash to their favorite Republicans. Meanwhile the people go on, paying the bill and saying THANK YOU for letting us pay out the nose.....


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to wonder who it was that "couldnt get care"? Was it maybe those who couldnt be bothered to insure themselves?


Maybe those who make minimum wage or a little more. We pay around $500 a month for insurance. That's 50 hours of work just for insurance. I can see where people just don't have the cash for it. 

But it's easier for Republicans to blame the poor than to raise the minimum wage so folks can afford silly things like insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to wonder who it was that "couldnt get care"? Was it maybe those who couldnt be bothered to insure themselves?


People find themselves without insurance for a variety of reasons. But whatever the reason, I think it's sad that Americans have to go without proper medical care.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> A system of haves and have nots. But we're not talking about who gets to have a new smart phone.
> 
> We're talking about *who gets to live or die.*





Nevada said:


> OK. If someone is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo or radiation treatments to survive, where does he go for treatments he can't afford? The ER doesn't do that.


Wait a minute...........






Nevada said:


> I know a diabetic who was poorly managed for a long time because he didn't have insurance. They've started regular dialysis treatments, which means he's got maybe two years. He'll never make it to 50, while well managed diabetics often live to normal life expectancy.
> 
> 
> *Care wasn't available for him when it would have made a difference.*


.......Go back to the beginning quote in this post.




Nevada said:


> No. What I'm saying is that *your suggestion that medical care has been available to everyone who sought it is false. I don't know if conservatives repeat that myth *because it clears their conscience, or of they do it to make their political view not seem so heartless. Either way it's not true.
> 
> But I think you know that people who can't pay have been going without *proper medical care.* Knowing that, why do you repeat the myth?





Nevada said:


> .........We're talking about *who gets to live or die.*


:hijacked:

We went from life and death to medical care to everyone who sought it.
That last part was a myth, and still is.
When you said live or die, I thought you meant a traffic accident, a drowning, a heart attack............life or death as in right now. I don't think you could find even a few examples of someone being turned away.
Now I'll tell you a truth.
None of us are getting outta here alive.:bandwagon::buds:
If you mean that some of us are going to get our 76.2 years, and some of us won't, I thought you already knew that.
I've seen some pretty short hands dealt and some long runs. I don't know how long I'm in the game, but I don't expect anyone to guarantee me all Aces to be given to me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> When you said live or die, I thought you meant a traffic accident, a drowning, a heart attack............life or death as in right now. I don't think you could find even a few examples of someone being turned away.


Life or death goes beyond the ER. If someone has a heart attack and survives he will be referred to the care of a specialist when he's discharged from the hospital. If you've ever known someone who had a heart attack then you know that follow-up care with a cardiologist is not trivial -- it's life or death.

Knowing that, what do you suppose the prognosis is for a patient who survived a heart attack but could not afford any follow-up care?


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

I know of more than one who have died because they could not afford healthcare. These folks worked full time. But lived paycheck to paycheck.
That is no way to live.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You don't think the fact that heart attacks cost six figures today might be the cause?


So do homes in most places. Some cars do too. Stuff can be paid off in payments, depends on what is most important.
When we felt we could not afford ins. premiums, we had savings to at least begin to pay off a catastrophic health event. We are not superhuman we are responsible.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Doesn't that fall into the category of a "I've got mine, so the heck with everyone else" system?


No, that's your attitude.
The responsible people pay their own bills & are charitable, as evidenced in all the studies about conservatives vs libs. We give more $, more of our time, a& actually blood, too, than do you libs.
This country will not get back on track til we convince the majority that children out of wedlock at too young to have them will almost always result in poverty. Right now, the out of wedlock babies are at 75% in the African American communities. 
Right now, studies show that if you are born to a 2 parent family with any kind of values at all, you are almost certain to remain out of poverty.
Yet libs continue to foster the single parent, champion that & keep minorities & the poor...POOR!
If responsibility were promoted, taught if necessary, perhaps a folks could see health care is important. So is paying your own way.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Maybe those who make minimum wage or a little more. We pay around $500 a month for insurance. That's 50 hours of work just for insurance. I can see where people just don't have the cash for it.
> 
> But it's easier for Republicans to blame the poor than to raise the minimum wage so folks can afford silly things like insurance.


Health insurance for most who worked minimum wage jobs (the under 30 crowd) used to be pretty cheap, before Ocare came a long. I know it was costing me a bit over a hundred a month back in those days, and yes, there were times when I couldnt afford it, and it seemed like a waste of money. I was healthy, never went to doctors, and shelling out a fourth of my wages to pay those premiums seemed like a waste of money every month. But I paid it, and when my ticker decided to act up, I was able to get the care I needed without losing every thing I owned. A lot of folks find it easier to blame the republicans for their woes instead of biting the bullet, opting to pay their own way in life and being responsible for themselves. We all make choices in life, and like it or not we are responsible for those choices. Some of us accept that responsibility, and others prefer to foist it off on everyone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> People find themselves without insurance for a variety of reasons. But whatever the reason, I think it's sad that Americans have to go without proper medical care.


Me too, I find it very sad that people cant be bothered to prepare themselves for the day they are going to be faced with major expenses that life throws at us... Had a neighbor here just the other day whose house burned to the ground. Unfortunate to say the least. Houses are not cheap, but since they had opted to pay for fire insurance, its not as bad for them as it could have been.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The last few posts define what I said Nevada doesn't know the meaning of - personal responsibility.
If you don't know what something is, you won't recognize it even if it's right in front of you.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> People find themselves without insurance for a variety of reasons. But whatever the reason, I think it's sad that Americans have to go without proper medical care.


I agree. But I think it's sad to stay on welfare year after year, smoke, do drugs, abandon children, have children without any plan on how they are going to be supported, spend decades working maybe 4 months a year, allow endless illegal immigration because Americans would rather have cheap labor than self supporting fellow citizens, steal, drive drunk, etc etc etc.

I suspect if those things were acknowledged, that would take care of 96% of social problems and there would be lots of funds left over to take care of those who won't support themselves no matter how it harms them and the even smaller percentage of those who are truly unable and unfortunate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Health insurance for most who worked minimum wage jobs (the under 30 crowd) used to be pretty cheap, before Ocare came a long. I know it was costing me a bit over a hundred a month back in those days


Well, when you & I were in our 20s those were certainly the days before Obamacare, but it was also 40 years ago. You can't really compare Obamacare prices to 1970s prices. It's a different world today.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh come on many had very reasonable priced coverage and were Very Satisfied with What They Had Also, and this was JUST TWO years ago and 3 YEARS ago, Before this Monstrosity called ObamaUncare started up. They are Talking in the LAST few years Not 40 years ago. Wow just Wow.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Oh come on many had very reasonable priced coverage and were Very Satisfied with What They Had Also, and this was JUST TWO years ago and 3 YEARS ago, Before this Monstrosity called ObamaUncare started up. They are Talking in the LAST few years Not 40 years ago. Wow just Wow.


I though you were disabled.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm still stuck back at the first line of the opening post.

"A survey out on Thursday suggests many Americans who signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) find their coverage affordable."

Um... many that signed up for it found it affordable. I guess so if they signed up for it. Duh. They wouldn't have signed up for it if they couldn't afford it.

What about the 30 million or so that didn't sign up for it? Did anyone ask them why they didn't sign up for it? Did anyone ask them if they found it unaffordable? (I did.) 

If you go ask 1,000 people who own homes valued at over $1 million whether they found their homes affordable, I suspect most of them would say that they are affordable. After all, they bought them, didn't they? Does that mean that $million homes should be affordable by us regular schmoes, too? After all, they're "affordable", aren't they?

The whole first line borders on a lie to my way of thinking just because it makes the reader assume information for which there is no basis. Is that called error by omission?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> DH closed his company about the same time his prostate cancer came back. Thanks to the ACA he was able to get insurance on the exchange. Yes, we are paying more per month and have a higher deductible, but when the bill is $87,000 for just the hospital it's a good deal. If the ACA had not been in place we would not have gotten insurance and most likely he would have not gotten care and left me and the kids without a bread winner or we would have to declare bankruptcy. Not a choice anyone should have to make when facing something like cancer.
> 
> Does anyone get who ISN'T complaining about the ACA? The INSURANCE COMPANIES. At the request of the Republicans, they got invited to help write the laws. You better believe the CEO's and top brass are still getting their multimillion dollar bonuses and they are still donating tons of cash to their favorite Republicans. Meanwhile the people go on, paying the bill and saying THANK YOU for letting us pay out the nose.....


As I recall, not one Republican voted for the law? And if the Democrats didn't like how the law was written or how it benefitted the insurance companies, why did they vote for it and why did Obama then sign it? And if no Republicans voted for the law then they can hardly be held responsible for any benefit to the insurance companies, correct?

And aren't many insurance companies opting out because it has become unsustainable for them?

The bottom line is the ACA and everything that came with it, and that which is still to come, lies squarely at the feet of the Democrats. Its their baby. I have no great love for the Republican party, believe me, but this mess isnt theirs.


----------



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

There is altogether too much confusing of choice with consequence. The choice came at the point a person decides they will do what they want and gamble on staying healthy. The consequence is the risk of not having health insurance when you needed it.
Too many seem to be in the rut of saying they couldn't get insurance when they needed it. Well- no one should expect to blythly refuse to pay for fire insurance because it is too expensive then call up the insurance company ans want to start paying premiums when the house is on fire. The insurance company would soon be belly up if they allowed that.
So to keep the insurance company from going broke, the some country's taxpayers have been extorted into paying the premiums that people have found too inconvenient to pay for themselves. Generally not the ones getting the benefit but hey, what the heck.

Nothing is this simple- that you can make expensive rules for the majority of Americans while making them pay for the privilege and also expect them to pay for the minority getting all the benefit and not expect to hear about the unfairness.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well, when you & I were in our 20s those were certainly the days before Obamacare, but it was also 40 years ago. You can't really compare Obamacare prices to 1970s prices. It's a different world today.


Yes, it was quite a while ago, but it was still pretty cheap... even adjusting for inflation. There was no reason anyone in the 20 to 30 y/o age bracket with a minimum wage job getting 40 hours a week could not have afforded to insure themselves. Anyone over 30 who is still working for minimum wage has most likely made some pretty poor choices...


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

For us that have to pay for the insurance for those that choose to be a taker instead of providing for their own self reliance , Obamacare is a loser. I have no respect for those who join the band wagon on this freebe


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I though you were disabled.


What possible connection is there between someone being disabled and millions of Americans getting stiffed out of policies, rates and ins benefits they were satisfied with? "if you like your policy you can keep your policy".... yeah right! :shrug:


----------



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

wally said:


> For us that have to pay for the insurance for those that choose to be a taker instead of providing for their own self reliance , Obamacare is a loser. I have no respect for those who join the band wagon on this freebe


I understand your point. It does not bother me anywhere near as much that someone takes what the law allows, however bad that law is, but that they will not acknowledge the unfairness of it for most people and in fact get pretty nasty about anyone having the nerve to complain about getting the bill for someone else's free lunch.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What possible connection is there between someone being disabled and millions of Americans getting stiffed out of policies, rates and ins benefits they were satisfied with? "if you like your policy you can keep your policy".... yeah right! :shrug:


I always find it interesting when people who have government subsidized healthcare insurance they like talk about how the government should stay out of it.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I always find it interesting when people who have government subsidized healthcare insurance they like talk about how the government should stay out of it.


You mean the ones who paid taxes for that for decades?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> You mean the ones who paid taxes for that for decades?


Like me?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Like me?


No one getting an obamacare subsidy has paid a dime of taxes to cover it. Not a days worth. It just fell from the sky with other's having to pay for it. When you get Medicare, at least you will have contributed something and can rejoice on having paid all those years to have had Obama make up lots of new rules moving funds from that program to Obamacare.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I always find it interesting when people who have government subsidized healthcare insurance they like talk about how the government should stay out of it.


 I wouldn't be talking so fast their buddy. I am paying a heck of a lot MORE than you, like 4 TIMES maybe even MORE than that...... Of which I PIAD into the SS System. Not trying to cheat the American people. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I wouldn't be talking so fast their buddy. I am paying a heck of a lot MORE than you, like 4 TIMES maybe even MORE than that...... Of which I PIAD into the SS System. Not trying to cheat the American people. LOL


But you do like your government subsidized insurance, don't you? No death panels, you can find a doctor, and you can afford the copays?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This is not about what and how I feel about mINE What this IS about what is GOOD for the ENTIRE country, and what is BEST for the great Majority of Americans. Not about ME or what I have or anything at all. This is About the USA and the people that live in the USA as a whole.`!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

When I vote, I vote as I see is the BEST for the country, and its wonderful people as a whole group, not for me.`! 
And if more people would VOTE with that in mind, instead of me, me, me in thinking, this country would NOT have O as president today...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> This is not about what and how I feel about mINE What this IS about what is GOOD for the ENTIRE country, and what is BEST for the great Majority of Americans. Not about ME or what I have or anything at all. This is About the USA and the people that live in the USA as a whole.`!


We all have a stake in universal healthcare. We all know people who need it; friends, neighbors, and even family members who will need help with insurance at some point in their lives. Nobody likes to see someone die for lack of proper healthcare.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> But you do like your government subsidized insurance, don't you? No death panels, you can find a doctor, and you can afford the copays?


The law that added Part D of Medicare did not include funding and a small part of Part B was expanded to subsidized low income people's premiums. The rest is paid by Medicare taxes. But even those relatively small subsidies are enough when paid out to so many people to cause a crunch in the budget.

If this small Medicare subsidy is a budget breaker, what to you think the almost 90% subsidized rate is doing? And it is paid to people who could afford their own coverage out of their resources but now get government assistence so they don't have pay when they could.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> If this small Medicare subsidy is a budget breaker, what to you think the almost 90% subsidized rate is doing?


Yes, but I notice that there's plenty of money to fight ISIS.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> We all have a stake in universal healthcare. We all know people who need it; friends, neighbors, and even family members who will need help with insurance at some point in their lives. Nobody likes to see someone die for lack of proper healthcare.


But I would rather those people worked for it before they get it. I don't want to die because Medicare committees have decided to curtail coverage for my health care to save money that was spent giving gratis under obamacare what I'm not allowed to have.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Yes, but I notice that there's plenty of money to fight ISIS.


And your mother wears army shoes- which as as much relevance as military spending as I never see either.

Whenever you bring up military spending, it's clear you have no rational argument and are left with a rousing chorus of 'oh ya' repeated indefinitely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But I would rather those people worked for it before they get it. I don't want to die because Medicare committees have decided to curtail coverage for my health care to save money that was spent giving gratis under obamacare what I'm not allowed to have.


That's not going to happen. It's always the working class that pays most of the bills.

But we have some difficult decisions to make. Should 92 year old people get heart valve surgery?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> That's not going to happen. It's always the working class that pays most of the bills.
> 
> But we have some difficult decisions to make. Should 92 year old people get heart valve surgery?


If they have paid for it and their parents lived to a hundred and 5 and they are healthy enough to recover- who the heck made you god to say who is not worthy of life and who is?

Would you say a baby born with profound disability who will never be aware should have 24 hour care for 20 years just because they are young?

Some choices are not for the opinionateds to make.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> If they have paid for it and their parents lived to a hundred and 5 and they are healthy enough to recover- who the heck made you god to say who is not worthy of life and who is?
> 
> Would you say a baby born with profound disability who will never be aware should have 24 hour care for 20 years just because they are young?
> 
> Some choices are not for the opinionateds to make.


The point is that healthcare is unaffordable because everyone gets everything. But is that what we really want? Is it good economy for people in their 90s to get $500,000 procedures?

Yes, these are difficult decisions, but I think it's a discussion we need to have. To me, it makes more sense to limit expensive procedures for people who don't have long to live anyway than to let younger people die for lack of routine care.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> The point is that healthcare is unaffordable because everyone gets everything. But is that what we really want? Is it good economy for people in their 90s to get $500,000 procedures?
> 
> Yes, these are difficult decisions, but I think it's a discussion we need to have. To me, it makes more sense to limit expensive procedures for people who don't have long to live anyway than to let younger people die for lack of routine care.


So your argument is that it is a moral neccessity to cover people who don't pay for it while it is economic necessity to deprive people who do pay for it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So your argument is that it is a moral neccessity to cover people who don't pay for it while it is economic necessity to deprive people who do pay for it?


I just recognize that there are certain economic realities to healthcare.

But these decisions aren't limited to age. There are a number of factors that could make younger people poor candidates for expensive procedures.

And this isn't just about money. There are also realities about medical resources. In the case of transplants, for example, it doesn't make sense to give someone a kidney who is likely to die of something else in 6 months or a year. That kidney is better used on someone who has a good chance of living a long and normal life.

You really haven't thought much about these things, have you.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I just recognize that there are certain economic realities to healthcare.
> 
> But these decisions aren't limited to age. There are a number of factors that could make younger people poor candidates for expensive procedures.
> 
> ...


I've experienced them when the medical profession decided I had an incurable fatal condition so every complaint I had about pain or illness was met with "well what do you expect" rather than treatment. Turned out I fooled them, finally ran into a doctor who would treat me, despite my limited prognosis, and -surprise surprise- I've had a good life instead of sitting in a chair from which I can't get up, crying in pain. With blood running down my face.

I think you have not thought much about it- at least more that superficial NBC news stories. People don't neatly die when you think it will be economically sound of them to do so. They linger in pain and disability. No knee replacement just because you are 85? No one just folds their tent and picturesquely fades away. No- they are confined to a wheelchair in constant pain for 5 years instead of being able to move around happily for the next ten.

No heart surgery? Agony and lingering in bed for how many years?

All babbling about expensive health care for the elderly because you have decided they should just relieve us of the economic burden by dying right off has a real flaw. It rarely happens that way. Despite the media stories to the contrary. There is way too much giving no attention to an old person's illnesses already, leading to suffering when a little attention could resolve the problem.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> We went from life and death to medical care to everyone who sought it.
> That last part was a myth, and still is.
> When you said live or die, I thought you meant a traffic accident, a drowning, a heart attack............life or death as in right now. I don't think you could find even a few examples of someone being turned away.
> Now I'll tell you a truth.
> ...


I'm not sure we should expect to be dealt all aces, but there ought to be a happy medium. Think of the years of productivity lost to society because people can't or don't obtain basic health care. 

My first ex-husband died of a heart attack at age 30. He had already been diagnosed with hypertension, but he'd gone off his meds. Maybe he couldn't afford them, or couldn't afford to see a doctor periodically to get his prescription renewed. Maybe he was just careless. I don't know. 

He was a hard-working man and he left behind a wife and adopted daughter. His widow and orphan got a decade of Social Security payments, and society was deprived of the taxes he would have paid into the system over the next 35 years if he'd lived a normal lifespan and worked until retirement. 

By the same token, if a diabetic goes blind or loses a limb due to the effects of uncontrolled blood sugar, he's going to be eligible for disability, perhaps for decades. Test strips and insulin seem cheap in comparison.

I think it would be more cost-effective (not to mention the savings in terms of human misery) for society to make sure that people in those situations have access to medication. No?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I've experienced them when the medical profession decided I had an incurable fatal condition so every complaint I had about pain or illness was met with "well what do you expect" rather than treatment. Turned out I fooled them, finally ran into a doctor who would treat me, despite my limited prognosis, and -surprise surprise- I've had a good life instead of sitting in a chair from which I can't get up, crying in pain. With blood running down my face.
> 
> I think you have not thought much about it- at least more that superficial NBC news stories. People don't neatly die when you think it will be economically sound of them to do so. They linger in pain and disability. No knee replacement just because you are 85? No one just folds their tent and picturesquely fades away. No- they are confined to a wheelchair in constant pain for 5 years instead of being able to move around happily for the next ten.
> 
> ...


You know that the medical profession will keep coming up with new procedures and medications that are going to be expensive. Can we afford it for everyone? If not, how do we decide who gets it and who doesn't?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> You know that the medical profession will keep coming up with new procedures and medications that are going to be expensive. Can we afford it for everyone? If not, how do we decide who gets it and who doesn't?


We DON'T decide! That's the ONLY good answer to your question.


----------



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

willow_girl said:


> I'm not sure we should expect to be dealt all aces, but there ought to be a happy medium. Think of the years of productivity lost to society because people can't or don't obtain basic health care.
> 
> My first ex-husband died of a heart attack at age 30. He had already been diagnosed with hypertension, but he'd gone off his meds. Maybe he couldn't afford them, or couldn't afford to see a doctor periodically to get his prescription renewed. Maybe he was just careless. I don't know.
> 
> ...


Yes- you'd think that if they thought health care was so important, they woukd work to have it.

Truth is some people if given health care will improve and be less expensive over all. But most will use services and still not do what they need and still cost a lot in addition to the extra cost of insurance.

It's like the old "it will reduce emergency room costs." Turned out it increased it. 

Our local hospital has developed a program to reduce repeated hospitalizations. And they did it by having someone, a nurse, visit weekly after release and call daily to see the patient took their meds and even sent a van to them to take them to follow up exams. Worked well despite the large extra cost. Up to the moment the medical badgering stopped. Then right back to square one.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I hear this a lot, but it has never been that way for me. I had a 5k deductible insurance plan when I went through the cancer treatments, (BCBS) and they paid 80 percent of all costs up until my portion (the other 20 percent) amounted to 5k during that year. After that they paid 100 percent. This same deal seems to be how my current plan works with the exception that my out of pocket now has to reach 6700 instead of 5K. I am now with Humana.


You are confusing the deductible with the out-of-pocket maximum. It sounds like your plan had a 0 deductible, a 20 percent co-pay, and a $5,000 out-of-pocket maximum.

The deductible is the amount you're required to pay before your insurance kicks in. Some policies have exceptions, such as for routine office calls or prescriptions. Obamacare exempts a list of preventative screenings, so policyholders can get (for instance) a Pap test or mammogram for free without having to meet their deductible first. 

Your out-of-pocket maximum is, just like the name says, the maximum amount you have to pay out-of-pocket. The insurance company will pay 100 percent of costs in excess of that amount. 

So let's say a person has a heart attack, and they rack up $100,000 in hospital bills. And their policy has a $5,000 deductible, a 20% co-pay, and $10,000 out-of-pocket maximum. 

So they would pay the first $5,000 in bills before their insurance kicked in. Then they would pay 20% of each of the remaining bills, with the insurer picking up the remaining 80 percent, UNTIL they met their out-of-pocket max of $10,000. Their insurance would pay any remaining bills after that, for the rest of the calendar year.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> You know that the medical profession will keep coming up with new procedures and medications that are going to be expensive. Can we afford it for everyone? If not, how do we decide who gets it and who doesn't?


People who work hard to have coverage get what they worked for. The rest get what is affordable.

There is no "we" here. You don't get a vote on other people's value. They get the vote.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> We DON'T decide! That's the ONLY good answer to your question.


Unless we get that under control there's no chance for affordable healthcare.


----------



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

Ok- let you give me an example of your vaunted no expensive treatment for the old.

I thought my father was just wasting away due to old age at 85. A couple of years later I found out he was quietly starving himself to death because he had broken a hip and he could not use the bathroom without pain. Could be a hip replacement would have helped his last years not be so awful but, since he would not tell anyone, no one could point out to the doctor it was not so simple as being a good soldier and fading away economically. And he would not push for help nor complain.
That is the reality. And it was not so picturesque, was it?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Unless we get that under control there's no chance for affordable healthcare.


We are not the problem. Simplistic notions derived from half baked conclusion are not a help.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Your out-of-pocket maximum is, just like the name says, the maximum amount you have to pay out-of-pocket. The insurance company will pay 100 percent of costs in excess of that amount.
> 
> So let's say a person has a heart attack, and they rack up $100,000 in hospital bills. And their policy has a $5,000 deductible, a 20% co-pay, and $10,000 out-of-pocket maximum.
> 
> So they would pay the first $5,000 in bills before their insurance kicked in. Then they would pay 20% of each of the remaining bills, with the insurer picking up the remaining 80 percent, UNTIL they met their out-of-pocket max of $10,000. Their insurance would pay any remaining bills after that, for the rest of the calendar year.


 What insurance company has you PAY the deductible first?

When I raked up well over $100,000 on 7 days stay in the hospital 3 of which were in the ICU note: my deductible at that time was $3500

The BILL got PAID all but that $3,500 deductible which I PAID on installments payments to the hospital after I GOT OUT.
Wonderful insurance I had from work, and the Hospital saved my life as I was one day away from not being here when my liver and kidneys shut down i was in the ICU for 3 days receiving kidney dialysis. 

I did not at all have to worry about meeting some deductible FIRST then the insurance kicks in. The Insurance kicked in right away. The deductible was paid after I got well and out of the hospital. Cool


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> We are not the problem. Simplistic notions derived from half baked conclusion are not a help.


Too many expensive procedures is the problem.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Tax refunds will be cut for ACA recipients*


> A significant benefit of the Affordable Care Act is the opportunity to receive money-saving tax credits up front to cut the overall cost of health insurance, *but now hundreds of thousands of consumers could owe back some of that money next April.
> *
> Those affected took advance payments of the premium tax credit for health insurance. Some married couples could owe $600 or $1,500 or $2,500 or even more. It might feel like a raw deal for some who are already suffocating under the escalating costs of health insurance.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/tompor/2014/09/21/susan-tompor-tax-refunds-will-be-cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> *Tax refunds will be cut for ACA recipients*
> 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/


Well yeah, if you claim more credit than you deserve then you owe the difference. Seems reasonable enough.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> What insurance company has you PAY the deductible first?


All of them. Say you have a $5,000 deductible and you visit the ER. Your cost, after their allowed portion, is $4,800. You will be billed for that $4,800. Yes, you can pay it in payments but you'll still pay that $4,800. Now if the bill is over $5,000 after insurance adjustments the insurance pays their portion but you still have to pay that deductible and co-pay. But before they pay anything out they deduct your deductible from the total. Meaning, you have to have expenses in excess of your deductible before the insurance pays.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Then that hospital I was in PAID it then the insurance kicked in as I didn't pay a cent till I was out of the hospital. So I still didn't PAY out of MY Pocket till i was out of the hospital That was my whole point.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Unless we get that under control there's no chance for affordable healthcare.


I see my point flew right over your head. I want no part of your collective.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

You're arguing semantics. You know full well nobody PAYS your deductible until you pay it yourself. The insurance company won't pay the hospital until your deductible is met. Then the insurance pays the hospital which then (as per contract requirements) bills you for the amount the insurance didn't cover. The point Willow was trying to make is that the insurance doesn't pay anything until your deductible is met and surpassed.

Regardless of when you are billed you pay that first part.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

my3boys said:


> As I recall, not one Republican voted for the law? And if the Democrats didn't like how the law was written or how it benefitted the insurance companies, why did they vote for it and why did Obama then sign it? And if no Republicans voted for the law then they can hardly be held responsible for any benefit to the insurance companies, correct?
> 
> And aren't many insurance companies opting out because it has become unsustainable for them?
> 
> The bottom line is the ACA and everything that came with it, and that which is still to come, lies squarely at the feet of the Democrats. Its their baby. I have no great love for the Republican party, believe me, but this mess isnt theirs.


Post of the day award.
And a big, well, DUH!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wally said:


> For us that have to pay for the insurance for those that choose to be a taker instead of providing for their own self reliance , Obamacare is a loser. I have no respect for those who join the band wagon on this freebe


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But I would rather those people worked for it before they get it. I don't want to die because Medicare committees have decided to curtail coverage for my health care to save money that was spent giving gratis under obamacare what I'm not allowed to have.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, but I notice that there's plenty of money to fight ISIS.


 Could be the constitutionality of it all, duh...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I just recognize that there are certain economic realities to healthcare.
> 
> But these decisions aren't limited to age. There are a number of factors that could make younger people poor candidates for expensive procedures.
> 
> ...


Thames things were thought about a lot when this regime took office, well, during the campaign, too.
Did you read any of john Holgren's writings? The guy who believes in forced abortions? Believes in birth control drugs in the drinking water? Just unsure of how to get the dose right? Ezekiel Emanuel's belief's in the whole life system? I just LOVE your Marxist friends and your beliefs follow right along. The only deserving people are Tahoe who can contribute to the state, below the age of 10 & over the age of..70? are dispensable.
Reprensible, Unamerican, savage.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The point is that healthcare is unaffordable because everyone gets everything. But is that what we really want? Is it good economy for people in their 90s to get $500,000 procedures?
> 
> Yes, these are difficult decisions, but I think it's a discussion we need to have. To me, it makes more sense to limit expensive procedures for people who don't have long to live anyway than to let younger people die for lack of routine care.


Sounds like you're applying for the death panel job...


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

If you want to make healthcare affordable make it against the law to sue a Dr or healthcare provider except in cases of extreme negligence. Even then limit awards to a quarter million bucks. Malpractice suits and insurance are a huge percentage of the cost.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

hawgsquatch said:


> If you want to make healthcare affordable make it against the law to sue a Dr or healthcare provider except in cases of extreme negligence. Even then limit awards to a quarter million bucks. Malpractice suits and insurance are a huge percentage of the cost.


Or maybe it's things like this. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/2...ng-surprise-medical-bills.html?_r=1&referrer=


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hawgsquatch said:


> If you want to make healthcare affordable make it against the law to sue a Dr or healthcare provider except in cases of extreme negligence. Even then limit awards to a quarter million bucks. Malpractice suits and insurance are a huge percentage of the cost.


We have tort reform in Nevada. The intended purpose was to keep graduating doctors in Nevada and to lower medical costs. It accomplished neither.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Too many expensive procedures is the problem.


What you mean is too many expensive treatments for other people. There is no rationale for your advocating huge subsidies for millions to buy health care while you personally choose who gets expensive care and who doesn't. You simply point to one group and say 'greedy' based on your personal, self admittedly self centered interests. Rings of Nazi eugenics. 

So you would look at an old person and say "live how you can in constant pain without dignity- no matter how much you contributed in the past, you're no use now'' while saying to a young drug addict who only contributed misery to the world ' here take this other fellow's money- you need it more than he does because you might actually live longer to cause more misery.'

You have chosen an inherently evil value because it looks simple to you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> What you mean is too many expensive treatments for other people. There is no rationale for your advocating huge subsidies for millions to buy health care while you personally choose who gets expensive care and who doesn't. You simply point to one group and say 'greedy' based on your personal, self admittedly self centered interests. Rings of Nazi eugenics.
> 
> So you would look at an old person and say "live how you can in constant pain without dignity- no matter how much you contributed in the past, you're no use now'' while saying to a young drug addict who only contributed misery to the world ' here take this other fellow's money- you need it more than he does because you might actually live longer to cause more misery.'
> 
> You have chosen an inherently evil value because it looks simple to you.


Well, speaking for myself, I haven't had any expensive procedures. I remain healthy.

But there's an alternative to making those difficult decisions. We can always resolve to pay for everyone getting everything. But I suspect that idea won't be so popular.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Well, speaking for myself, I haven't had any expensive procedures. I remain healthy.
> 
> But there's an alternative to making those difficult decisions. We can always resolve to pay for everyone getting everything. But I suspect that idea won't be so popular.


Or we let people choose how much they are willing to pay for themselves, either over time with insurance or immediately without it.

Your relative health has a lot to do with your choice of who gets much for nothing or nothing for much.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Or we let people choose how much they are willing to pay for themselves, either over time with insurance or immediately without it.


That would require letting poor people die for lack of care. I don't think that's in our future.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That would require letting poor people die. I don't think that's in our future.


You are delusional. Everybody dies. Past, present, and future.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> That would require letting poor people die for lack of care. I don't think that's in our future.


No, the end result of your thinking is that everyone experiences lack of care when people see that hard work gets them nothing better than no work at all. So, with no one working, no one pays for anything and gets exactly what they pay for.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> No, the end result of your thinking is that everyone experiences lack of care when people see that hard work gets them nothing better than no work at all. So, with no one working, no one pays for anything and gets exactly what they pay for.


My line of thinking is that we can only afford so many $500,000 procedures before the system becomes unaffordable. Limiting those procedures could make the system work.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> My line of thinking is that we can only afford so many $500,000 procedures before the system becomes unaffordable. Limiting those procedures could make the system work.


It's true that carrying a burden of people who don't pay for anything limits the funds to cover them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It's true that carrying a burden of people who don't pay for anything limits the funds to cover them.


Are you suggesting that people who carry the burden be treated differently? Like they might get first dibs on kidney transplants?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> My line of thinking is that we can only afford so many $500,000 procedures before the system becomes unaffordable. Limiting those procedures could make the system work.


That works for me.... let those who can afford the procedures pay for them... those who cant? Those would be the ones over the limit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that people who carry the burden be treated differently? Like they might get first dibs on kidney transplants?


I like it!


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that people who carry the burden be treated differently? Like they might get first dibs on kidney transplants?


Well, actually that is your reasoning-that old people should lose their right to care just because they are old.. Financial based rationing make more sense because there is no treatment for anyone without the people who pay the cost. While the disappearance of those who don't pay will make no difference at all. If one strictly looks at economics, which is your basis for letting old people suffer with no treatment.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> We have tort reform in Nevada. The intended purpose was to keep graduating doctors in Nevada and to lower medical costs. It accomplished neither.


Because the insurance companies who provide the malpractice coverage are not just in Nevada. Tort reform in one fairly low-population state didn't move the needle on their actuary tables. 

If enough states pass it, it would make a difference. But that is just one cost among many, it helps control cost of health care but isn't the whole solution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Because the insurance companies who provide the malpractice coverage are not just in Nevada. Tort reform in one fairly low-population state didn't move the needle on their actuary tables.
> 
> If enough states pass it, it would make a difference. But that is just one cost among many, it helps control cost of health care but isn't the whole solution.


That wasn't the promise they made to us.

Did you know that about half the states already have tort reform? The results aren't encouraging.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That wasn't the promise they made to us.
> 
> Did you know that about half the states already have tort reform? The results aren't encouraging.


What promise is that? and who made it? Did you get it in writing? 

I think you mentioned that your own state had "tort reform", and yet you have also mentioned pretty healthy sums being paid out to at least one resident of your state while she happened to be in your care. Maybe tort reform needs to be reformed. :shrug:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That would require letting poor people die for lack of care. I don't think that's in our future.


So you would deny care to an elderly person in order to provide it to a poor person? Isn't that the definition of the "death panels"?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

If anyone is interested in facts (and I sincerely doubt it) malpractice insurance and malpractice lawsuits account for about *2%* of the total annual cost of *1 trillion dollars.*
So if we eliminate the right to sue all doctors for any mistake at all, we will have 98% of the cost still left to deal with.
Oh, and BTW, 90% of the malpractice occurs over and over again with the same few doctors, because they are allowed to live and continue their malpractice.
Carry on with your trivialities........


Here's one link, there are many more, all with the same numbers, in case someone wants to bring up the tired phrase, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=9125


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So you would deny care to an elderly person in order to provide it to a poor person? Isn't that the definition of the "death panels"?


I wouldn't suggest making that kind of policy on the basis of age alone.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I would't suggest making that kind of policy on the basis of age alone.


Strange that your remark about the poor economy of giving a 90 year old a $500,000 surgery didn't have any qualifiers.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That would require letting poor people die for lack of care. I don't think that's in our future.


It is if we continue to let animals like zeke Emanuel run our HC. His cut off age is 75.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Strange that your remark about the poor economy of giving a 90 year old a $500,000 surgery didn't have any qualifiers.


I posed that as a question, not a suggestion.

I know someone who is on dialysis and probably won't survive more than 2 years without a kidney transplant, but I doubt he'll get it. Unfortunately he got that way because is was a poorly managed diabetic. That means that kidney failure almost certainly won't be his only problem.

The thing is that if he gets the kidney transplant then he might be facing liver failure in 6 months or a year. That same kidney could save a life for someone who could live a normal lifespan.

Handing down a death sentence like that is harsh, but it's the reality. I don't think most Americans are prepared to get involved in those realities. But someone has to set those guidelines. Otherwise there's just not enough money and medical resources to go around.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It is if we continue to let animals like zeke Emanuel run our HC. His cut off age is 75.


Then I suggest you get involved. Someone is going to make those decisions whether you get involved or not.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I posed that as a question, not a suggestion.
> 
> I know someone who is on dialysis and probably won't survive more than 2 years without a kidney transplant, but I doubt he'll get it. Unfortunately he got that way because is was a poorly managed diabetic. That means that kidney failure almost certainly won't be his only problem.
> 
> ...


It helps if everyone pays their share for their care. Then having a committee to look for sheer waste first would be better than a committee to ration care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It helps if everyone pays their share for their care. Then having a committee to look for sheer waste first would be better than a committee to ration care.


We've got a new paradigm now. It used to be that medical resources were rationed in the basis of ability to pay, or at least the ability to afford healthcare insurance. Most could afford it, but many couldn't. That resulted in a limiting of usage of medical resources.

The ACA seeks to remove money from the equation. But the issue of medical resources hasn't been addressed. I believe we'll see enough $500,000 procedures being done to make a problem for both funding and medical resources.

If we're going to stop rationing medical resources on the basis of ability to pay, then we'll need to find another way to ration those resources. Medical resources are still limited.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> We've got a new paradigm now. It used to be that medical resources were rationed in the basis of ability to pay, or at least the ability to afford healthcare insurance. Most could afford it, but many couldn't. That resulted in a limiting of usage of medical resources.
> 
> The ACA seeks to remove money from the equation. But the issue of medical resources hasn't been addressed. I believe we'll see enough $500,000 procedures being done to make a problem for both funding and medical resources.
> 
> If we're going to stop rationing medical resources on the basis of ability to pay, then we'll need to find another way to ration those resources. Medical resources are still limited.


That is so irrational. First many, if not most, jobs carried health insurance so affording did not come into it for most working people. Second obamacare did not remove money from the issue- it just transferred the cost from you to me.

What you mean is not that medical care is rationed but that funds to put into it are limited. This would be helped by people paying for their own insurance leaving more resources to help the few who can't. 

You make the assumption that your personal system of rationing where you chose those without value to you to lose out, where those who pay for it may not get use of what they paid to have, is a goal ,rather than the system of those who have paid for it get to have it. That suits your personal situation but, if universally applied, means no one will put any effort into paying at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> That is so irrational. First many, if not most, jobs carried health insurance so affording did not come into it for most working people. Second obamacare did not remove money from the issue- it just transferred the cost from you to me.
> 
> What you mean is not that medical care is rationed but that funds to put into it are limited. This would be helped by people paying for their own insurance leaving more resources to help the few who can't.
> 
> You make the assumption that your personal system of rationing where you chose those without value to you to lose out, where those who pay for it may not get use of what they paid to have, is a goal ,rather than the system of those who have paid for it get to have it. That suits your personal situation but, if universally applied, means no one will put any effort into paying at all.


No. The rationing of medical resources was assured because it was a given that a certain number of Americans weren't going to have to ability to pay. That provided built-in rationing of medical resources.

But I think you are mistaken about the need for only medical resource rationing. I believe there's a limit to what people can pay in taxes. Medical innovation isn't going to end here. They'll keep developing new and better ways to save lives, and it won't be cheap. There is also a need to limit medical costs, since funding is a valuable resource also.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> No. The rationing of medical resources was assured because it was a given that a certain number of Americans weren't going to have to ability to pay. That provided built-in rationing of medical resources.
> 
> But I think you are mistaken about the need for only medical resource rationing. I believe there's a limit to what people can pay in taxes. Medical innovation isn't going to end here. They'll keep developing new and better ways to save lives, and it won't be cheap. There is also a need to limit medical costs, since funding is a valuable resource also.


Congratulations, you have arrived. Yes, rationing by earning versus not earning seems preferable to someone picking who lives and who dies using their own criteria. At least people then see the virtue of work. Your way makes a virtue of not working because, work or not, you end up with the same.

But there are many ways to reduce medical costs. Just because there is a fancy, new and expensive machine does not mean it is better. In fact, the results of old fashion surgery can actually be better than robotic surgery yet try to find out that information before surgery. No place to look it up to make a choice for a less expensive procedure that actually is better.
There is the issue of hospitals accepting limited reimbursement while contracting with non-plan doctors who don't limit their charges. You get to find that out when the bill comes.
Or when a longer stay in the hospital will result in a better outcome. Or when an outpatient procedure is statistically more successful.
There are still wards rather than individual rooms for those needed cost saving but try to find them in the US.
Try to find which procedures, never mind how they are done, don't work and which do. Imagine being able to get that info from other than the person who will make money at it. Same with medications. Or physical therapy, of which a substantial per centage is very unlikely to be successful. 
Does training more GPs result in better care than a million specialists?
Etc, etc, etc. Now if there is a real interest in reducing medical costs, there are a million items to address before draconian 'death panels' are seen as the answer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Yes, rationing by earning versus not earning seems preferable to someone picking who lives and who dies using their own criteria.


I think that's really what this dispute is about -- whether money should decide who lives or dies.

But time and time again the decision has been made that we can't give survival to the highest bidder. After all, that was the purpose in making the competitive auctioning of transplant organs illegal. There are better criteria than wealth.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I think that's really what this dispute is about -- whether money should decide who lives or dies.
> 
> But time and time again the decision has been made that we can't give survival to the highest bidder. After all, that was the purpose in making the competitive auctioning of transplant organs illegal. There are better criteria than wealth.


Very true.
And that reminds me of a joke................


A doctor, a lawyer, a little boy and a priest were out for a Sunday afternoon flight on a small private plane. Suddenly, the plane developed engine trouble. In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and then he bailed out. Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining. The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out. The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live." He also grabbed a parachute and jumped. The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace." The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack 

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/morekiddiejokes/alawyeronaplanejoke.html


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Then I suggest you get involved. Someone is going to make those decisions whether you get involved or not.


We are all involved & pushing for a repeal...obummerUnhealthcare will be repealed or gutted to the point that it has no teeth.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I posed that as a question, not a suggestion.
> 
> I know someone who is on dialysis and probably won't survive more than 2 years without a kidney transplant, but I doubt he'll get it. Unfortunately he got that way because is was a poorly managed diabetic. That means that kidney failure almost certainly won't be his only problem.
> 
> ...


This is the circular form of your argument.

1. Healthcare had become too expensive for everyone to afford.

2. Government should help provide this healthcare to those who cannot afford it otherwise.

3. Since the sum of healthcare costs are greater than the sum that society can afford some care will have to be eliminated in order for the system to be feasible.

So how do you think #3 will be decided based on #2? Perhaps we should all vote to approve individual healthcare procedures?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I think that's really what this dispute is about -- whether money should decide who lives or dies.
> 
> But time and time again the decision has been made that we can't give survival to the highest bidder. After all, that was the purpose in making the competitive auctioning of transplant organs illegal. There are better criteria than wealth.


Wow, a sudden moment of clarity. Why should money not be used as the rationing criteria, it is in everything else.

Who gets to drive the safest car? Who has the free time for healthy recreational activities? Who gets the most rest? Who gets the most personalized care? 

I thought the banned the sale of organs to prevent the black market. It's bad enough that people wish to ruin your goods. If organs were valuable to them things would be a lot worse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Wow, a sudden moment of clarity. Why should money not be used as the rationing criteria, it is in everything else.


I think most Americans believe that everyone should have access to a basic level of healthcare. That's what the ACA is all about.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I think most Americans believe that everyone should have access to a basic level of healthcare. That's what the ACA is all about.


This is what you do that makes it impossible to have a discussion with you. One minute you're talking organ transplants and $500,000 treatments, the next you're talking about a basic level of healthcare. Try to focus on one subject at a time!


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I think most Americans believe that everyone should have access to a basic level of healthcare. That's what the ACA is all about.


And there are ways to provide that basic level of healthcare that have nothing to do with insurance. Back when I had young kids and no insurance, I took them to the county health department. Well visits, immunizations, hearing and vision checks, they did it all. If the true intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare, that could have been done very easily by fully funding and expanding the county health department program. Because that wasn't even considered, it makes me wonder what the real purpose behind the ACA was. I believe the real purpose is to drive us to the nightmare that is nationalized health care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> And there are ways to provide that basic level of healthcare that have nothing to do with insurance. Back when I had young kids and no insurance, I took them to the county health department. Well visits, immunizations, hearing and vision checks, they did it all. If the true intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare, that could have been done very easily by fully funding and expanding the county health department program. Because that wasn't even considered, it makes me wonder what the real purpose behind the ACA was. I believe the real purpose is to drive us to the nightmare that is nationalized health care.


Public clinics are a possibility.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> And there are ways to provide that basic level of healthcare that have nothing to do with insurance. Back when I had young kids and no insurance, I took them to the county health department. Well visits, immunizations, hearing and vision checks, they did it all. If the true intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare, that could have been done very easily by fully funding and expanding the county health department program. Because that wasn't even considered, it makes me wonder what the real purpose behind the ACA was. I believe the real purpose is to drive us to the nightmare that is nationalized health care.


That was exactly the purpose. Just listen to the supporters language, they usually tell you that is their goal if you give them enough rope.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> That was exactly the purpose. Just listen to the supporters language, they usually tell you that is their goal if you give them enough rope.


The intent was to control prices with a public option, but public insurance was going to rain on the insurance companies' parade.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The intent was to control prices with a public option, but public insurance was going to rain on the insurance companies' parade.


The problem with public insurance is the government has no problems with continual operation losses. Private industry does not. It would be a very decided advantage to the public option.

Note if you talk about actual health care it's different. Public run hospitals were already done, in fact they still exists. The private sector has advanced so far that people consider using the public option as "not having access to care".


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The private sector with doctor owned specialty surgery centers are certainly on the rise.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Anyone who says the ACA is about providing healthcare at lower costs to those who can't afford is lying through their teeth.

The only thing the ACA is about is CONTROL! Period.

Anytime you get Government involved it will always cost more. This has been proven time and time again..

The ACA is a perfect example of the waste.. How much did the Government spend on a website that didn't work?

And that is only one example..

But those that push this garbage are the true offenders. They want something for nothing and think everyone else owes it to them.

Sorry I owe you nothing, and you know the only way you will get it from me is to get the Government to forcibly take it from me.. 

That alone shows the true cowardice of those who push the ACA.

Harsh words? You bet.. But then I'm not afraid to speak the truth and won't allow political correctness or anything else silence me.

Will you or some government silence me?

Possibly, but till then I use my Rights, given to me by my creator, to protect and defend the Constitution.

If the consequences of those actions result in my death or imprisonment, then so be it. I will pay the price for freedom as others have done before me..


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> And there are ways to provide that basic level of healthcare that have nothing to do with insurance. Back when I had young kids and no insurance, I took them to the county health department. Well visits, immunizations, hearing and vision checks, they did it all. If the true intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare, that could have been done very easily by fully funding and expanding the county health department program. Because that wasn't even considered, it makes me wonder what the real purpose behind the ACA was. I believe the real purpose is to drive us to the nightmare that is nationalized health care.


Post of the century award!!

And not only nat'l HC but complete control of our lives! Some here are avid Saul Alinsky fans, like those running the gov't, and when they're out, perhaps some sanity can prevail. Hopefully, more who truly cannot afford HC can have access to those type clinics and things can get some semblance of normality.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> Anyone who says the ACA is about providing healthcare at lower costs to those who can't afford is lying through their teeth.
> 
> The only thing the ACA is about is CONTROL! Period.
> 
> ...


Huh, another POST of the CENTURY AWARD!


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> We are all involved & pushing for a repeal...obummerUnhealthcare will be repealed or gutted to the point that it has no teeth.


Why? Don't you think everybody has the right to health insurance?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the century award!!
> 
> And not only nat'l HC but complete control of our lives! Some here are avid Saul Alinsky fans, like those running the gov't, and when they're out, perhaps some sanity can prevail. Hopefully, more who truly cannot afford HC can have access to those type clinics and things can get some semblance of normality.


Sadly, the local Health Dept doesn't treat things like cancer and other other life threatening diseases.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Why? Don't you think everybody has the right to health insurance?


Everybody has a right to health insurance... and they have had that right since the first insurance companies opened their doors. All anyone had to do to get it was to pay their premiums.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Sadly, the local Health Dept doesn't treat things like cancer and other other life threatening diseases.


True, but hospitals and other medical providers do.


----------



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

Dutchie said:


> Sadly, the local Health Dept doesn't treat things like cancer and other other life threatening diseases.


So the government taking care of all the bad things of life sounds so wonderful. Making sure that no one, no matter what they do or don't do, evers suffers. That would be the noblest of goals- and would work just fine if human beings weren't chock full of, well, human nature.

The trouble with eliminating every incentive for working to better yourself is that work, that four letter word, is hard. Letting someone else take care of you is easy. But without the vast majority of people working, there are no earnings for the government to syphon off to pay for application of fairness.

And that is always the trouble with arguing with liberal values- they have the virtues of the schoolyard and no one can argue against them without sounding like the mean bully that is always the fly in the school yard.

Yes, everyone subscribes to the value of fairness. It is as far as liberals every look into reality. Unfortunately, those who see further, past the gold of the goal of fairness, see that it can never really work because everyone wants to be the recipient of fairness in distributing freebies but objects to fairness in distributing the work that pays for the freebies.

The best that should ever be attempted is that an acceptable level of fairness be attempted, acceptable to the workers paying for it, that leaves an acceptable reward after paying for fairness, so that there is an incentive for those who pay to keep working. The workers must get more than the non-workers otherwise they stop work. And that is the highest point the childlike value of fairness can go.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> The trouble with eliminating every incentive for working to better yourself is that work, that four letter word, is hard.


I really don't believe that universal healthcare will remove all incentive to work. That' hasn't been observed in countries that have it.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I really don't believe that universal healthcare will remove all incentive to work. That' hasn't been observed in countries that have it.


It must be difficult to come on these threads daily to defend an ideology that just wont work no matter how hard it's tried. I commend your persistence and your loyalty to these ideas, but at some point don't you have to recognize the reality?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> It must be difficult to come on these threads daily to defend an ideology that just wont work no matter how hard it's tried. I commend your persistence and your loyalty to these ideas, but at some point don't you have to recognize the reality?


It works in other countries. It is the US that that seems to not be able to make it work.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> It must be difficult to come on these threads daily to defend an ideology that just wont work no matter how hard it's tried. I commend your persistence and your loyalty to these ideas, but at some point don't you have to recognize the reality?


Are you suggesting that there's no incentive to work in Canada because of their healthcare program?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> It works in other countries. It is the US that that seems to not be able to make it work.


It seems to only work here after people have reached a certain age.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> It works in other countries. It is the US that that seems to not be able to make it work.


Who cares what the so call red 'Other Countries Have, Do, or like what is going on.
THE Untied States of America SPLIT from these so called 'Other Countries" WE did not want, do not want, and will not be Like Those Other Countries.
We Want FREEDOM, Freedom of Choice, Freedom to do and choose and get things we want, and one of those things is on top to NOT be like "Other Countries" Period..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I really don't believe that universal healthcare will remove all incentive to work. That' hasn't been observed in countries that have it.


We have had medicare and medicaid in our own country for years... which is pretty much universal health care for those who receive it. How many of those recipients work a regular job?


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that there's no incentive to work in Canada because of their healthcare program?


Actually Canada has it's share of problems, and so do all the European countries that were held up as the examples of successfully implemented collectivist ideals by so many here.

The idea that these places are some sort of socialist Shangrala is absolute nonsense.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I really don't believe that universal healthcare will remove all incentive to work. That' hasn't been observed in countries that have it.



http://www.nationalreview.com/agend...s-hours-worked-working-age-adult-reihan-salam

I remember a story about a Swede in the US to promote an innovation. Although the article was about his product, there was a brief detour into why he was doing it here rather than Sweden. His response stuck with me- he said that so many social programs had removed the Swede's need to innovate and that they were too comfortable to see the need for change.

Basically free health plans come into this by assuring people they don't really worry about work to survive. It has a creeping effect where older generations believe in the virtue of work but a few percentage of peopke decide differently each generation, erroding the work ethic.

Eventually, the non-productive are too much of a burden to keep the freebies going.

And the US has a singularly lower proportion of workers already. We can't afford what they do already.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Who cares what the so call red 'Other Countries Have, Do, or like what is going on.


You don't think looking at how well healthcare systems in other countries is working might be important guidance for developing our own system?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Red, socialist and all the other names people throw when you don't really have a real reason to prove that other counties make it work and make it work better then here in the US.

Freedom to choose means, "if you have the money to pay the inflated ridiculous costs here in the US" you get health care but if you don't too bad. The US pays almost double per person per capita and still does not cover everyone. That is a losing system.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Everybody has a right to health insurance... and they have had that right since the first insurance companies opened their doors. All anyone had to do to get it was to pay their premiums.


Not exactly. Before the ACA I could not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I now have my own health insurance and am happy to pay for it.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, but hospitals and other medical providers do.


Not without insurance


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

where I want to said:


> So the government taking care of all the bad things of life sounds so wonderful. Making sure that no one, no matter what they do or don't do, evers suffers. That would be the noblest of goals- and would work just fine if human beings weren't chock full of, well, human nature.
> 
> The trouble with eliminating every incentive for working to better yourself is that work, that four letter word, is hard. Letting someone else take care of you is easy. But without the vast majority of people working, there are no earnings for the government to syphon off to pay for application of fairness.
> 
> ...


You are full with pre-conceived notions.

I am self employed and work long, many hours. I was always able to pay for health insurance but couldn't get it because of a pre-existng condition.Thanks to the ACA I now have insurance and I am happily paying for it.


----------



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

Dutchie said:


> You are full with pre-conceived notions.
> 
> I am self employed and work long, many hours. I was always able to pay for health insurance but couldn't get it because of a pre-existng condition.Thanks to the ACA I now have insurance and I am happily paying for it.


If you fully pay for it without subsidy, then it is a good thing indeed. Although there is always the option of not being self employed but working at a job with benefits for the sake of insurance. That is one of the choices people make.

However, it does not change my opinion aboutt obamacare, where the rate of subsidized insurance is 90%. Nor does it mean that it damaged many more people who already had insurance than the number it helped who were unable to get it previously.

This is not preconceived unless facts are preconceived by their existance. Saying that, no matter how angrily, does not make it true.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that there's no incentive to work in Canada because of their healthcare program?


As I said, it comes on gradually as the generations, with ethics formed in a time where work meant survival, pass away. Their children have a lesser incentive to work and, if that turns out to provide adequate survival, the next even less work til it crashes. 
Immigration, with new unreconditioned workers, helps but then the immigrant's children seem to fall into nonwork faster.

But yes, one of these days Canada will have to institute change when the workers are too burdened with non-workers.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Although there is always the option of not being self employed but working at a job with benefits for the sake of insurance. That is one of the choices people make


Not with a preexisting condition. Not before the ACA.

You keep missing the point.


----------



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

Dutchie said:


> Not with a preexisting condition. Not before the ACA.
> 
> You keep missing the point.


 If you mean that you could have taken a job with the post office, for example, and they would not have covered you with the same premium because of a pre existing condition, I can tell you that is not true. Nor for any largish employer I ever knew. Knew plenty of people with various conditions who hired on without being told no insurance.

Hmmm.... maybe point missing is more universal that I thought. You know adding snarky comments does little to further the discussion.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Dutchie said:


> You are full with pre-conceived notions.
> 
> I am self employed and work long, many hours. I was always able to pay for health insurance but couldn't get it because of a pre-existng condition.Thanks to the ACA I now have insurance and I am happily paying for it.


Wouldn't you be just as happy if the rules had been changed about pre-existing conditions, instead of taking over the whole system like has been done with Ocare? I am truly glad you are getting what you need now, but curious - do you think that makes the whole rest of it worthwhile?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And even if a person had preexisting condition there are still ways to get coverage Before ObamaUncare came about, my friend did and had coverage and never did go to ObamaUncare for coverage. yes there were are are ways to get covered even though a person had some kind of condition before the entire country had the wool pulled over their eyes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Wouldn't you be just as happy if the rules had been changed about pre-existing conditions, instead of taking over the whole system like has been done with Ocare?


My Obamacare insurance is through UnitedHealthcare. While Obamacare handles my subsidy and has set certain guidelines, my healthcare is administrated through a private insurance company. That's not exactly a takeover.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Not exactly. Before the ACA I could not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I now have my own health insurance and am happy to pay for it.


Were you born with this condition?

And even those with pre-existing conditions have been able to get insurance all along... they were simply not going to be covered for those conditions for a period of time... usually a couple years... but they would be covered for all other things that may have come down the pipe.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Dutchie said:


> Not without insurance


Another myth.... a dear friend of mine called me earlier today... its his one year anniversary of his brain surgery. He is doing well, went through the surgery a year ago today, went through chemo and radiation shortly thereafter. He didnt have insurance, but received life saving very expensive health care in the finest of facilities with a total "out of pocket" expense of less than 500 bucks. That was for an ambulance ride to the hospital originally and a few office visits with his oncologist. Dont even try to tell me that one must have insurance to get care. Charity still exists, and works in this country.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Dutchie said:


> Not with a preexisting condition. Not before the ACA.
> 
> You keep missing the point.


First, I am sorry you have your health issue and I hope it is better or treated.

Now,

Actually, you could have gone to work where I work and you would have been covered upon date of hire. I have not heard one person say they weren't covered for a preexisting condition upon employment.

I chose to no longer be self employed for a variety of reasons. My guess is you stay self employed for a variety of reasons. Life is full of choices. But choices have consequences.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Hmmm.... maybe point missing is more universal that I thought. You know adding snarky comments does little to further the discussion.


I am not being snarky at all. If I had taken a job with the post office I 1. Would have not developed my fullest potential and 2. I would not have provided employment to several other people. Now THAT is stagnation. At least I am contributing to the economy and provide employment in a rural area.

And I still would not have been able to get insurance unless the employer is self insured which concept is too progressive for these parts


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Wouldn't you be just as happy if the rules had been changed about pre-existing conditions, instead of taking over the whole system like has been done with Ocare? I am truly glad you are getting what you need now, but curious - do you think that makes the whole rest of it worthwhile?


Yes I would have. To be honest, while I realize that the ACA is far from perfect I don't understand all the fine details. What I do know, however, is that health care in this country is out of control.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Another myth.... a dear friend of mine called me earlier today... its his one year anniversary of his brain surgery. He is doing well, went through the surgery a year ago today, went through chemo and radiation shortly thereafter. He didnt have insurance, but received life saving very expensive health care in the finest of facilities with a total "out of pocket" expense of less than 500 bucks. That was for an ambulance ride to the hospital originally and a few office visits with his oncologist. Dont even try to tell me that one must have insurance to get care. Charity still exists, and works in this country.


He was lucky. I require monthly cancer treatments and would not have been so lucky


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> Why? Don't you think everybody has the right to health insurance?


Where is that in our Constitution?
I believe it's a good thing to have, I DO NOT believe in FORCING folks to buy it. UNconstitutional!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> So the government taking care of all the bad things of life sounds so wonderful. Making sure that no one, no matter what they do or don't do, evers suffers. That would be the noblest of goals- and would work just fine if human beings weren't chock full of, well, human nature.
> 
> The trouble with eliminating every incentive for working to better yourself is that work, that four letter word, is hard. Letting someone else take care of you is easy. But without the vast majority of people working, there are no earnings for the government to syphon off to pay for application of fairness.
> 
> ...


Another Post of the Century Award!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Trainwrek said:


> Actually Canada has it's share of problems, and so do all the European countries that were held up as the examples of successfully implemented collectivist ideals by so many here.
> 
> The idea that these places are some sort of socialist Shangrala is absolute nonsense.


Seems they're always bailing one another out b/c of bankruptcy...seems they'll get tired of this & tell me who'd bail us out?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> Not exactly. Before the ACA I could not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I now have my own health insurance and am happy to pay for it.


That's strange...I found a slew of private ins for folks who had pre-existing conditions, most were Christain groups, tho, & nearly any co. of any size that offered ins would insure anyone. I had pre-existing...worked for a semi-large co. & had ins. DH has a kidney full of stones & 2ruptured discs, got ins no problem w/job.
Seems like working is the problem, or was, b/4 obummerUNcare. Now when it all goes into effect & those folks who have ins get pushed to part time...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Wouldn't you be just as happy if the rules had been changed about pre-existing conditions, instead of taking over the whole system like has been done with Ocare? I am truly glad you are getting what you need now, but curious - do you think that makes the whole rest of it worthwhile?


Post of the decade award!!
A "pre-existing" group coulda been set up! 
Think of all the $$ saved!! Think of it!
Ah, but notsomuch gov't control...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the decade award!!
> A "pre-existing" group coulda been set up!
> Think of all the $$ saved!! Think of it!
> Ah, but notsomuch gov't control...


How? The only ways to make pre-existing coverage affordable are to either expand the pool of the insured so as to spread the cost as widely as possible, to get people enrolled in insurance as early as possible so as to have them paying into the risk pool before many of these conditions appear and then not allow them to be booted from the pool, or to have some outside entity subsidize the coverage. What's your easy solution and why was it never implemented?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> My Obamacare insurance is through UnitedHealthcare. While Obamacare handles my subsidy and has set certain guidelines, my healthcare is administrated through a private insurance company. That's not exactly a takeover.


Dictating who has to buy it, dictating that the taxpayers have to subsidize people up who earn up to 4 X the poverty level, dictating what it has to cover, and even dictating a limit on insurance co. profits - that's a takeover.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And even if a person had preexisting condition there are still ways to get coverage Before ObamaUncare came about, my friend did and had coverage and never did go to ObamaUncare for coverage. yes there were are are ways to get covered even though a person had some kind of condition before the entire country had the wool pulled over their eyes.


Probably by medicaid


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Where is that in our Constitution?
> I believe it's a good thing to have, I DO NOT believe in FORCING folks to buy it. UNconstitutional!


As long as everybody has a choice. 

The problem with those who choose not to based on their personal beliefs is that they become a burden to society


----------



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

Dutchie said:


> As long as everybody has a choice.
> 
> The problem with those who choose not to based on their personal beliefs is that they become a burden to society


As are the ones getting a public subsidy monthly. The only issue economically are whether the cost is more for the uninsured (which BTW we still have lots of) or the cost of the subsidies and administration of obamacare are more.

One of the troubles with obamacare is that the costs are much more than just the outright subsidies. These's the costs of the websites, the costs of the insurance companies' s guarantees, the cost administration, etc. Not to mention the cost to the people and businesses outside of direct obamacare involvement in extra costs, raxes and fees, which are not enough to pay for the progtam but enough to be a burden. And that includes Medicare recipients, who are paying more out of pocket for what has been cut.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Dutchie said:


> Yes I would have. To be honest, while I realize that the ACA is far from perfect I don't understand all the fine details. What I do know, however, is that health care in this country is out of control.


ACA does nothing about health care. It is all about government regulation of health insurance.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> How? The only ways to make pre-existing coverage affordable are to either expand the pool of the insured so as to spread the cost as widely as possible, to get people enrolled in insurance as early as possible so as to have them paying into the risk pool before many of these conditions appear and then not allow them to be booted from the pool, or to have some outside entity subsidize the coverage. What's your easy solution and why was it never implemented?


Question. If it's a known pre-existing condition should it still be considered insurance? After a diagnosis it should be cost sharing of care.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Dutchie said:


> As long as everybody has a choice.
> 
> The problem with those who choose not to based on their personal beliefs is that they become a burden to society



What choice?

You / Government forced the small insurance companies out of the health insurance business, so now you only have the Large Corporation insurance companies..

Much like the Large department stores keep saying they want to pay a higher minimum wage. Because they know it will drive the smaller competition out of business. Since they understand that the smaller company won't be able to absorb the costs hikes and the larger company will be able to spread it out over more items.. 

Of course Government is going to back those companies that continually donate to their campaigns...

So please try and tell me again how we have a choice, because you are wrong here.

Government is making the "rules" so only the larger insurance companies can survive and they are doing it on purpose to drive competition out.

Oh what I find ironic is that those in favor of this anti American, Anti Constitution ACA is that they are the same ones who complain about large Corporations, yet they push the ACA which only benefits large Corporations..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> ACA does nothing about health care. It is all about government regulation of health insurance.


Regulation and subsidy. Both translate into improved healthcare. If we can't afford cholesterol monitoring, colonoscopies, and immunizations then we won't be doing them. I know I didn't.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Regulation and subsidy. Both translate into improved healthcare. If we can't afford cholesterol monitoring, colonoscopies, and immunizations then we won't be doing them. I know I didn't.


For those getting the subsidy, and to whom the regulation give advantage. However, restricting health care and making it more expensive for those not getting these advantages, it means worse care. 
If you were not so bent on justifying the advantage you personally get, you would be willing to at least acknowledge the people disadvantaged instead of ignoring or dismissing them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> If you were not so bent on justifying the advantage you personally get, you would be willing to at least acknowledge the people disadvantaged instead of ignoring or dismissing them.


Did anyone acknowledge me when I was in a healthcare disadvantaged position?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Did anyone acknowledge me when I was in a healthcare disadvantaged position?


Probably had some sympathy until it was clear that it was because you chose to go without health care rather than seek work where it was a benefit? 
On the other hand, I can't choose my way around the effects of obamacare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Probably had some sympathy until it was clear that it was because you chose to go without health care rather than seek work where it was a benefit?
> On the other hand, I can't choose my way around the effects of obamacare.


So, no...


----------



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

Nevada said:


> So, no...


So, no longer anyway.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So, no longer anyway.


You see the problem with the wealthy asking poor Americans for a break, don't you? I mean, I've been going without any healthcare and the wealthy are complaining that their free ride might be over.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Did anyone acknowledge me when I was in a healthcare disadvantaged position?


You didn't care enough to take care of it yourself. Why am I supposed to care about you if you don't care about you? You had a lot of earning potential but chose not to use it. Using yourself as an example of a "disadvantaged" person really hurts your arguments.



Nevada said:


> You see the problem with the wealthy asking poor Americans for a break, don't you? I mean, I've been going without any healthcare and the wealthy are complaining that their free ride might be over.


What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> You didn't care enough to take care of it yourself. Why am I supposed to care about you if you don't care about you? You had a lot of earning potential but chose not to use it. Using yourself as an example of a "disadvantaged" person really hurts your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> *What the heck are you talking about?*


Yes I would love to hear what that is all about.
Rich are getting a free ride? Free like they don;t pay anything. geesh most pay cash the heck with insurance when you are that rich.
And some even give MILLIONS to the hospital for a additional wing added. But a free ride I think not.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Regulation and subsidy. Both translate into improved healthcare. If we can't afford cholesterol monitoring, colonoscopies, and immunizations then we won't be doing them. I know I didn't.


That is not what's being discussed in the post I quoted. There was a statement that healthcare needed to be reformed. I pointed out that the ACA did nothing to reform healthcare, it provides regulation of the heath insurance industry.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Did anyone acknowledge me when I put myself in a healthcare disadvantaged position?


Fixed for ya!


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Let me say that I still do not have health insurance. This has done nothing for me or my husband. He is working a job where he is often putting in 50 hours per week. He had health insurance through that job until 2008 when the economy tanked. That was the first thing his company dropped. For almost 2 years they struggled to keep the doors open & dh often did not work 30 hours per week. I picked up 3 part time cleaning jobs during that time. Fast forward to today.

He is still working at the same company. Things have gotten much better & he normally gets at least 40 hours, sometimes a few less, sometimes more. He still does not have insurance through work. They have 7 employees & just can't get a good deal on it.

Our income is too low to get any subsidies. Indiana did not expand their medicaid program so we do not qualify for that. The kids are covered by it though. I haven't quite figured out how the kids can qualify, but we don't. I have checked several places & there is no way we can afford the premiums. No way!

I am no longer working any part time jobs. I have a disabled son that does work on a dairy farm. I have to drive him back & forth to his job everyday so I really couldn't get a job myself because of that. It is important for him to have this job. 

I babysit for my nephew a few days a week & cut corners every way I can. We still can not touch the premiums that insurance companies want. With everything else going up in price, but wages not going up at the same rate, we just do without. We are not just sitting on our butts doing nothing. We work very hard to take care of ourselves & our family. However, insurance premiums aren't within our budget right now. It's not from lack of working though. 

I went to the doctor last week, I had bronchitis. Because I was self paying, my visit cost a total of $46. Not bad for an office visit.

I pray nothing catastrophic happens, but I would probably have a heart attack from stress if I had to try to figure out a way to come up with another $800 plus a month for health insurance. 

I know a lot of people in our shoes. Too poor to get a subsidy, but not able to get state coverage. 

This was clearly something that was shoved through without much thought. It sounded all good coming out of Obama's mouth, 'All Americans will have affordable coverage.' We are still waiting for that affordable part to come true!


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Wendy said:


> Let me say that I still do not have health insurance. This has done nothing for me or my husband. He is working a job where he is often putting in 50 hours per week. He had health insurance through that job until 2008 when the economy tanked. That was the first thing his company dropped. For almost 2 years they struggled to keep the doors open & dh often did not work 30 hours per week. I picked up 3 part time cleaning jobs during that time. Fast forward to today.
> 
> He is still working at the same company. Things have gotten much better & he normally gets at least 40 hours, sometimes a few less, sometimes more. He still does not have insurance through work. They have 7 employees & just can't get a good deal on it.
> 
> ...


Wendy, very well said!! And thank you for posting.

We don't have kids but are in a similar situation with not being able to afford the "affordable" coverage.

I got a quote a few months back and was told I could get a "modest" plan for $800+ a month, can't remember the exact dollar. Totally UNaffordable to us. And we can't get that kind of money cutting the cable. We just don't have it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> How? The only ways to make pre-existing coverage affordable are to either expand the pool of the insured so as to spread the cost as widely as possible, to get people enrolled in insurance as early as possible so as to have them paying into the risk pool before many of these conditions appear and then not allow them to be booted from the pool, or to have some outside entity subsidize the coverage. What's your easy solution and why was it never implemented?


People far smarter than me can figure that out...but a subsidized pool of pre-existers would work.
It was never implemented b/c it wouldn't offer the control over the nation like obummer uncare does.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Did anyone acknowledge me when I was in a healthcare disadvantaged position?


I don't recall that you were burdened in any way. DH was w/o ins for many yrs, we managed, decided we'd have to pay out of pocket if there was a Lodged kidney stone...choices.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> As long as everybody has a choice.
> 
> The problem with those who choose not to based on their personal beliefs is that they become a burden to society


Like you& others getting subsidies?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> People far smarter than me can figure that out...but a subsidized pool of pre-existers would work.
> It was never implemented b/c it wouldn't offer the control over the nation like obummer uncare does.


Funny how those people "far smarter than you" have been touting this very thing for almost 20 years yet still haven't come up with one bit of legislation or even one credible plan to do it. You're pretty good at researching those right wing sites that support your positions. I'm sure one has a plan that would simply accomplish this. Please share it with the rest of us. It might even get you post of the millennium.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> I went to the doctor last week, I had bronchitis. Because I was self paying, my visit cost a total of $46. Not bad for an office visit.


When I wasn't insured I kept antibiotics around, usually a few Z-Pacs and amoxicillin. Those worked well for most infections.

Alma was insured, but took some expensive meds for osteoporosis. They were even expensive with insurance. Evista was $125/month and had a $35/month copay. I got them overseas for $11. Her insurance refused Boniva because it had no generic. Boniva was about $150/pill but I got it overseas for $7.

People with ongoing problems like asthma can find things like Albuterol inhalers & Singulair for very little. Arthritis suffers can find NSAID medications like Mobic and Celebrex on the cheap also.

The point is that once you know what's wrong with you and what you need to take you don't need to see a doctor to get a prescription, if you know where to order it from.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Like you& others getting subsidies?





arabian knight said:


> And even if a person had preexisting condition there are still ways to get coverage Before ObamaUncare came about, my friend did and had coverage and never did go to ObamaUncare for coverage. yes there were are are ways to get covered even though a person had some kind of condition before the entire country had the wool pulled over their eyes.



I paid for my own insurance ny blue cross private pay and college health insurance from 18 thru grad. Ignorant that as a board of directors on a family business with the only Bennie being another heath care insurance during part of those years. During those years I also paid for uncovered tests and lab work due to knowing of a few historic family health issue.

I graduated and got heath care from work. Left that and and became self employed 9 months later. I know it is hard to believe but I as a female negotiations my pay to be a wage which included all of my costs to live, cover my car payments and othe car exspenives and full funding of retirement, blow money and the cost of MY choice of healthcare insurance.

I did that did that for 12...13 years during which the family cancer became real for me. Because I had always known to save and always knew to the penny what I need and because I knew that hard time could happened I had saved the bulk of my blow money ...and while battling the new insurance co I had just switched to that lost big ....luck of the draw for them....it happens in business. I personal managed to pay for three rounds of cancer.

I did drop the insurance this period of active cancer and was self funding my treatment ....Heck the were not paying and in time I won my case .....without hiring a lawyer and the retro paid for what the did owe.

So I was left being one who was NOT willing to pay for the risk pool I now was in for self pay insurance.

I took the risks and educated myself on how to return to a lower pool risk. I had to take a major personal risk

Stop all medical care
Start working for a company full time..I still could create self employment opportunities on my free time
Wait the length of time needed to honestly answer the question of
Have you been to a doctor for xXxX treatment in the last xXxX years.

That is how I reformed my health insurance risk pool.

BEFORE OBAMA CARE MK

Now, I do not have health insurance I do have access to all the medical care I want today.....I just want what I personally afford. I accept that FACT that with or with out insurance and or medical care I WILL DIE. Everyone will it is a cycle.

These days I make darn sure my will is up to date. I have accomplished what I needed to do in raising my son he can stand on his own two feet.

Life was never meant to be with out hardships. Results will vary.Due to the number of options, choices,and attitudes.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Nevada said:


> When I wasn't insured I kept antibiotics around, usually a few Z-Pacs and amoxicillin. Those worked well for most infections.
> 
> Alma was insured, but took some expensive meds for osteoporosis. They were even expensive with insurance. Evista was $125/month and had a $35/month copay. I got them overseas for $11. Her insurance refused Boniva because it had no generic. Boniva was about $150/pill but I got it overseas for $7.
> 
> ...


And a lot of people are finding out that when they are able to get their medical care "overseas", they can get it way cheaper. It's even possible to buy health insurance in other countries for what a lot of people pay for their cable bill here. 

I have a friend who had enough of where the US is going and moved to Panama. They speak English. They use the US Dollar. Their doctors are mostly US med school graduates. And what you pay for exactly the same services there costs way, way, way less than trying to get the same thing done in the US.

Sure, some depends on just where you go but the US isn't so far above a lot of other countries out there anymore. This idea that every other place on earth will have them working on you with dirty equipment in rat infested shacks just ain't the way it is everywhere outside of the US borders.

Yes, I've gotten medications from outside the US some time ago. We don't need any on an ongoing basis, and it's a good thing. Yes, they are quite a bit cheaper. Same thing. Same packaging. Same dosage. Gives a person something to think about when seeing the markups insurance companies pay here, aye?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I accept that FACT that with or with out insurance and or medical care I WILL DIE. Everyone will it is a cycle.


You say you have that attitude about healthcare, but do you carry it beyond healthcare. As long as you're going to die someday anyway, is being murdered that big of a deal? How about killed by a terrorist? I mean hey, we're all going to die aren't we?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You say you have that attitude about healthcare, but do you carry it beyond healthcare. As long as you're going to die someday anyway, is being murdered that big of a deal? How about killed by a terrorist? I mean hey, we're all going to die aren't we?


Nope, being killed really isnt that big a deal. at least not to the one that croaks out. Yer pretty much out of the game at that point. Its the loved ones that survive that have trouble dealing with death. The dead guy doesnt really care anymore.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, being killed really isnt that big a deal. at least not to the one that croaks out. Yer pretty much out of the game at that point. Its the loved ones that survive that have trouble dealing with death. The dead guy doesnt really care anymore.


Well sure, that's why we want life saving medical procedures for lour loved ones, because we don't want to lose them. If it's your kid, spouse, or parent then only the best care will do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well sure, that's why we want life saving medical procedures for lour loved ones, because we don't want to lose them. If it's your kid, spouse, or parent then only the best care will do.


Its also why reasonable people prepare themselves for those kinds of possibilities. Me? I bought good insurance so I wouldnt burden my loved ones if I got sick or injured. Bad things can happen even in the very finest of families dontcha know.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You say you have that attitude about healthcare, but do you carry it beyond healthcare. As long as you're going to die someday anyway, is being murdered that big of a deal? How about killed by a terrorist? I mean hey, we're all going to die aren't we?



death is death how when is my job to know. You could run up a million dollar bill for medical care and trip walking to your door and die.

It really does not matter I hope to die in my sleep but no matter how I will die sometime...


Known it for years. Alma died, Reagan died it's just part of life. Worrying about is just going to kill you


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> death is death how when is my job to know. You could run up a million dollar bill for medical care and trip walking to your door and die.
> 
> It really does not matter I hope to die in my sleep but no matter how I will die sometime...
> 
> ...


But that doesn't answer my question. Why is Americans dying on 9/11 a bigger deal than Americans dying for lack of medical care?

We've spent twice as much over the past 10 years fighting terrorism than we'll spend on Obamacare in the next 10 years, and that's not to mention the sacrificed troops. So why is Obamacare too high of a price to pay if it will save more American lives each year than were lost on 9/11?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

My goodness.
There is SOMETHING in The Constitution thats says PROTECTING America from foreign invasion, foreign armies.
But NOT ONE Word about protecting Americans form themselves in the way of giving them healthcare.
But it sure does give the right for Americans to Go after and Pursue happiness ON THEIR OWN. Like that nice word FREEDOM means, and millions and millions of Americans Fought and DIED for that simple way of life~!


----------



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

Nevada said:


> But that doesn't answer my question. Why is Americans dying on 9/11 a bigger deal than Americans dying for lack of medical care?
> 
> We've spent twice as much over the past 10 years fighting terrorism than we'll spend on Obamacare in the next 10 years, and that's not to mention the sacrificed troops. So why is Obamacare too high of a price to pay if it will save more American lives each year than were lost on 9/11?


Because a person almost always has a way of putting effort into getting medical care by preparing for that almost inevitable problem. While it was hard to conceive of being attacked by barbarians flying commercial jets into a high rise and therefore no reasonable person could be expected to prepare for that.

You keep choosing the smallest part of an issue and think that answers the whole problem. It's like saying people die in hospitals so let's eliminate the hospital. The flaw is that eliminating them makes it worse while the real issue is having a way to eliminate deaths due to poor practices and that is allowed to continue while chasing the unproductive goal.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But that doesn't answer my question. Why is Americans dying on 9/11 a bigger deal than Americans dying for lack of medical care?
> 
> We've spent twice as much over the past 10 years fighting terrorism than we'll spend on Obamacare in the next 10 years, and that's not to mention the sacrificed troops. So why is Obamacare too high of a price to pay if it will save more American lives each year than were lost on 9/11?


9/11 is a red herring to this healthcare discussion. 

Besides which your assumptions are wrong. We spent almost a trillion in 2012 alone on Medicaid and Medicare. The military budget in whole might have been more than that, but what was spent specifically "fighting terrorism" was far less. So extrapolating that out 10 years, your claim doesn't hold up at all. 

I suspect you are taking talking points from a web site or email broadcast from the Ds and then repeating them here. You really ought to fact check them first! And fact check the Rs too! They will all twist the truth and stretch it so far you can't call it the truth any more, to get you to believe what they want you to believe.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But that doesn't answer my question. Why is Americans dying on 9/11 a bigger deal than Americans dying for lack of medical care?
> 
> We've spent twice as much over the past 10 years fighting terrorism than we'll spend on Obamacare in the next 10 years, and that's not to mention the sacrificed troops. So why is Obamacare too high of a price to pay if it will save more American lives each year than were lost on 9/11?


Well take a breath and think about it.....



There is natural death as in the body wears out......Alma ok

There there is a criminal death sorta imagine a nurses putting a pillow on a patient to cause the death.

There are accidental deaths ....storm, drowning, etc

There are defensive deaths.... Travis Martin.

There are heroic deaths when a person risks personal death to save someone else and does not make it.


Situation,Charactor, and cause of death changes the emotional reaction and perception in acceptance of a death.

At your stage of life it amazes me that discernment on weighting death events has escaped you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well take a breath and think about it.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?


A statistical anomaly, or in plain English, a one-in-10 million occurrence.
But then, you already knew that.:facepalm:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Natural death that was preventable but the person Choice,maybe unwisely, not to earn money, save money, or pay for insurance, and or ignorant of the symptoms till it was out of his...her budget.

Then also the person ......being human could be like myself and have a natural predisposition genetically and they may have made the choice to aid the next generation vs using up resources 

Also people today have lifestyle choices and all due to have the right to make choices that aid in increasing the risk of cancer.

Now, your questions have been answered. Why do you refuse to see the impact of personal responsibility in the freedom of of self reliance. 

Some of us know that fools have earned the right to face the results of their choices as do hard-working wise people. 

Also, why if the dieing person, short on cash, yet wanting care, unable to gain help from friend and community......could it be that for years that person was a fool or selfish, or a scammer had he burned bridges and people were wise to him. 

I ask because hardly a weekend goes by that there is not a feed and auction for some member of our community who needs funds for something the money raised is often between 10k to 29k everyone of those fundraisers are persons from all walks in life but local criminals actively harming others and people who have burned bridges.

Character does matter. Lots of people will not continue to help a lazy,selfish fool more than once or twice but rather give where the giving ultimately does make a better community.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya really and if 30 yrs old that person should be working and have medical coverage, If not and is already in bad shape there are plenty of ways yo get covered one is Medicaid, and so on. Nobody is without some kind of help, and even then if that person can can get from charity groups, charity fundraising, MANY Ways without having a MUST GET Insurance coverage from the government. *Must buy* or get fined is not the American way, and it sure is not in The Constitution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nobody is without some kind of help, and even then if that person can can get from charity groups, charity fundraising,


I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

That is life. Nature is not kind or gentle. I hope he gets his life in order, a will, a plan for any dependants, debts, assets, funeral, and his choice for end of life. Never forget to use each day as if it is your last. One can not procrastinate for the grim reaper.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?



A myth. 

A 30 year old male is about the cheapest person to insure with health insurance. Pretty much past the "stupid accident" age, but still young and tend to be healthy, a male so no maternity cost, etc. Anybody that age should be able to afford it. A 30 year old tends to take health for granted, so sure, they might not be able to "afford" health insurance because they would rather "afford" electronics, a cool car, money for entertainment, girlfriends and such. That is the folly of youth, not a failing of the system! 

But even without insurance, they still don't have to just sit there and let cancer kill them. You might have heard of this little organization called the American Cancer Society, see what they can do to help. The pharma companies who produce the chemo drugs donate so much of it just for people like this, so try to get in their programs. Sell everything you own, even if it only pays for one treatment, that's a start. Do whatever it takes to fight for your life! Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it can't be done. 

Your scenario makes it sound like they should just sit there and feel sorry for themselves and die, because there is no insurance company to pick up the tab. Very few people are that helpless!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> That is life. Nature is not kind or gentle. I hope he gets his life in order, a will, a plan for any dependants, debts, assets, funeral, and his choice for end of life. Never forget to use each day as if it is your last. One can not procrastinate for the grim reaper.


But he didn't have to be in this situation. It's not expensive to properly manage a diabetic. Now the system will get stuck paying for dialysis three times a week, and he'll die within 2 years anyway. It would have been a lot less expensive to properly manage him, and he could have lived a normal life span.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?


Life.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.


Bummer. There are resources available for diabetics if they choose to use them...some don't.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But he didn't have to be in this situation. It's not expensive to properly manage a diabetic. Now the system will get stuck paying for dialysis three times a week, and he'll die within 2 years anyway. It would have been a lot less expensive to properly manage him, and he could have lived a normal life span.


Poor life choices. Nothing more.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.


You skip decades of time that he could have used to take care of himself and at least arranged for better health care. That he ended in a bad place that he drove himself to does not mean he would have made different choices with free health care. 

I would be more respectful of your opinions if you spent any time advocating that people take care of themselves rather than advocating I take care of them first and always.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.


And why did he not have insurance prior to Ocare? We all have choices in life, some of us chose to insure our homes, cars, and even ourselves against high dollar expenses. Its not like we arent going to get sick or injured at some point in our lives. We can pretty much count on having some bad luck along the way if we live long enough. What is it in the world of "fairness" that says those of us who do make good choices should have to pay for those who refuse to pay their own way? Anyone who cuts their hands off so they dont have to work should be allowed to bleed out where they stand. There is no good reason to pay for their medical care just to keep them alive for the rest of us to feed forever.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?





JeffreyD said:


> Life.





Nevada said:


> I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.



:facepalm:
Ever play this game before?
We start with whether or not the Affordable Care Act is "affordable".
When the answers aren't good, we switch questions.

What about emergency rooms?
What about 30 year olds with cancer? (Curable cancer mind you, good luck pinning THAT one down definitively.)
Now that those answers have come in a disappointment, we move on to middle aged diabetes.:facepalm:


Hey, I heard about a guy in Dallas with ebola, that got turned away from the hospital (Don't know whether or not he has Obamacare...........) does that count?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?


I would classify that person as foolish. There is no reason for a 30 year old to not have had health insurance of some kind other than just believing they were invincible.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would classify that person as foolish. There is no reason for a 30 year old to not have had health insurance of some kind other than just believing they were invincible.


You're missing the point. The point is that lack of care turned a patient that was simple & inexpensive to manage into an expensive problem that the system will have absorb $100,000 for before he dies, and that's if he doesn't qualify for a transplant.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that lack of care turned a patient that was simple & inexpensive to manage into an expensive problem that the system will have absorb $100,000 for before he dies, and that's if he doesn't qualify for a transplant.


No, YOUR missing the point....HE made a choice that resulted in his lack of care. Bottom line...He made poor decisions that WE now have to pay for...and we shouldn't be on the hook foe his poor decisions. Or yours for that matter. Why don't you take the responsibility for yourself, instead of relying on other hard working folks to do it for you?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that lack of care turned a patient that was simple & inexpensive to manage into an expensive problem that the system will have absorb $100,000 for before he dies, and that's if he doesn't qualify for a transplant.


If economy is the criteria, the most economical thing for all would be that he takes care of himself before he turns expensive. The second one would be that he takes care of himself after he becomes expensive- at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The third would be that he simply dies without costing any one anything- again for everyone else.

If economics were the issue, paying for his insurance that he can't manage to arrange for himself for his entire life, at $3-400,000 or more for a less than standard length, is pretty uneconomic. 

Looking at economics, this person should have taken care of himself period.

This is like a discussion with robber who keeps repeating how lucky his victim is that he didn't have more in his wallet to lose. Or like a 6 year old announcing that he will hold his breath and die if you don't give him what he wants.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> A myth.
> 
> A 30 year old male is about the cheapest person to insure with health insurance. Pretty much past the "stupid accident" age, but still young and tend to be healthy, a male so no maternity cost, etc. Anybody that age should be able to afford it. A 30 year old tends to take health for granted, so sure, they might not be able to "afford" health insurance because they would rather "afford" electronics, a cool car, money for entertainment, girlfriends and such. That is the folly of youth, not a failing of the system!
> 
> ...


You know now that 30-something yo male must carry maternity care insurance; thanks to the ACA.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that lack of care turned a patient that was simple & inexpensive to manage into an expensive problem that the system will have absorb $100,000 for before he dies, and that's if he doesn't qualify for a transplant.


I would say you are missing the point.... the system is not the one who "chose" not to take care of their business... it was the patient who made poor choices all along, and is now choosing to cost us all a lot more for his care. You said yourself he could have managed his care cheaply had he wanted to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> If economy is the criteria, the most economical thing for all would be that he takes care of himself before he turns expensive. The second one would be that he takes care of himself after he becomes expensive- at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The third would be that he simply dies without costing any one anything- again for everyone else.
> 
> If economics were the issue, paying for his insurance that he can't manage to arrange for himself for his entire life, at $3-400,000 or more for a less than standard length, is pretty uneconomic.
> 
> ...


Looking at it from a purely economic stand point a quarter ounce of lead is pretty cheap and all his problems would be solved. He would never have to worry about any health care costs at all.... ever! Surely he can afford one round!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You said yourself he could have managed his care cheaply had he wanted to.


No, I said his problem could have been managed inexpensively. But I don't know if he could have afforded the care.

The bottom line is that his healthcare costs have soared. Now that each dialysis session is a matter of life or death, the cost is on the tax system. A lot of tax dollars could have been saved by providing the inexpensive care he needed a long time ago.


----------



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

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Looking at it from a purely economic stand point a quarter ounce of lead is pretty cheap and all his problems would be solved. He would never have to worry about any health care costs at all.... ever! Surely he can afford one round!


It's lucky for him that, despite Nevada berating those who have been used common sense to avoid the trap, yet now find themselves paying for some who wouldn't, in a way that doesn't benefit them at all, that is not really a value that can be held. We are hostage to our own principles, which is abused in this law.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> No, I said his problem could have been managed inexpensively. But I don't know if he could have afforded the care.
> 
> The bottom line is that his healthcare costs have soared. Now that each dialysis session is a matter of life or death, the cost is on the tax system. A lot of tax dollars could have been saved by providing the inexpensive care he needed a long time ago.


How can you not notice you say you don't know if he could have afforded care, which would have helped him, yet do know, if that care was given to him free, he would have taken care of himself at the same time? More tax dollars would surely be saved if those who could pay, did so from the start. And did so now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No, I said his problem could have been managed inexpensively. But I don't know if he could have afforded the care.
> 
> The bottom line is that his healthcare costs have soared. Now that each dialysis session is a matter of life or death, the cost is on the tax system. A lot of tax dollars could have been saved by providing the inexpensive care he needed a long time ago.


are you saying he could not have afforded health insurance premiums when he was 30? Those are some of the cheapest rates going. always have been and still are. He chose not to take care of his business... why should we now be forced to take care of it for him?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But that doesn't answer my question. Why is Americans dying on 9/11 a bigger deal than Americans dying for lack of medical care?
> 
> We've spent twice as much over the past 10 years fighting terrorism than we'll spend on Obamacare in the next 10 years, and that's not to mention the sacrificed troops. So why is Obamacare too high of a price to pay if it will save more American lives each year than were lost on 9/11?


Why is dying on the hiway any different than dying from lack of med care? 
Why is there only 5 mil on obummerUncare? What will happen to the other 35 mil?
If you do not have ins & are destitute, you have Medicaid. Or charity clinics. Charity clinics would've done no good on 9/11 in NYC.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> When I wasn't insured I kept antibiotics around, usually a few Z-Pacs and amoxicillin. Those worked well for most infections.
> 
> Alma was insured, but took some expensive meds for osteoporosis. They were even expensive with insurance. Evista was $125/month and had a $35/month copay. I got them overseas for $11. Her insurance refused Boniva because it had no generic. Boniva was about $150/pill but I got it overseas for $7.
> 
> ...


And having to pay way more than you can afford for ins is not helpful if you follow your above advice. So, why the need for everyone to purchase ins?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> My goodness.
> There is SOMETHING in The Constitution thats says PROTECTING America from foreign invasion, foreign armies.
> But NOT ONE Word about protecting Americans form themselves in the way of giving them healthcare.
> But it sure does give the right for Americans to Go after and Pursue happiness ON THEIR OWN. Like that nice word FREEDOM means, and millions and millions of Americans Fought and DIED for that simple way of life~!


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you classify a 30 year old person who dies from curable cancer because he can't afford medical care?


Pretty much classed in the stupid category b/c care has always been available. How does anyone pay for a 200,000 home? Payments.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I know a poorly managed diabetic, 47 years old. He's in bad shape because of it. I doubt he'll live 2 more years. He has insurance now because of Obamacare, but it's too late.


I worked as an RN in hospital setting for yrs. saw at least a dozen diabetics poorly managed, With HEALTH INS. Who DIED! One was 34. My cousin, died at 39, diabetes, legs amputated, blind. Had ins. tho.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But he didn't have to be in this situation. It's not expensive to properly manage a diabetic. Now the system will get stuck paying for dialysis three times a week, and he'll die within 2 years anyway. It would have been a lot less expensive to properly manage him, and he could have lived a normal life span.


You're very wrong! Many diabetics have sooooo many extra probs + meds,etc.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that lack of care turned a patient that was simple & inexpensive to manage into an expensive problem that the system will have absorb $100,000 for before he dies, and that's if he doesn't qualify for a transplant.


No, you are missing the point.

Let's go to the extreme...
If I decide not to grad from HS, it so boring, & get a min wage job, work up to maybe construction where I'm not hired by a co. but I'm free lancing, making 'good' $ so buy a house, huge tv, new mustang, go on some trips.
Get sick. Hmmmm...it's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma & it's advanced!! Why? 

B/c I had no clue how to be responsible & take care of myself...ins would've been a small am't per mo but had to have full cable w/movies, etc instead.
Yeah, it's the mean rebuplicans fault.

I'll guarantee your scenario of the 30 y/o dying of cancer went somewhat like that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, I said his problem could have been managed inexpensively. But I don't know if he could have afforded the care.
> 
> The bottom line is that his healthcare costs have soared. Now that each dialysis session is a matter of life or death, the cost is on the tax system. A lot of tax dollars could have been saved by providing the inexpensive care he needed a long time ago.


Worked in dialysis for a time...virtually everyone on was Medicaid.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

my3boys said:


> As I recall, not one Republican voted for the law? And if the Democrats didn't like how the law was written or how it benefitted the insurance companies, why did they vote for it and why did Obama then sign it? And if no Republicans voted for the law then they can hardly be held responsible for any benefit to the insurance companies, correct?
> 
> And aren't many insurance companies opting out because it has become unsustainable for them?
> 
> The bottom line is the ACA and everything that came with it, and that which is still to come, lies squarely at the feet of the Democrats. Its their baby. I have no great love for the Republican party, believe me, but this mess isnt theirs.


Democrats voted for it because it was better than the plan the Republicans offered...oh wait....Republicans just took money from Insurance lobbyists and voted NO. Something is better than nothing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Worked in dialysis for a time...virtually everyone on was Medicaid.


As I keep saying, lack of medical care can get expensive. You can manage diabetics inexpensively now, or manage expensive renal failure later.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> As I keep saying, lack of medical care can get expensive. You can manage diabetics inexpensively now, or manage expensive renal failure later.


Or like most adults, especially the ones who pay for this travesty, a person can manage their own condition. They can pay less for a monthly doctor visit than they pay for cable. They can maintain their proper weight, avoid drinking, smoking, doing drugs. Etc etc etc. 

Why why why why do you never expect anyone to be responsible for themselves?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In a world were the vocal victim of the war on women can kill an unborn child because of the future needs the child will force on the woman after being born ........I wonder why no one marchers for those who are facing the war staged against them for being self responsible and forced to meet the needs of those who choose to be irresponsible. 

It is socially acceptable for the women to walk away from proving for another life....a life she aided in being yet Nevada, berates those who do don't rush up to carry the cost for those who haven't felt the need to ever carry the load.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Remember the 6 million who lost their coverage because their plan was non-compliant with the ACA requirements? Well, make that 6 million and one! Got a notice in the mail yesterday that my insurance will not be renewed and expires Dec. 31, because it is non-compliant. When it wasn't cancelled last year, I thought I had squeaked thru, but nope, it got me. 

I can get another plan with this co. that qualifies as a "bronze" plan, of course with a big hike in my monthly premiums. So thanks to stupid Obamacare, I get to develop a migraine comparing all these plans and trying to find something else I can afford. My car has 200,000 miles and I would like to replace it, but not now!

It should have come with a warning label - Obamacare is hazardous to your health!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Worked in dialysis for a time...virtually everyone on was Medicaid.


Experiencing kidney failure and being placed on dialysis automatically qualifies a person for Medicaid.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Experiencing kidney failure and being placed on dialysis automatically qualifies a person for Medicaid.


That's one "easy" way to pay for preexisting conditions, right TG?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Democrats voted for it because it was better than the plan the Republicans offered...oh wait....Republicans just took money from Insurance lobbyists and voted NO. *Something is better than nothing.*


The wrong thing is never better than nothing. Do you think throwing an anchor to a drowning man is better than doing nothing? Particularly if the man isnt drowning to begin with? :umno:


----------



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

willow_girl said:


> Experiencing kidney failure and being placed on dialysis automatically qualifies a person for Medicaid.


Medicare.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As I keep saying, lack of medical care can get expensive. You can manage diabetics inexpensively now, or manage expensive renal failure later.


And we did NOT need obummerUNcare for that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Remember the 6 million who lost their coverage because their plan was non-compliant with the ACA requirements? Well, make that 6 million and one! Got a notice in the mail yesterday that my insurance will not be renewed and expires Dec. 31, because it is non-compliant. When it wasn't cancelled last year, I thought I had squeaked thru, but nope, it got me.
> 
> I can get another plan with this co. that qualifies as a "bronze" plan, of course with a big hike in my monthly premiums. So thanks to stupid Obamacare, I get to develop a migraine comparing all these plans and trying to find something else I can afford. My car has 200,000 miles and I would like to replace it, but not now!
> 
> It should have come with a warning label - Obamacare is hazardous to your health!


I'm so sorry. All I can do is empathize, DH lost his the 1st go around. Has 'catastrophic', sort of now but was w/o for nearly a year. Again.


----------

