# I miss the good old days....



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

... when health insurance companies were in the business of paying claims but stayed out of health care decisions. 

Went to fill prescriptions today for meds I've been taking for 5+ years. The pharmacy said the insurance company refused to pay for one of the meds. because, in their opinion, it was not needed for my condition. It's a generic with a full price of $18.00. I could understand their reluctance if it was a super expensive drug and the doc hadn't tried other ones first. But a $18.00 generic? Good grief! They paid for the drug last year without a problem. 

I paid the full cost and will get the rest from either RXOutreach or All Day Chemist -- and probably for less than the co-pay would have been anyway. But the idea of a nameless bureaucrat making health care decisions without input from my doc really angers me.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..............Big Pharma has ben buying up generic pill makers and then figuring out ways to jack up their prices that will pass muster under Medicare , Medicaid , etc . Medicare cannot force it's drug suppliers to compete against each other for lowest price . Congress made sure of that !
...............OTOH , The VA CAn force drug suppliers to compete against each other for the lowest price . , fordy


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Oh you mean that when you needed an ambulance you got a hearse. And you were glad for it.


----------



## Snowfan (Nov 6, 2011)

Touchy subject. I really dislike banks and insurance companies. The problem (in my opinion) is that these two groups pour so much money in to Washington lobby groups to give them all the advantages and the authority to do as they want. Consumers, on the other hand, have little recourse but to follow the rules which we had little, if any, input in implementing. We could go through several pots of coffee discussing this one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> ... when health insurance companies were in the business of paying claims but stayed out of health care decisions.


There's just too much money in managed healthcare to not do it. It used to be that only HMO programs took control of your healthcare decisions, and they gave you a break for letting them do it. Today, all insurance allows the company to manage your healthcare.

I've been complaining about it for years. Not enough people care to change it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

You mean the people who want to change it can't buy the votes needed to change it.

It was one of those provisions in the "Affordable" Care Act.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

You better be ready. I'm dealing with it right now with both my parents. Mom,stroke,dad,heart failure.
If you go into a hosptial for an issue,do not let them discharge you without getting the issue fixed. You will have a hard time getting help afterwards.


----------



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

What happens when the law (Obamacare) has rules penalizing hospitals that have readmittances too many times too often: 1) they learn to offer good follow up care (that is was the intent of the law) or 2) the hospitals simply refuse to readmit during the penalty time period or provide follow up care. Now which does your hospital choose? 
I suppose that will end up on a lot of tombstones - "That wasn't what we intended." Sure but they knew darn well that was what they were going to get.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> It was one of those provisions in the "Affordable" Care Act.


This was going on long before the ACA was passed. Restrictive drug formularies, premature hospital discharges, and flat out denying care saves insurance companies millions each year. This practice won't be easy to reverse.

People have the impression that their insurance company is contractually obligated to pay for necessary care, but it's not spelled out in the insurance contract as clearly as it used to be. Today insurance companies evaluate on a case by case basis, since the have the latitude to make individual decisions. They might approve a procedure for one person, then deny the same procedure for another.

My concern is that insurance companies are getting close to making end of life decisions for us, basically deciding when we've become too expensive to live. Insurance companies will make a lot more money if they're allowed to kill off people when they become expensive.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> You mean the people who want to change it can't buy the votes needed to change it.
> 
> It was one of those provisions in the "Affordable" Care Act.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yes, it has been going on for a long time but your doctors had the option to appeal denials. And in many cases the original denial would be overturned. But that option is now fading away because of ACA. I know you support it wholeheartedly but there will be many unforeseen repercussions of the restrictions in the act. Rationed health care, it was spelled out. And in cases or expensive treatments the ins company can deny simply because the treatment is deemed to be too expensive.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> Yes, it has been going on for a long time but your doctors had the option to appeal denials. And in many cases the original denial would be overturned. But that option is now fading away because of ACA.


What provision of the ACA is encouraging managed healthcare by insurance companies?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It's not managed by the insurance companies. It's managed by the board that oversees the insurance companies. I pointed it all out when the debate started. I was told it doesn't mean rationed care, and it doesn't mean you can't get the care you need. Go back and read the bill like I told you to before it was ever passed. It's in there. It's in the archives on this site.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> It's not managed by the insurance companies. It's managed by the board that oversees the insurance companies. I pointed it all out when the debate started. I was told it doesn't mean rationed care, and it doesn't mean you can't get the care you need. Go back and read the bill like I told you to before it was ever passed. It's in there. It's in the archives on this site.


You can't show me the ACA provision?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Like everything Obama touches, the medical world is the worse for it.
Incompetence breeds incompetence, and shyster scams rarely if ever turn out good for the peasants.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> You can't show me the ACA provision?


Why do you think they obfuscated it in thousands of pages of legal talk?
Lots of things hidden in your idiot idol's epic scam


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I talked to my doctor this morning and he said he could appeal the insurance co. ruling OR prescribe me something that would cost the insurance company a whole lot more than the generic med did -- about 10 times more. As tempting as the latter option is, I told him I'd just get the meds from another source (RXOutreach) and will pick up a new prescription on Monday. 

The crazy thing to me is although the med (Digoxin) is not a first line med for the condition I have, it is on the FDA's approved list. And the doc did try other combinations before this one 5 years ago. So apparently the insurance company would rather spend 10X on another drug than to just fill this one. Weird.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> You can't show me the ACA provision?


Too many times already but you just don't respond then start the same trip again later as if it was never previously mentioned.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It's in here:
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/
Links to expanded versions of the official and unofficial versions of the bill are at the bottom of the page. They'll take a while to load.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> ... when health insurance companies were in the business of paying claims but stayed out of health care decisions.
> 
> Went to fill prescriptions today for meds I've been taking for 5+ years. The pharmacy said the insurance company refused to pay for one of the meds. because, in their opinion, it was not needed for my condition. It's a generic with a full price of $18.00. I could understand their reluctance if it was a super expensive drug and the doc hadn't tried other ones first. But a $18.00 generic? Good grief! They paid for the drug last year without a problem.
> 
> I paid the full cost and will get the rest from either RXOutreach or All Day Chemist -- and probably for less than the co-pay would have been anyway. But the idea of a nameless bureaucrat making health care decisions without input from my doc really angers me.


My dad use to say those that miss the good old days don't remember them.
Insurance companies were never in the business of paying claims. They were in the business of selling insurance paying a percentage of the claims was just what they had to do to stay in business. 20 years ago my sister in law worked for a large insurance company and her primary job was rejecting claims. Any claim over $10,000 would come to her desk or another desk like hers and she was to reject it. Some people would accept the rejection and just pay the bills others would complain a few times and settle for much less, And some would hire an attorney and maybe get their valid claim paid in full if the attorney was good. 

Jim


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Belfrybat, actually the ACA has very little to do with your insurance company refusing to cover your medicine:
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/i...ric-version-ancient-gsk-heart-drug/2014-07-10
and:
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Prices-soar-for-some-generic-drugs-5105538.php

Then again, the companies don't give a reason as to why costs increase. It could be the ACA tax driving costs up. I know that additional cost is now trickling down and affecting medical supply companies.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The government is already doing it with Medicare. If medicare only pays a DR. 2000. for a specific surgery but BC/BS pays 10,000. A person better check into a hosp. that has DRs that will take the 2000 and not be "too busy" doing the person that has HC that pays 10000.The hosptial will do test after test keep you there for days then discharge you. Hope you will die looking for care. It just happened to my parents-2 hosptials with my mom 1 with my dad. One of them with my mom even said my mom discharged herself. Which she did not. Get yourself a good suplemental insurance if you want REAL HC.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

That's bizarre I typed a post and when I hit post it came up blank?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> What happens when the law (Obamacare) has rules penalizing hospitals that have readmittances too many times too often: 1) they learn to offer good follow up care (that is was the intent of the law) or 2) the hospitals simply refuse to readmit during the penalty time period or provide follow up care. Now which does your hospital choose?
> I suppose that will end up on a lot of tombstones - "That wasn't what we intended." Sure but they knew darn well that was what they were going to get.



Sadly true. This rule did not have the effect they intended. #2 is what is happening.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> You mean the people who want to change it can't buy the votes needed to change it.
> 
> It was one of those provisions in the "Affordable" Care Act.


 Well it is headed back to the SC. Some day something WILL stick in the SC and baca could be doomed at some point in time. One can only hope.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Danaus29 said:


> *Belfrybat, actually the ACA has very little to do with your insurance company refusing to cover your medicine:*
> http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/i...ric-version-ancient-gsk-heart-drug/2014-07-10
> and:
> http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Prices-soar-for-some-generic-drugs-5105538.php
> ...


I agree -- I never said it had anything to do with the ACA. The normal ACA - Obama bashing folks showed up and brought that into the equation. 

I know about the steep increase in generic drugs and am really opposed to it. However, this particular drug has not increased in price over the last 3 or 4 years. I used to pay for it out of pocket before I got insurance. I think I paid $16.00 three years ago and this time it was $18.00.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Belfrybat said:


> I agree -- I never said it had anything to do with the ACA. The normal ACA - Obama bashing folks showed up and brought that into the equation. .


It's because many know nothing about group healthcare Insurance, because they never had to. I was one of them.

If a pill was 10 cents or ten dollars, who cared? I think my sons, cost about $15,000 each to be born. I never saw a bill and cost us just a few hundred dollars out of pocket.

Group Healthcare Insurance has always been expensive and rates always go up, but the user usually never knew, or even cared, because their employer, covered most or all of their insurance premiums. Companies were making money, so they just paid the premiums, as the cost of doing business

When the economy crashed, sending millions of employees to the street, businesses, who were now struggling themselves, realized how much money they were actually spending (and now saving) on employee healthcare insurance. Now, they can drop healthcare coverage, pay the $2000 per employee fine and probably come out money-ahead. Or put full time employees on part time and not even worry about it at all.

Or, they can use ACA "friendly" healthcare plans, that shift more financial burden to the employee.

Since there is no caps on what hospitals or insurance companies can charge, now that ACA is mandating coverage for all, why not start jacking up prices, the higher the better? 

They just took a bad system and made it worse, for most and better for some (who had no healthcare at all)

In your case, maybe they are not approving the cheap generic, because they want to force patients into a newer expensive equivalent drug.

It's only money.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Belfrybat said:


> I agree -- I never said it had anything to do with the ACA. The normal ACA - Obama bashing folks showed up and brought that into the equation.
> 
> I know about the steep increase in generic drugs and am really opposed to it. However, this particular drug has not increased in price over the last 3 or 4 years. I used to pay for it out of pocket before I got insurance. I think I paid $16.00 three years ago and this time it was $18.00.


A lot of people wish that their problems were as simple as dealing with an insurance company that won't pay for an $18 drug. I'm no fan of them, insurance companies can be some kind of scum, but common sense says that they have to make money somewhere to be able to pay out the kinds of claims that they do for more expensive things. Pay the stinking $18 like you always have and save your unreasonable outrage for when it really matters, like when the bill that they won't pay is $1800, or $18,000.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Agriculture said:


> A lot of people wish that their problems were as simple as dealing with an insurance company that won't pay for an $18 drug. I'm no fan of them, insurance companies can be some kind of scum, but *common sense says that they have to make money somewhere to be able to pay out the kinds of claims that they do for more expensive things. *Pay the stinking $18 like you always have and save your unreasonable outrage for when it really matters, like when the bill that they won't pay is $1800, or $18,000.


I know people on fixed incomes, where $18 is a lot of money. they pay quite a bit out-of-pocket, for their other medicines, already.

Do your really think health Insurance companies, cut corners because they are hurting?

Their profits are way up.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Agriculture said:


> A lot of people wish that their problems were as simple as dealing with an insurance company that won't pay for an $18 drug. I'm no fan of them, insurance companies can be some kind of scum, but common sense says that they have to make money somewhere to be able to pay out the kinds of claims that they do for more expensive things. *Pay the stinking $18 like you always have and save your unreasonable outrage* for when it really matters, like when the bill that they won't pay is $1800, or $18,000.


Whoa!!! You are out of line! You apparently missed the fact that they paid it last year. AND the reason they didn't pay it *had nothing to do with the cost* but the fact they decided it wasn't the right drug for my condition, notwithstanding that it was prescribed by the doc -- actually two different docs, the cardiologist and the GP. 

My "outrage" has nothing to do with cost as I can get it cheaper elsewhere than the insurance company's co-pay. My "outrage" has to do with the fact they have determined what drug I should take knowing nothing about my condition, which the docs who prescribed the drug do know about. That might be OK with you, but it isn't OK by me. The docs and patient should be in charge of someone's healthcare decisions, not an insurance company.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............Asking a question on HT has the same effect as spilling 500 gallons of jet Fuel on the deck of an aircraft carrier...........it can go any direction it pleases and engulf everything it touches once it is ablaze ! , fordy


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

I missed nothing. Justify it any way you want, it's only 18 bucks. Some cancer patients or family of those who have been involved in serious auto accidents wish that all they had to worry about was paying an $18 bill. Get over it. It's petty.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Yes times naturally change and for some sectors the change is for the worse. When insurance companies first added prescription coverage and the allowed drug formularies they revised the covered medications every few years and soon started revising them yearly. Since the ACA was enacted many formularies were revised earlier than their normal revision window, however at the same time a number pharmacies also expanded their $4 and $5 generic 90 day prescriptions.

The good old days for some sectors weren't the good old days for other sectors of our medical services society but according to a friend in Manitoba overall our system here is not that bad and she even fills some of her meds when she comes to the U.S. for her medical services because the wait to see her physician is 1/3 the wait and the $4 90 day prescriptions beat what she can get in Canada .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> The docs and patient should be in charge of someone's healthcare decisions, not an insurance company.


While we've always had insurance authorizations, authorizations are on steroids now. They've learned that they can get away with a fuzzy contract and restrictive authorization boards. Even if you don't submit to joining an HMO they can still manage your healthcare through authorizations. There's really no getting around it today.

For older people on Medicare Advantage plans there is a safety valve. If they develop expensive problems and sense that a private insurance company is cutting them off then they can go back to standard Medicare during the open enrollment period. Medicare is much better about taking care of expensive problems than private insurance. But if you can't wait for the open enrollment period you could be out of luck.

Insurance companies are deciding who lives and who dies. Sarah Palin theorized that decision might be based on how much we can contribute to society. But insurance companies don't care about that. It's based on how expensive you've become. Let's face it, if they know you're going to cost them $300,000 to keep you alive for a year then they have a strong incentive to simply let you die. And that's easier to do than you might imagine.

As you point out, your problem was minor compared to some. The real point is that the insurance company is making your health care decisions for you, even to the point of overriding your doctor's orders. Since their interests are dissimilar to your and your doctor's interests, it's a dangerous way to manage your health care.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There is a Huge medicare raise a coming in 2016 some could get hit hard and go up to $159.30 a month taken out of their SS Checks. Talk about a huge raise, now there is one. And for those that can Least afford such a raise those that have both Medicare and Medicaid together.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Agriculture said:


> I missed nothing. Justify it any way you want, it's only 18 bucks. Some cancer patients or family of those who have been involved in serious auto accidents wish that all they had to worry about was paying an $18 bill. Get over it. It's petty.


No it isn't because it is the principal involved not the cost. You keep fixating on the cost and missing the forest for the tree. 

Your hypothetical cancer patient would be just as angry for the exact same reason as Belfrybat if their Doctor's recommended treatment was denied by the Insurance company and they were forced to use a different one. It's not the insurance company's job to decide the efficacy of your doctor's treatment plan.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> It's not the insurance company's job to decide the efficacy of your doctor's treatment plan.


You wouldn't think so, but contemporary insurance contracts are written to give a great deal of authority to insurance authorization boards. Basically, all health insurance is managed healthcare today, since the insurance company has final say in what you get.

Authorizations used to be pretty much a formality, since they approved virtually everything your doctor ordered. Not so today.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> No it isn't because it is the principal involved not the cost. You keep fixating on the cost and missing the forest for the tree.
> 
> Your hypothetical cancer patient would be just as angry for the exact same reason as Belfrybat if their Doctor's recommended treatment was denied by the Insurance company and they were forced to use a different one. It's not the insurance company's job to decide the efficacy of your doctor's treatment plan.


When someone claims that it's not the money, it's the principal, it's the money. And the money that we're talking about here is _only 18 bucks_.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything different. The $18 medication is still recommended, still available and still an option, _for 18 bucks_.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Agriculture said:


> When someone claims that it's not the money, it's the principal, it's the money. And the money that we're talking about here is _only 18 bucks_.
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to do anything different. The $18 medication is still recommended, still available and still an option, _for 18 bucks_.


NO!!! You are wrong. I can get the medication from another source for LESS than the insurance co-pay. -- $7.30 a month and the insurance co-pay is $8.00. It is the *PRINCIPLE*, not the cost of this particular medication. Insurance companies have every right in the world to deny claims -- *but based on costs* *only*. I do not believe they have the right to countermand doctor's orders EXCEPT when the treatment or drugs are extremely expensive and other lower cost treatments haven't been tried. The whole reason I brought up the cost of this medication is to show their decision had nothing to do with costs. The insurance company decided this wasn't the right med for my condition and completely ignored the FDA and two doctors. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COST.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I believe you about the principle thing. Just like if your doctor ordered an MRI to look at soft tissue damage but afterward the insurance company said, "we won't pay because you should have got an x-ray instead". Now we all know soft tissue damage isn't visible on an x-ray so that diagnostic tool would be totally inappropriate. 

Although I really would have had the doctor repeatedly resubmit the original medication. As many times as it takes. It could have been a computer glitch, or human error as to the real reason the drug was denied. I've fought with insurance companies before over stupid stuff like that (one was an anesthesiologist that wasn't on our plan but was the only one that worked out of an approved hospital) and had the insurance rep tell me it should have been approved in the first place.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Agriculture said:


> When someone claims that it's not the money, it's the principal, it's the money. And the money that we're talking about here is _only 18 bucks_.
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to do anything different. The $18 medication is still recommended, still available and still an option, _for 18 bucks_.



You're wrong. I rarely say that but in this case it was glaringly obvious that the only reason she brought up the cost of the prescription was because it was such a piddly sum. The insurance company couldn't even claim there was a cheaper treatment, they actually wanted to pay for a more expensive one! In context it is just super clear what she meant. 

You seem to be the only person here who didn't see what her meaning.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> I believe you about the principle thing. Just like if your doctor ordered an MRI to look at soft tissue damage but afterward the insurance company said, "we won't pay because you should have got an x-ray instead". Now we all know soft tissue damage isn't visible on an x-ray so that diagnostic tool would be totally inappropriate.
> 
> Although I really would have had the doctor repeatedly resubmit the original medication. As many times as it takes. It could have been a computer glitch, or human error as to the real reason the drug was denied. I've fought with insurance companies before over stupid stuff like that (one was an anesthesiologist that wasn't on our plan but was the only one that worked out of an approved hospital) and had the insurance rep tell me it should have been approved in the first place.



That's a good point, it is possible it was an error. Or they may have a process that the Doctor can use to get what they feel is the best treatment it just takes multiple tries.


----------



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

Jim Bunton said:


> My dad use to say those that miss the good old days don't remember them.
> Insurance companies were never in the business of paying claims. They were in the business of selling insurance paying a percentage of the claims was just what they had to do to stay in business. 20 years ago my sister in law worked for a large insurance company and her primary job was rejecting claims. Any claim over $10,000 would come to her desk or another desk like hers and she was to reject it. Some people would accept the rejection and just pay the bills others would complain a few times and settle for much less, And some would hire an attorney and maybe get their valid claim paid in full if the attorney was good.
> 
> Jim


That's correct for a lot of insurance companies. The difference now is you can't sue the company for complying with Obamacare regs. And your chance of embarassing them into paying by publicity is gone too. 
I remember having an issue, filing an appeal. My employer sent a letter saying that he expected better for the premium he was paying and the company forked over without delay. 
Can't do that anymore either.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> That's correct for a lot of insurance companies. The difference now is you can't sue the company for complying with Obamacare regs. And your chance of embarassing them into paying by publicity is gone too.
> I remember having an issue, filing an appeal. My employer sent a letter saying that he expected better for the premium he was paying and the company forked over without delay.
> Can't do that anymore either.


Managed healthcare is our future. The day will come then that practice will come under scrutiny, but someone famous & beloved will need to die first. In the meantime insurance companies will make a fortune denying care.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Managed healthcare is our future. The day will come then that practice will come under scrutiny, but someone famous & beloved will need to die first. In the meantime insurance companies will make a fortune denying care.


I thought your hero "Zero" fixed all that.
Isn't that what he spent a trillion of our dollars on?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I thought your hero "Zero" fixed all that.
> Isn't that what he spent a trillion of our dollars on?


No, I don't recall managed healthcare being an issue for the ACA. Could you refresh my memory?


----------



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

Managed health care is what almost killed me. I've gone on about before and don't want to repeat now. But the safety valve is indeed being able to change plans. But only if the plans you can change to have reimbursement enough to attract doctors willing to take you as a patient or have rules that allow you to pay the difference out of pocket. And that is a problem with Medicare. It does not allow for the doctor that charges more unless you forego all insurance.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> No, I don't recall managed healthcare being an issue for the ACA. Could you refresh my memory?


I meant the part about insurance companies denying "care"
Insurance companies don't provide care, they sell insurance, but I thought the main thing about Obamacare was they couldn't deny care?
Or was that another lie of Obama?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Managed health care is what almost killed me.


It's going to kill a lot of us before the masses wake up.

This is the best idea ever to happen to insurance companies. When patients develop expensive problems just start denying care and wait for them to die. They'll get away with it for as long as we allow them to get away with it, and nobody seems to care.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Care was never guaranteed in the Affordable Care Act. Routine tests and immunizations, maternity and childbirth, annual exams, and diagnostic tests are required to be covered but nothing anywhere in the bill required care or treatment of any condition.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> Care was never guaranteed in the Affordable Care Act. Routine tests and immunizations, maternity and childbirth, annual exams, and diagnostic tests are required to be covered but nothing anywhere in the bill required care or treatment of any condition.


Seeking care is still our choice. But isn't that a good thing?


----------



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

Nevada said:


> It's going to kill a lot of us before the masses wake up.
> 
> This is the best idea ever to happen to insurance companies. When patients develop expensive problems just start denying care and wait for them to die. They'll get away with it for as long as we allow them to get away with it, and nobody seems to care.


Yet you rejoice in your Medicare choice of managed care as saving you money. I can tell you, that if you do get caught in your network, it is possible that you might die before an open enrollment periood allows you to change to a plan where you have more choices. It was nip and tuck with me when I left one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Yet you rejoice in your Medicare choice of managed care as saving you money. I can tell you, that if you do get caught in your network, it is possible that you might die before an open enrollment periood allows you to change to a plan where you have more choices. It was nip and tuck with me when I left one.


Yes, HMOs are for healthy people. Become expensive and you're the first to die. I think I'll stay with the HMO for the time being. Other than seasonal allergies I have no ongoing health issues.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> Yes, HMOs are for healthy people. Become expensive and you're the first to die. I think I'll stay with the HMO for the time being. Other than seasonal allergies I have no ongoing health issues.


Well, I wasn't expensive. Just not diagnosed with no ability to self refer to an outside specialist. In fact, given the diagnosis of Scleroderma, the insurance co forked out incredible amounts for useless tests. It was a magic diagosis to get everything under the sun approved immediately. It was just wrong. Went on for 5 or more miserable years of until I figured out that something was off. But they were a horrible 5 years of getting sicker and sicker while every problem was dismissed as I had an "incurable" condition. 

No evil insurance co. In fact they enabled the doctors to make money being wrong.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yes, seeking care is our choice as is refusing care or getting other opinions. However what I was referring to was the fact that ACA does not require any insurance company to offer or cover treatment or care nor any doctor to treat or cure any condition.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Nevada said, "...My concern is that insurance companies are getting close to making end of life decisions for us, basically deciding when we've become too expensive to live. Insurance companies will make a lot more money if they're allowed to kill off people when they become expensive."

You know, back when Obamacare was just a whisper, one of my son's friends was telling him about it. He made the comment that in his opinion, people over 54 were screwed unless they were rich. Everytime I read about some new unforeseen consequence of the ACA, I think of that comment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sustainabilly said:


> You know, back when Obamacare was just a whisper, one of my son's friends was telling him about it. He made the comment that in his opinion, people over 54 were screwed unless they were rich. Everytime I read about some new unforeseen consequence of the ACA, I think of that comment.


I don't think the trend of insurance companies having restrictive authorization policies is the result of the ACA. They've just found a new way to make money that hasn't been regulated the way it should. They'll exploit it until the kill the wrong person, then it will be regulated properly.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes, HMOs are for healthy people. Become expensive and you're the first to die. I think I'll stay with the HMO for the time being. Other than seasonal allergies I have no ongoing health issues.


 Nevada
I just switched from Human's Advantage Program level PFFS --- to PPO I know it is a little more restrictive as fas as in network places but it covers the main one I like which is The Mayo Health Systems and this has a Zero premium per month 6,700 Annual out of pocket expense just like before.
Not in the Humana Advantage anymore as of now. 
I am still with Humana, but a PPO. With a separate drug program from the State of WI called SeniorCare. That cost is 30 bucks a year ---5 bucks per prescription same as Humana's drug program was 
15 per doctor visit 40 for a specialist same as the advantage program.
Being I just turned 65 I was in a renewal time and could look over all options I did so at a insurance office which specializes in Medicare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Danaus29 said:


> ACA does not require any insurance company to offer or cover treatment or care


Sure, the ACA requires coverage for preventative care, birth control, and a lot more. I don't know where you got that idea.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nevada
> I just switched from Human's Advantage Program level PFFS --- to PPO I know it is a little more restrictive as fas as in network places but it covers the main one I like which is The Mayo Health Systems and this has a Zero premium per month 6,700 Annual out of pocket expense just like before.
> Not in the Humana Advantage anymore as of now.
> I am still with Humana, but a PPO. With a separate drug program from the State of WI called SeniorCare. That cost is 30 bucks a year ---5 bucks per prescription same as Humana's drug program was
> ...


Yeah, I just turned 65 also. My HMO is pretty good. It doesn't cost anything beyond Medicare Part B, and includes prescription coverage ($2/mo copay for generics). No copay to see primary doctor, no copay to see a specialist, and no copay for hospital stays.

But you & I are really old. This is an image taken on the morning of September 11, 1950, when I was about 3 weeks old (born Aug 17). It's a photo of a rescue after a Korean War era troop train collision (33 died) in West Lafayette, Ohio, about 6 miles from where I lived.

Get a load of the 1940s vintage ambulances staged and waiting to transfer some of the more than 260 injured. I still recall seeing cool old ambulances like that racing down the street to medical emergencies.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Wow that picture is cool. Gee we are only 3 days apart. Mine was on the 14th. 
And even if I have been on Medicare for the last 9 years I was not in the mindset to stay in anyone program but open minded to visit new options and maybe switch programs. 
This 65th birthday gave me that option to really look at different plans.
This is the 4th switch in those 9 years. LOL


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Preventive care, yes. Never said that wasn't covered. Care of any cancer or illness or other issues are not required to be covered. Testing for them is, but not treatment.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Preventive care, yes. Never said that wasn't covered. Care of any cancer or illness or other issues are not required to be covered. Testing for them is, but not treatment.


Also like here if no doctor will take your insurance ,you may as well have none


----------



## cricket49 (Apr 20, 2014)

Managed care and preapprovals are the norm with insurance companies now. They have always been a component in the insurance company policy but are now more restrictive in what they will cover.

Like laying on the table at the dr's office for over an hour after being diagnosed with a broken knee cap. The dr. finally comes back in and says he is fighting with my insurance company because they do not want to approve a brace. They tell him they have up to 3-4weeks to approve durable medical equipment. He fought and got an almost approval number that may or may not be paid. The brace was paid 3 months after this visit. I am sure they were reviewing it for medical necessity.  

It did not matter that I could not walk.

Health insurance companies are in it for the profit and denying claims or delaying payment seems to be their main function which overrides the concern or health of the patient.


----------



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

cricket49 said:


> Managed care and preapprovals are the norm with insurance companies now. They have always been a component in the insurance company policy but are now more restrictive in what they will cover.
> 
> Like laying on the table at the dr's office for over an hour after being diagnosed with a broken knee cap. The dr. finally comes back in and says he is fighting with my insurance company because they do not want to approve a brace. They tell him they have up to 3-4weeks to approve durable medical equipment. He fought and got an almost approval number that may or may not be paid. The brace was paid 3 months after this visit. I am sure they were reviewing it for medical necessity.
> 
> ...


So you can imagine how successfully the doctor would have been able to argue against a government bureaucracy instead of a commercial one. 
It is not that commercial ventures act as fairy godmothers to grant wishes. Their only saving grace is that they mostly have to please their customers in some aspects or the customer goes elsewhere. 
With governments, there is no going elsewhere to see if you can get a better plan. The best an individual can do is lobby their government for change. Which may or may not happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> With governments, there is no going elsewhere to see if you can get a better plan. The best an individual can do is lobby their government for change. Which may or may not happen.


That's true in theory, but in practice countries with government sponsored healthcare have done a lot better than the US. Moreover, we've had pretty good luck with government services like fire, police, and paramedic protection.


----------



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

Nevada said:


> I don't think the trend of insurance companies having restrictive authorization policies is the result of the ACA. They've just found a new way to make money that hasn't been regulated the way it should. They'll exploit it until the kill the wrong person, then it will be regulated properly.


I do. The minute the government created a review panel for establishing medical treatment, it had a vested interest in supporting their findings. 
Take for example the breast cancer/mammongram controvery, where the group found that mammograms should not be done so frequently. The government then started to take that into consideration in establishing insurance coverage. 
The problem is not so much whether is was right or wrong but that it removed the individual doctor or patient choice. If some found that an individual was better served by the old standards- tough.
It was stopped in its tracks by the fact the breast cancer patients have a large vocal lobby. But it would have certainly changed access to insured services for less well respresented illnesses without anyone much having input.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Americans need to get smarter about their health insurance needs. Leave the politics behind and learn what you're really getting. This it too important to play politics with, in fact this is life or death stuff.

The knee-jerk reaction to insurance actions you don't like is to blame it on the ACA. That's not going to help. If you really believed that then you would be lobbying congress to amend the ACA, but you're not asking for that. Why not?


----------



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

Because the only chorus going on is how wonderful obamacare is because it's subsidized. I expect that anything that doesn't have to be paid for sounds like a great deal. At least so far.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The knee-jerk reaction to insurance actions you don't like is to blame it on the ACA. That's not going to help. If you really believed that then you would be lobbying congress to amend the ACA, but you're not asking for that. Why not?


Why not? Seriously??? I'll tell you why not, I wrote DOZENS of letters asking them to read the stupid bill before they signed it! I was blown off by EVERY SINGLE ONE, including one who said basically that it was for our own good and the public was too stupid to know what was good for them. One politician who was very vocally against the ACA was treated to a private ride in AF1 w/ the big 0 and then immediately upon his departure from said ride was very much 110% in support of ACA. It simply doesn't matter what the voting public says, wants, or needs. This will not be overturned unless we get a president in office who sees the mess for what it is and is willing to work with congress to fix the problems. But by the time all these other steps are implemented it will be too late unless we want to wipe the slate clean and start all over.

Sorry, rant off.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Americans need to get smarter about their health insurance needs. Leave the politics behind and learn what you're really getting. This it too important to play politics with, in fact this is life or death stuff.
> 
> The knee-jerk reaction to insurance actions you don't like is to blame it on the ACA. That's not going to help. If you really believed that then you would be lobbying congress to amend the ACA, but you're not asking for that. Why not?


Yes this is life and death stuff......bwhere were you when we needed ya! Oh that's right you were cheering on the very politicians that screwed us with their "just pass it, we can find out what it is later" nonsense. :grumble: well we are now finding out what's in it.... Nothing good! :grumble:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Why not? Seriously??? I'll tell you why not, I wrote DOZENS of letters asking them to read the stupid bill before they signed it! I was blown off by EVERY SINGLE ONE, including one who said basically that it was for our own good and the public was too stupid to know what was good for them. One politician who was very vocally against the ACA was treated to a private ride in AF1 w/ the big 0 and then immediately upon his departure from said ride was very much 110% in support of ACA. It simply doesn't matter what the voting public says, wants, or needs. This will not be overturned unless we get a president in office who sees the mess for what it is and is willing to work with congress to fix the problems. But by the time all these other steps are implemented it will be too late unless we want to wipe the slate clean and start all over.
> 
> Sorry, rant off.


wiping the slate clean gets my vote, trying to fix it is akin to cleaning all the stink off a turd.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well we are now finding out what's in it.... Nothing good! :grumble:


Well, not "nothing" good. I was able to get insurance for the first time in a very long time. That's what I was hoping for. The insurance was affordable, copays were low, and I got to keep my doctor.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well, not "nothing" good. I was able to get insurance for the first time in a very long time. That's what I was hoping for. The insurance was affordable, copays were low, and I got to keep my doctor.


You could have gotten insurance prior to Ocare, you simply chose not to until someone else would be forced to pick up the costs. Like I said "nothing good".:grumble:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You could have gotten insurance prior to Ocare, you simply chose not to until someone else would be forced to pick up the costs. Like I said "nothing good".:grumble:


Anyone could - if they could afford it.

That has been the problem all along.

Most people that _did_ have health insurance, had so, because their employer picked up most (or all) of the health insurance premiums, or Uncle Sam picked up the costs via Medicaid/Medicare.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Anyone could - if they could afford it.
> 
> That has been the problem all along.
> 
> Most people that _did_ have health insurance, had so, because their employer picked up most (or all) of the health insurance premiums, or Uncle Sam picked up the costs via Medicaid/Medicare.


Yes if they could afford it..... I payed for my own health insurance for years making less than minimum wage. It's a matter of making it a priority. I kept my insurance up when I couldn't afford a phone or electricity. Why? Because I knew I couldn't afford hospital bills if I were to get sick! Our friend here bragged about being able to pay cash for his home, but couldn't spring for his own insurance.... That's the part that growls me, there was no shortage of funds, he went to great pains planning his priorities so he could have others pay his way, while he hoards silver for a rainy day. To him it's a good thing!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You could have gotten insurance prior to Ocare, you simply chose not to until someone else would be forced to pick up the costs. Like I said "nothing good".:grumble:


How is getting a $550/month insurance policy for $50 not a good thing?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How is getting a $550/month insurance policy for $50 not a good thing?


Who is paying for it? If you were, I'd agree. Your stealing money from folks you don't even know to pay for something your to cheap and lazy to pay for yourself. And the fact that you can't take the responsibility for yourself is appalling. I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Who is paying for it? If you were, I'd agree. Your stealing money from folks you don't even know to pay for something your to cheap and lazy to pay for yourself. And the fact that you can't take the responsibility for yourself is appalling. I'm embarrassed for you.


I suppose it's all in your definition of a good thing. But my conscience is clear, I've paid plenty in taxes in the past.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How is getting a $550/month insurance policy for $50 not a good thing?


great for you maybe,,,,, for whoever has to pay the other 500 a month... Not so much.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I suppose it's all in your definition of a good thing. But my conscience is clear, I've paid plenty in taxes in the past.


I am sure your conscience is very clear.... So clear it may just be nonexistent.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suppose it's all in your definition of a good thing. But my conscience is clear, I've paid plenty in taxes in the past.


So have i! So, your ok forcing other folks to pay for things YOU want? Pathetic! Your just a user, nothing more. If your conscious is clear about having other you don't even know, loose their homes because they can't pay their taxes, just so YOU can have it at their expense is truly gross and pathetic. There's no rational justification for this other than your cheap.and lazy. For you to even admit this is embarrassing. A man pays his own way. Your not the man i used to think you were, at all.

Why can't you pay for your own? To cheap? Get a job, expand your business. (Do you pay business taxes, permits, declare you house as an office?)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So, your ok forcing other folks to pay for things YOU want? Pathetic! Your just a user, nothing more.


Actually, I'm on Medicare now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, I'm on Medicare now.


And that makes it all better? Ocare is still sucking the life out of those who have to pay double and triple premiums to pay for all those who play the system. Thank you so much for all your efforts to make sure this nightmare became a reality.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

I am a half-time employee so I do not qualify for employee health insurance but I make a little too much to get a subsidized policy so I private pay. My policy is better than some of the subsidized polices but has to be grandfathered simply because it does not come with free birth control or free yearly visits at which you get no free yearly treatment per the PPACA rules. My policy premiums have gone up about 25% a year when they used to go up about 10-12% a year. I investigated whether it was worth it to have my employer cut my pay enough to qualify me for a PPACA subsidy. It did not. It would have only made about a $20/month difference to switch from my current policy to the closest comparable policy under the ACA.

The long and short of it is that insurance companies jacked up rates so that even with the subsidized policies, they were still raking in a ton more money. Great on the people who save money. It is there, so why not use it. The reality, however, is this was nothing more than a huge corporate subsidy that was done in a way that creates an off the books tax on people like me because our rates have escalated and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Politicians cannot even control what these companies are doing now. We are forced to buy health insurance, and yet most of the uninsured are still uninsured, and there was a gap intentionally designed into the system for the working poor while people making $70K a year are getting subsidized so they have more money to spend on their yard full of cars. It is pathetic.

I support universal healthcare. I do not support the PPACA. I am a liberal democrat and there is no way I will vote for Clinton who wants to "defend Obamacare." I will vote for Sanders who is our best shot at getting rid of the PPACA in favor of something better, or I won't be voting for anybody at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And that makes it all better? Ocare is still sucking the life out of those who have to pay double and triple premiums to pay for all those who play the system. Thank you so much for all your efforts to make sure this nightmare became a reality.


While I was happy to see the ACA enacted, the fact is that nobody asked me for my advice.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> While *I was happy to see the ACA enacted, *the fact is that nobody asked me for my advice.


this just about says it all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> this just about says it all.


Why shouldn't I be happy for the ACA? It's a safety net for my family members, regardless of employment conditions. It also will encourage small entrepreneurial business startups, since even people with families can try to start a business without sacrificing insurance. I think it's a good thing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Why shouldn't I be happy for the ACA? It's a safety net for my family members, regardless of employment conditions. It also will encourage small entrepreneurial business startups, since even people with families can try to start a business without sacrificing insurance. I think it's a good thing.


I am sure you think it's great.... Which is my point!


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

This is scary --


----------



## gwest (Oct 9, 2008)

I sure hope some of you will watch this. Most of you probably to young to remember what we where warned about a long time ago.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nmz9Va47mM&list=PLN5kdPSRLGgr4SZNxuYgiXFWP_y-U2No5&index=1[/ame]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gwest said:


> I sure hope some of you will watch this. Most of you probably to young to remember what we where warned about a long time ago.


Yes, the evil Medicare was going to end America and we would all be moved to concentration camps.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> So have i! So, your ok forcing other folks to pay for things YOU want? Pathetic! Your just a user, nothing more.


 Like you don't take as many subsidies and tax breaks as you possibly can... lol ... Didn't you mention something about moving a business out of California to save on some taxes?? Who do you think makes up for that shortfall? And funny, I never heard you once complain about the trillions wasted in fighting useless wars, yet when the government wants to help subsidize medicine for Americans you lose your dang mind over it. Lol typical republican/conservative nonsense there.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

It's  a scam went to pick my step father's medication this morning. With insurance it came to 58 bucks when they ran it self pay it was 18 bucks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's true in theory, but in practice *countries with government sponsored healthcare have done a lot better than the US. *Moreover, we've had pretty good luck with government services like fire, police, and paramedic protection.


That's the spin, but I'm not so sure it's the reality based on what I've heard in speaking with folks from other countries


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the spin, but I'm not so sure it's the reality based on what I've heard in speaking with folks from other countries


They live longer, their infant mortality rate is lower, and they have better access to healthcare than we do. They also do it for a lot less. Nobody in the industrialized world pays more or gets less than we do. That's not spin, that's reality.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Like you don't take as many subsidies and tax breaks as you possibly can... lol ... Didn't you mention something about moving a business out of California to save on some taxes?? Who do you think makes up for that shortfall? And funny, I never heard you once complain about the trillions wasted in fighting useless wars, yet when the government wants to help subsidize medicine for Americans you lose your dang mind over it. Lol typical republican/conservative nonsense there.


I do everything I can to save money so I can pay my employees more, do you do that? How many jobs are you responsable for, their families? Better yet, how many have you created? Isn't job creation a good thing? I mean liberals are crying rivers about more money for workers, yet some cry about companies like mine. It's all legal, so go pound sand and yell at your congress critter. I pay far more in taxes right now than you ever did, in your life. Foolish comments like this show just how ignorant those on the left really are.

There's no shortfall at all, to suggest that truly is ignorant, again. Answer this if you think yiur right....where does that shortfall come from? The fact that I created 200+jobs that didn't exist before? All the taxes paid by my employees, myself and my company into the economy, is that this shortfall your talking about? Or the fact that if I didn't risk everything I had financially, there would be no jobs, no taxes? Have you done that?

I'd be willing to bet that you take deductions too, don't you?

ound::hysterical:

Dredging up old posts to inflate post count again.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They live longer, their infant mortality rate is lower, and they have better access to healthcare than we do. They also do it for a lot less. Nobody in the industrialized world pays more or gets less than we do. That's not spin, that's reality.


My friends and family in Europe say it's far different in real life than in the news. And it's not good. My daughter died while in another country. I blame their medical system for it, and I was at their mercy for her care, they failed epically. Seemed like they just didnt care, and dirty facility. If we had been here instead, with our doctor, I believe she would still be alive today.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I do everything I can to save money so I can pay my employees more.


 So you're upset that someone is taking a government subsidy, when you yourself take them when you can in order to 'save money'. Got it. Perhaps Nevada wants to 'save money' also... you can certainly identify with that. 
And for your information, insurance costs have been rising steadily long before O-care came onto the scene.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I'd be willing to bet that you take deductions too, don't you?
> .


 Sure, who wouldn't? But I don't get on public forums and proceed to call other people 'gross, pathetic , cheap, lazy takers' for taking advantage of help offered. Of course you're the same guy who claimed to sue a Halal meat market for not offering pork products, so your rudeness comes as no surprise.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Sure, who wouldn't? But I don't get on public forums and proceed to call other people 'gross, pathetic , cheap, lazy takers' for taking advantage of help offered. Of course you're the same guy who claimed to sue a Halal meat market for not offering pork products, so your rudeness comes as no surprise.


I agree, although I don't think rudeness is the right word...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Sure, who wouldn't? But I don't get on public forums and proceed to call other people 'gross, pathetic , cheap, lazy takers' for taking advantage of help offered. Of course you're the same guy who claimed to sue a Halal meat market for not offering pork products, so your rudeness comes as no surprise.


Talk about rude!! Please point out where i used those exact words. If you dont, it proves that you will lie to make your point, and that, is pathetic of epic proportions. So, please, let us see those posts i made using those exact words. You won't though, because they don't exist. But have a great day searching! How about answering those questions instead of whining! 
I sent them a notice of intent to sue, they capitulated. Liberals do that all the time, so it's fair.
I sense extreme prejudice on your part, and your jealousy is showing again.

Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions without getting into a panic? Come on Greg, answer those questions without rudeness or insults. I'll bet you wont....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> So you're upset that someone is taking a government subsidy, when you yourself take them when you can in order to 'save money'. Got it. Perhaps Nevada wants to 'save money' also... you can certainly identify with that.
> And for your information, insurance costs have been rising steadily long before O-care came onto the scene.


I'm not upset, not at all. I pay into the system, AND I pay my own way. I just takers using the system and I'm working to help end that abuse. Yes, Greg, insurance cost have always been going up, even my 7 year old knows that, is this something you just learned? Good for you for expanding you knowledge base, keep going. 

Please tell me what "subsidies" I'm taking? Tax deferment is not a subsidy, in case you didn't know. Why aren't you squawking about GE, or other liberal bastions of abuse,eh?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> Talk about rude!! Please point out where i used those exact words. If you dont, it proves that *you will lie to make your point*, and that, is* pathetic of epic proportions*. So, please, let us see those posts i made using those exact words. You won't though, because they don't exist. But have a great day searching! How about answering those questions instead of *whining*!
> I sent them a notice of intent to sue, they capitulated. Liberals do that all the time, so it's fair.
> I sense *extreme prejudice on your part, and your jealousy is showing* again.
> 
> *Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions without getting into a panic*? Come on Greg, answer those questions without rudeness or insults. I'll bet you wont....


No, nothing rude or insulting there... Wait! There's a word for that. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

double post


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Talk about rude!! *Please point out where i used those exact words. *If you dont, it proves that you will lie to make your point, and that, is pathetic of epic proportions. So, please, let us see those posts i made using those exact words..


 Sure thing Jeffery.



JeffreyD said:


> So have i! So, your ok forcing other folks to pay for things YOU want?* Pathetic!* Your just a*user,* nothing more. If your conscious is clear about having other you don't even know, loose their homes because they can't pay their taxes, just so YOU can have it at their expense is truly *gross and pathetic*. There's no rational justification for this other than your *cheap.and lazy*. For you to even admit this is embarrassing. A man pays his own way. Your not the man i used to think you were, at all.
> 
> Why can't you pay for your own? To* cheap*?


 And I didn't need to spend 'all day' searching, it took about 30 seconds.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I sent them a notice of intent to sue, they capitulated. Liberals do that all the time, so it's fair.
> .


 They capitulated?? They served pork?? Somehow I truly doubt that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They *live longer*, their *infant mortality rate is lower*, and they have better access to healthcare than we do. They also do it for a lot less. Nobody in the industrialized world pays more or gets less than we do. That's not spin, that's reality.


There are many reasons for that which aren't related to "healthcare"
We are often compared to countries smaller than some of out states, or even just a couple of our cities.

I don't believe the "better access to healthcare" since I've never had any problem seeing a Dr whenever I wanted, for my entire life.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> They capitulated?? They served pork?? Somehow I truly doubt that.



Don't care if you believe it or not.
Why won't you answer the questions Greg? I know you wont, but at least try!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by JeffreyD View Post
> *I sent them a notice of intent to sue, they capitulated*. Liberals do that all the time, so it's fair.


I believe earlier you told someone something along the lines of:
"If you can't show proof, it means you're a liar"

It will be interesting seeing the details


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> They capitulated?? They served pork?? Somehow I truly doubt that.


They didn't have pork, that was the problem, get it straight.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't believe the "better access to healthcare" since I've never had any problem seeing a Dr whenever I wanted, for my entire life.


If someone has difficulty affording doctor visits, he has an access problem. During the years I was without insurance a saw doctors for specific maladies, but I couldn't afford to be monitored with regular labs. I turned out to not have anything dangerous develop, but that's not always the case for everyone. I was fortunate. Others will lose years off their lives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If someone has difficulty affording doctor visits, he has an access problem. During the years I was without insurance a saw doctors for specific maladies, but I couldn't afford to be monitored with regular labs. I turned out to not have anything dangerous develop, but that's not always the case for everyone. I was fortunate. Others will lose years off their lives.


Lack of funds applies in all countries
Most folks don't need to be "monitored"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lack of funds applies in all countries


If someone has no money and lives in a country with single-payer healthcare, then money is not an obstacle to seeing a doctor.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Most folks don't need to be "monitored"


It's not so important for younger people, but you'll reach an age when monitoring for things like blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol become critically important.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> .
> 
> Please tell me what "subsidies" I'm taking? Tax deferment is not a subsidy, in case you didn't know. Why aren't you squawking about GE, or other liberal bastions of abuse,eh?


 How would I know what subsidies you're taking?? I can only assume as a good capitalist citizen, you'll take every one you can get your hands on. If not, then three cheers for you. Aren't you in the defense industry? Machining parts as I recall. Sounds like a pretty good investment, as wars are always profitable for someone. 
As far as a tax deferment not being a subsidy, thats debatable. Obviously its not a straight handout, but its definitely a benefit, otherwise no one would do it. I am no tax accountant, but as I understand it, it frees up capital in the near-term that would otherwise be kicked up the gov in the form of taxes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If someone has no money and lives in a country with single-payer healthcare, then money is not an obstacle to seeing a doctor.
> 
> It's not so important for younger people, but you'll reach an age when monitoring for things like blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol become critically important.


They've already paid through their high taxes.

If they are too poor to pay taxes, they still get treated, exactly like those here on Medicaid and welfare


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> It's not managed by the insurance companies. It's managed by the board that oversees the insurance companies. I pointed it all out when the debate started. I was told it doesn't mean rationed care, and it doesn't mean you can't get the care you need. Go back and read the bill like I told you to before it was ever passed. It's in there. It's in the archives on this site.


But, But But.....


I only got to page 9,654 and I had to go to bed. I have to work six days a week ya know.


----------

