DescentBB

....and ignoring the benefits to all insured Americans(no lifetime caps, no dropping for preexisting 'conditions', 26 year olds on family plans, etc, etc. If cost rises irk you, THESE fellas are more of your problem than the ACA itself:




and, there's an easy fix.......

Yes there is a easy fix:

Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barba ... -exchanges

more red herrings. The bottom line is that the exchanges only affect around 9% of the total. No, doctors are not leaving the system.

Slick calls it a red herring so it must be

no, the fix is to remove the profit incentives. A public option fixes that real quick.

Well, now both parties are blaming each other for the high costs of Obamacare. Republicans wanted it to fail from the start, so that everything would return to the way it was before after the ACA imploded, which is NOT a solution by the way because our system is still a royal mess. Democrats secretly wanted it to fail so that they could push through single payer once the ACA failed, which is NOT a viable solution either, as much as I'd like it to be. We're all stuck in the middle of this political infighting and no one has a good solution for it.

By the way slick, I looked up what it would cost an individual person, who isn't married at 65, who doesn't have work record OR hasn't worked enough to get on SS either, to receive Medicare once they reached 65. It's probably a six sigma case because most people have a work record and have paid SS taxes all their lives, but I wanted to find the current cost of getting on Medicare in that particular situation. It came out somewhere over $550 a month for that hypothetical person. If you don't believe me slick, go to the Medicare site and run through worksheet with that particular situation in mind. Not eligible for SS, not married, not widowed and 65 years old. This gives you an idea of what Medicare really costs. I'm not talking about Part B or D either.

callmeslick wrote:no, the fix is to remove the profit incentives. A public option fixes that real quick.

Always looking for the easy way out. you want the govt controlling your health? Telling you what foods to eat, what to drink? You want politicians like the Clintons having access to your health records? Telling you if it is too expensive to keep you alive? Want to pooh pooh this just look at what happens in VA hospitals.
Where are all the the private insurer workers going to go? Be hired by the govt.?

Why not do a real easy fix and allow all insurers to compete in all states? Or allow drugs to be bought from out of country.?

TC, I do qualify with all the criteria listed and I still pay 106.00 a month with no part D. ! pay another 123.00 a month for a Blue Cross medigap C plan. Hope no one here thinks medicare is free.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, now both parties are blaming each other for the high costs of Obamacare. Republicans wanted it to fail from the start, so that everything would return to the way it was before after the ACA imploded, which is NOT a solution by the way because our system is still a royal mess. Democrats secretly wanted it to fail so that they could push through single payer once the ACA failed, which is NOT a viable solution either, as much as I'd like it to be. We're all stuck in the middle of this political infighting and no one has a good solution for it.

By the way slick, I looked up what it would cost an individual person, who isn't married at 65, who doesn't have work record OR hasn't worked enough to get on SS either, to receive Medicare once they reached 65. It's probably a six sigma case because most people have a work record and have paid SS taxes all their lives, but I wanted to find the current cost of getting on Medicare in that particular situation. It came out somewhere over $550 a month for that hypothetical person. If you don't believe me slick, go to the Medicare site and run through worksheet with that particular situation in mind. Not eligible for SS, not married, not widowed and 65 years old. This gives you an idea of what Medicare really costs. I'm not talking about Part B or D either.

so, if I'm understanding you correctly, you can be insured, at age 65 or over for only 550 per month for basic coverage? That is a freaking steal, given the age and amount of potentially covered claims? You can't possibly be complaining about that rate, can you?

woodchip wrote:TC, I do qualify with all the criteria listed and I still pay 106.00 a month with no part D. ! pay another 123.00 a month for a Blue Cross medigap C plan. Hope no one here thinks medicare is free.

it isn't FREE, but adding up your costs now, plus what you paid in, it's a freaking bargain compared to what you'd pay for private insurance, if, indeed, any insurer would readily insure 65 plus year olds.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, the fix is to remove the profit incentives. A public option fixes that real quick.

Always looking for the easy way out. you want the govt controlling your health? Telling you what foods to eat, what to drink? You want politicians like the Clintons having access to your health records? Telling you if it is too expensive to keep you alive? Want to pooh pooh this just look at what happens in VA hospitals.
Where are all the the private insurer workers going to go? Be hired by the govt.?

Why not do a real easy fix and allow all insurers to compete in all states? Or allow drugs to be bought from out of country.?

Have you had polio? mumps? rubella? Anyone in your family have that?

Of course not. Because you've benefited from government controlling your health in the form of vaccines.

woodchip wrote:TC, I do qualify with all the criteria listed and I still pay 106.00 a month with no part D. ! pay another 123.00 a month for a Blue Cross medigap C plan. Hope no one here thinks medicare is free.

Do you qualify for SS? I was also referring to Medicare Part A in my above post, which in order to be premium free, you have to have worked for a minimum of 40 quarters, be 65 and on SS. However, Part B does have a premium if that is what you're referring to. So no, Medicare Part A is the only "free" part, if you qualify, which most people who have worked all their lives probably do. However, even free isn't free since you paid SS taxes all those years to pay for it once you reach 65.

http://www.seniorcorps.org/medicare/is-medicare-free/

Is Medicare Free?

Many people do not pay a premium for Part A, as long as they have contributed to the Social Security system for a minimum of forty quarters. Since the inception of the program, there has been a premium for Medicare Part B. The initial premium was $3.00 per month and the current premium is $110.50 or higher for people who began receiving medicare during 2010. There are many more complex guidelines that would have to be examined to determine the exact cost of Medicare but it is safe to deduce that it is not free.

callmeslick wrote:so, if I'm understanding you correctly, you can be insured, at age 65 or over for only 550 per month for basic coverage? That is a freaking steal, given the age and amount of potentially covered claims? You can't possibly be complaining about that rate, can you?

Slick, I was talking about just Part A, which only covers hospitalization and is free if you've met the conditions I listed above. So if you haven't got at least 40 quarters of work history and are not married to someone with that particular work history, you're going to end up paying a premium for Part A. Then add on any premiums for Parts B, C, and D (if you get them), you're looking at a significant chunk of money. I haven't looked into adding ALL the Medicare parts together if someone wanted to get FULL health coverage, but I'm guessing it's probably well over a $1000 dollars a month and that doesn't include meeting all the deductibles, co-pays and other out of pocket expenses. That is not cheap by a longshot.

you are talking about insuring healthcare on SENIORS. That care isn't cheap, either. One way or another, it gets paid for. What would YOU suggest we do about that part of reality?

The reality is that if you want government-based single payer, EVERYONE OF EVERY AGE will have to put a LOT of money into the coffers to pay for the health care of their elders, otherwise, seniors will have to pay the brunt of the costs. As a senior who's not in good health anymore and who can no longer work, I can't afford it. So don't force those exorbitant costs on me with some stupid mandate that's not even solving the problem. It's not my fault either that my body is failing, so why punish me? I'd rather go without for 4 more years until Medicare Part A is available to me. That's the ONLY thing I want or need, financial protection from bankruptcy because of hospitalization. Everything else I can foot the bill for, IF I think it's in my best interest.

Something to mull over slick.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/business/wh ... ab220.html

can't read the link without a ton of excess clicks, but to the first post, TC. Yes, a cradle to grave model means that everyone pays, but the per person cost, year after year, will average FAR less in any single payer scheme. That is the goal, right? The part that gets folks worked up is when they isolate on a given age class where outflow for health care is GENERALLY low(age 15-40). Hey, that's hope group insurance works, but with single payer you get cost control due to the scale of the group.

Try this one slick. It's a pretty interesting piece about where we're headed with our current health care problem.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03d500aa ... every-year