Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Dr Ben Carson speaks his mind.

Dr Ben Carson speaks his mind. (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 01:24 AM
 
Well, it'd be easy to pull off a drawdown if we ended the world's policemen thing, but I'm not convinced we want to end that role, at least, right now.

The UN is a joke. I don't see them doing their job anytime soon, interventionist US or not.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 04:26 AM
 
The only way to teach some people how to swim is to throw them in.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Perspectives. Folks from the numerous countries with greater economic freedoms than we in the US or folks paying Church taxes in Switzerland should conclude that perhaps the US is farther left than they are. FUD has no geographical boundaries.
Thanks for the response. Don't disagree with any of it, other than the above. If you honestly think anyone in a first-world country outside of the US has a perspective that the US is "farther left" than they are, then I would politely suggest that you return to the re-calibration posts.

We can start a poll thread if you want, but the sample size would not be there. I would hazard to guess a 99%-100% response rate to the effect that the foreign country is "more left".

Edit: for clarification should add that much of this view would be swayed by government intervention in social issues.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I
Not bad at all, but it's no single-man. Social conservatism is not far-right as it has always had a strong component of protecting religious and traditional values and liberties. It's being defined as fringe, extreme, and far as a part of a broader FUD campaign.


Both Pauls differ little from what you earlier deemed classic American conservatism though this should not assume both Pauls are in lock-step with one another. While I offered American politics at the outset, I don't think either of them could be considered fringe or far anything. Again, FUD campaign.


Perspectives. Folks from the numerous countries with greater economic freedoms than we in the US or folks paying Church taxes in Switzerland should conclude that perhaps the US is farther left than they are. FUD has no geographical boundaries.
Obama, with the help of the press, is very good at putting Alinsky's rules to work.



“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You first.
Nice try. You make the claim, you back it up.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How about coverage for mental illness?
1 in 5 Americans Suffers From Mental Illness - ABC News
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Nice try. You make the claim, you back it up.
Forbes.com, 49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%
CNN.com, Obamacare sticker shock.
Washingtontimes.com, millions feel sticker shock.

Disregard my earlier question, Dakar -- it was leading in nature and unfair. Of course, it's impossible to stuff more useless crap into a required minimum policy for all and expect better terms.

That's unfortunate. The only thing more unfortunate than that would be requiring this coverage for 5 of 5.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Thanks for the response. Don't disagree with any of it, other than the above. If you honestly think anyone in a first-world country outside of the US has a perspective that the US is "farther left" than they are, then I would politely suggest that you return to the re-calibration posts.
Nope, I was offering specific examples where folks in first-world countries outside the US should consider the US farther to the left. I think they're as capable of being duped by FUD as anyone else. Among the economic freedoms enjoyed by those outside the US are a 10% lower Corporate tax rate, a 7% lower rate on the top quintile income, 5% higher bottom-quintile tax rate, and a more lean, sensible regulatory code. In American politics, the left would demagogue such a scheme as feeding on the poor. And hell-to-the-no on a Church tax. I was basically agreeing with you, but from a different perspective.

We can start a poll thread if you want, but the sample size would not be there. I would hazard to guess a 99%-100% response rate to the effect that the foreign country is "more left".
Edit: for clarification should add that much of this view would be swayed by government intervention in social issues.
Oh, I make no mistake that most of the rest of the world believes the US is wing-nuts. IMO this too often hinges on some really shallow, simpleton criteria, but it is so none the less.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2013, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
On defense spending I'm of the opinion that less is more. Fewer troops, who are extremely (frighteningly) well trained, and less equipment, that is of far superior quality. Also, shut down 2/3rds of foreign bases, re-open a half dozen more in the USA, and GTFO of everyone's domestic disputes. Draw specific lines, such as, "directly f*** with us and we will end you", otherwise let the UN do its damned job, for once. The days of us being the world peacekeepers are over.

I agree, and in large part because I think it simply doesn't make any sense to wage war like you were playing a game of Starcraft or something. I would think that it is so much cheaper and effective to do stuff like setup small terrorist cells to take down an electric grid or something.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 01:32 PM
 
I appreciate you posting links, but without posting actual infor, I don't know what you're pointing to. For the record the questions was:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Are you telling me catastrophic plans have better co-pays and deductibles than bronze plans? Link?
A quick skim didn't reveal any catastrophic vs. bronze expense breakdowns.



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's unfortunate. The only thing more unfortunate than that would be requiring this coverage for 5 of 5.
ebuddy. You just said the only thing worse than having mental illness is having coverage for it when you don't need it. What. The. ****.

Seriously, drop the mental part. If 1 out of 5 americans had illness, but 5 out of 5 required coverage this is somehow a bad thing?! Just a reminder: You can't predict if you'll get sick (mentally or physically).
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Seriously, drop the mental part. If 1 out of 5 americans had illness, but 5 out of 5 required coverage this is somehow a bad thing?! Just a reminder: You can't predict if you'll get sick (mentally or physically).
Because now 4 of 5 Americans are paying for a service they have absolutely no need for. How is this controlling costs? Because we're paying for coverage we don't need and will never use?

You'll have roughly 150 million American males paying for Maternity coverage. We are literally being forced under penalty of law to buy insurance coverage for something there is zero possibility of us ever using. How does this seem logical to you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 03:16 PM
 
My wife is post menopausal. WTF do we need to pay for contraceptive, maternity, sterilization, and "plan B" coverage?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 03:28 PM
 
You leave me out of this!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 07:13 PM
 
Actually, my wife was born and raised in Joliet.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2013, 09:54 PM
 
My opinion of Joliet is tarnished by needing to work inside the fine state correctional facility when I was last there.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 07:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I appreciate you posting links, but without posting actual infor, I don't know what you're pointing to. For the record the questions was:

A quick skim didn't reveal any catastrophic vs. bronze expense breakdowns.
Your problem here and I'd submit the problem with most of the US electorate and its leadership is quick-skimming. Some things are more important than Candy Crush on FB and I'll say to you what I've been saying to them; try harder. You might save yourself the shock of disappointment that your NIMBY vote ended up in your back yard.

The individual market is comprised of all manner of plans including catastrophic-only plans. The ones being forced into the exchanges to feel the sticker shock are specifically the ones with plans that no longer qualify because they are bare-bones policies such as catastrophic-only. That's the entire crux of their argument now; Yes - we realize you cannot keep your plans contrary to what we've promised as recently as last week, but those are crappy plans. Look, here's a better one with provisions you'll never use that will increase your premiums, your copays, and your deductibles. Make your thank you cards out to Uncle Sam because after all, we gave you more useless crap.

ebuddy. You just said the only thing worse than having mental illness is having coverage for it when you don't need it. What. The. ****.
No. I acknowledged that the condition is unfortunate for 1 of 5 people and that the only thing more unfortunate than that would be to burden 5 of 5 with coverages they don't need.

Seriously, drop the mental part. If 1 out of 5 americans had illness, but 5 out of 5 required coverage this is somehow a bad thing?! Just a reminder: You can't predict if you'll get sick (mentally or physically).
No. As long as you insist on shameless apologetics for the hopelessly indefensible, I'm going to continue pointing out the folly in your reasoning.
National Institute of Mental Health
The risk of mental disorders is substantially lower among people who have matured out of the high-risk age range. Prevalence increases from the youngest group (age 18-29) to the next-oldest age group (age 30-44) and then declines, sometimes substantially, in the oldest group (age 60 +).

At 42 years of age, there are many things I cannot predict, but I'm still likely to opt for plans I feel are most applicable to me personally. Coverage for mental illness is not among them and your argument that it should be is not a compelling one.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your problem here and I'd submit the problem with most of the US electorate and its leadership is quick-skimming.
Yeah, Dakar. Finish each bite of your wall-o-text.

It's good for you. Like broccoli.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
My wife is post menopausal. WTF do we need to pay for contraceptive, maternity, sterilization, and "plan B" coverage?
You're paying it for the "ObamaFone" woman.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Your problem here and I'd submit the problem with most of the US electorate and its leadership is quick-skimming. Some things are more important than Candy Crush on FB and I'll say to you what I've been saying to them; try harder. You might save yourself the shock of disappointment that your NIMBY vote ended up in your back yard.
Mmmm... that's good. Lay on that condescension. Simply delicious. 'Course it's empty calories compared to actually providing the info in a straight-forward manner.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The individual market is comprised of all manner of plans including catastrophic-only plans. The ones being forced into the exchanges to feel the sticker shock are specifically the ones with plans that no longer qualify because they are bare-bones policies such as catastrophic-only. That's the entire crux of their argument now; Yes - we realize you cannot keep your plans contrary to what we've promised as recently as last week, but those are crappy plans. Look, here's a better one with provisions you'll never use that will increase your premiums, your copays, and your deductibles. Make your thank you cards out to Uncle Sam because after all, we gave you more useless crap.
This is a different argument. You claimed co-pays and deductibles for bronze plans weren't competitive with the old catastrophic plans. Show me.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No. I acknowledged that the condition is unfortunate for 1 of 5 people and that the only thing more unfortunate than that would be to burden 5 of 5 with coverages they don't need.
Um, isn't that how insurance works? The healthy subsidize the sick.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No. As long as you insist on shameless apologetics for the hopelessly indefensible, I'm going to continue pointing out the folly in your reasoning.
National Institute of Mental Health
The risk of mental disorders is substantially lower among people who have matured out of the high-risk age range. Prevalence increases from the youngest group (age 18-29) to the next-oldest age group (age 30-44) and then declines, sometimes substantially, in the oldest group (age 60 +).
Well this is interesting. Those people we've been claiming don't need health insurance because they're in the prime of their lives happen to be the highest risk for mental illness.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
At 42 years of age, there are many things I cannot predict, but I'm still likely to opt for plans I feel are most applicable to me personally. Coverage for mental illness is not among them and your argument that it should be is not a compelling one.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you get your insurance from your employer there are no "drop maternity" plans or "no mental health coverage". All I have a choice from is HMO vs. PPO. (My experience with employer health insurance is limited)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:20 PM
 
Not directed at ebuddy:

I wonder why we even separate these types of illnesses anyway. If someone is sick physically or mentally the end result is the same: a member of society that is running in less than good working order. I wonder how much of this has to do with the stigma having mental illness has. I mean, on one hand we have a bunch of twenty-somethings going out and killing people due to mental illness and on the other we have people arguing we shouldn't have that failsafe in our medical coverage.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:24 PM
 
The generation which kicked Nazi ass had a "walk it off, pussy" attitude, which we're just now beginning to get over.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:31 PM
 
Another example: Why is dental separate? Well this one is easy to explain– its expensive as ****. So its separate from other health insurance not because its not important but because it would raise the cost a lot, right? I wonder what % of Americans actually keep up on their dental work.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The generation which kicked Nazi ass had a "walk it off, pussy" attitude, which we're just now beginning to get over.
Well, it's their kids who are still resistant.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 12:33 PM
 
Yeah. That's what they were taught, and to a lesser extent, passed it along to the current generation.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not directed at ebuddy:

I wonder why we even separate these types of illnesses anyway.
Yes, lets treat all the different types of mental illnesses the same from a cost perspective. That'll work.

You wanna stop the sandy hooks and the movie theatre shootings? Hint: This isn't the way to do that.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Another example: Why is dental separate? Well this one is easy to explain– its expensive as ****. So its separate from other health insurance not because its not important but because it would raise the cost a lot, right? I wonder what % of Americans actually keep up on their dental work.
I do. I've seem more dentists in 20 years than doctors.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Mmmm... that's good. Lay on that condescension. Simply delicious. 'Course it's empty calories compared to actually providing the info in a straight-forward manner.
This is a different argument. You claimed co-pays and deductibles for bronze plans weren't competitive with the old catastrophic plans. Show me.
My we have a short memory. Didn't we do this cost breakdown for my personal situation which aptly applies? I stand to spend 1-2000 dollars a year more with this, and I'm just about the lowest income you can have without being in poverty. What am I getting for that extra money, Dakar? Not to mention the subsidy I'm being given that someone else has to pay for.

You didn't answer my question of how exactly I'm being helped by that with coverages I'll never use. I even ran the numbers with a favorable lean towards the ACA with my expected out of pockets under my old plan.

Um, isn't that how insurance works? The healthy subsidize the sick.
If you maintain your ignorance on how health insurance works (hint: it's nothing like auto) and the difference between health insurance and a healthcare plan, you'll never see it. I have a sneaking suspicion that even after the economy takes a dive and millions receive shittier care for more money, you'll still be patting yourself on the back because at least you did something and as we know "something is better then nothing" and as such we should legislate that way.

Well this is interesting. Those people we've been claiming don't need health insurance because they're in the prime of their lives happen to be the highest risk for mental illness.
Can you show me where that becomes a drain on the entire system? If you need health coverage, you could get health coverage. Now, you have health coverage, even if you'll never use it. You and the taxpayer will damn sure pay for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you get your insurance from your employer there are no "drop maternity" plans or "no mental health coverage". All I have a choice from is HMO vs. PPO. (My experience with employer health insurance is limited)
No but the types of health insurance and their costs is a type of compensation that for many people becomes the determining factor of working for one company over another. You've removed that as a choice and are now burdening all companies with either dropping their employees or reducing them to part time hours, since now they have to have coverages their employees may not have wanted, don't want to pay for, and will never use. You've removed the option, and are patting yourself on the back because now everyone is forced to buy shit they'll never use.

Lets not even get on the fact that you are currently afflicted with any condition mental or otherwise and like your doctor or mental care physician, you have a pretty damn good chance of losing them as your doctor because of the ACA. This has already happened to at least two of my acquaintances. I'm being dropped from my plan and won't be buying insurance nor paying the IRS since I'll be covering all of my expenses out of pocket until I can buy a plan that fits my needs. I'll keep my doctor since they like my cash. **** you, Obama. I'll decide what's best for me, not you. You'll have to come and take it from me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 01:55 PM
 
Snow: did you use the subsidy calculator to come up with your monthly costs? Or, are you using a different set of projections? Or, did you actually complete an ACA application and have your results returned?
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Snow: did you use the subsidy calculator to come up with your monthly costs? Or, are you using a different set of projections? Or, did you actually complete an ACA application and have your results returned?
Why don't you go back and look, besson? You were a very vocal part of that conversation, you even responded to a line in my post. I had a feeling you didn't really read any of my posts because your responses were completely disjointed from my arguments.

EDIT: Guess you have to disagree with it to know what's in it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why don't you go back and look, besson? You were a very vocal part of that conversation, you even responded to a line in my post. I had a feeling you didn't really read any of my posts because your responses were completely disjointed from my arguments.

EDIT: Guess you have to disagree with it to know what's in it.

I don't remember you posting these numbers, I might have indeed missed it. If these numbers are handy, why don't you repost them? I mostly want to see how far they are off from the subsidy calculator.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't remember you posting these numbers, I might have indeed missed it. If these numbers are handy, why don't you repost them? I mostly want to see how far they are off from the subsidy calculator.
So you didn't read the post you responded to? It's two pages ago besson. I'm not doing any more work on crafting my arguments if you're not even going to read them. Considering you responded to it I falsely assumed that you read it. My Bad. Do me a favor and go back and read my posts before you question them. I offer you the same basic courtesy.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 03:18 PM
 
So, my current costs:
$60 * 12 = 720 + 2000 out of pocket
I need to plan for $2720 in health expenditures with coverage in case i need really need it (10k deductible).

Lets look at your two options
Option 1
$142 * 12 = $1704 plus 400 out of pocket for coinsurance, and 1300 on the deductible .
Yearly out of pocket: $3404

Option 2
$72 * 12 = 864 + 600 for coinsurance and $1700 on the deductible.
Yearly out of pocket: $3164.

Is this the post?

You are paying $444 more annually, but you are also getting a much lower deductible? Is this an accurate summary?

I guess I can see how that would be frustrating. Maybe you wouldn't be saying the same thing if you had some stuff happen and fell short of the deductible in your current plan while making it in the new one, but honestly, I would be doing the same thing you're doing in going for the lowest monthly expense and rolling the dice the same way, so I don't blame you.

The extra $37/month maybe wouldn't make me quite as frustrated as you, I would consider this a "comparable plan", but I hear you.
( Last edited by besson3c; Nov 7, 2013 at 03:46 PM. )
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is this the post?

You are paying $444 more annually, but you are also getting a much lower deductible? Is this an accurate summary?

I guess I can see how that would be frustrating. Maybe you wouldn't be saying the same thing if you had some stuff happen and fell short of the deductible in your current plan while making it in the new one, but honestly, I would be doing the same thing you're doing in going for the lowest monthly expense and rolling the dice the same way, so I don't blame you.

The extra $37/month maybe wouldn't make me quite as frustrated as you, I would consider this a "comparable plan", but I hear you.
No besson, that assumes $2k out of pocket under my old plan. Last year, I spent about 550 out of pocket (2012) and this year a little over 400. I was rolling the dice that I wouldn't lose 7-8k if something catastrophic happens. In other words, I had insurance in case something bad happens.

A lower deductible means absolutely jack shit to me, unless something particularly nasty happens to me. In that case, I would have been covered and could have used my savings accounts to cover that deductible. Now I need that savings just to pay my premiums ignoring the fact that I still have a massive deductible and 30% coinsurance, that I would not have the money to cover if something bad happened because I spent my savings on maternity care among other useless benefits.


What benefit am I getting for my extra money? (and no, a lower deductible doesn't count because I could have had that before if I had wanted it).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No besson, that assumes $2k out of pocket under my old plan. Last year, I spent about 550 out of pocket (2012) and this year a little over 400. I was rolling the dice that I wouldn't lose 7-8k if something catastrophic happens. In other words, I had insurance in case something bad happens.

A lower deductible means absolutely jack snort to me, unless something particularly nasty happens to me. In that case, I would have been covered and could have used my savings accounts to cover that deductible. Now I need that savings just to pay my premiums ignoring the fact that I still have a massive deductible and 30% coinsurance, that I would not have the money to cover if something bad happened because I spent my savings on maternity care among other useless benefits.


What benefit am I getting for my extra money? (and no, a lower deductible doesn't count because I could have had that before if I had wanted it).

That sucks. I would be willing to bet that your old plan was extraordinarily cheap in comparison to everything else out there, including my current Anthem/Blue Cross plan in Indiana. You were fortunate to have such a cheap monthly cost, I would feel the same way you are.

It will be interesting to see some sort of non-partisan/credible report as to how often these transitions to bronze accounts end up costing more once we can reliably get data from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Hopefully between now and March some new plans will be established in your state that will work in your favor.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That sucks. I would be willing to bet that your old plan was extraordinarily cheap in comparison to everything else out there, including my current Anthem/Blue Cross plan in Indiana. You were fortunate to have such a cheap monthly cost, I would feel the same way you are.
It was so cheap because i spent a great deal of time learning about the insurance process and finding a plan that covered me in case everything went south. It was a low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic plan. Basically, insurance in case something bad happened. This is what ebuddy, myself, et al have been championing. I found a balance of my general physician and an outpatient clinic (righttime medical for those of you in this area) that could serve my preventative and minor needs for a reasonable, out of pocket cost that I didn't even need to bring insurance into. I had a skin infection that scared the living daylights out of me - I went to the doc and it cost about 150 bucks to have it drained, shot with cortizone, and for the antibiotics I needed. There's no need to pay per month what happens once or twice a year.

I went to a number of doctors and told them I didn't have insurance and asked for their costs. Most of em had different costs for out of pocket (lower) and insurance (higher). Why do the same things cost different amounts depending on who's paying for them?

It will be interesting to see some sort of non-partisan/credible report as to how often these transitions to bronze accounts end up costing more once we can reliably get data from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Hopefully between now and March some new plans will be established in your state that will work in your favor.
That's going to be quite hard since the president won't even release the number of enrollees to date, much less any cost analyses. There's no reason other than it will make him look bad - meanwhile we're the ones suffering. That's the kind of bullshit we're all fed up with. If you consider that politics as usual, then we need to toss the usual politicians. If that's incompetence, we need to toss the incompetents. If you believe that's helping any body in these difficult economic times, then we need to toss you .

There won't be any new plans comparable to what I had previously because the ACA outlaws those plans and forces me to buy a more expensive one with coverage I don't need. You can't add coverage and expect it to cost less while doing nothing on the other side to control those costs. Simply "more people buying more" doesn't equate to lower costs if you do nothing to take advantage of economies of scale. The ACA does nothing for economies of scale.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It was so cheap because i spent a great deal of time learning about the insurance process and finding a plan that covered me in case everything went south. It was a low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic plan. Basically, insurance in case something bad happened. This is what ebuddy, myself, et al have been championing. I found a balance of my general physician and an outpatient clinic (righttime medical for those of you in this area) that could serve my preventative and minor needs for a reasonable, out of pocket cost that I didn't even need to bring insurance into. I had a skin infection that scared the living daylights out of me - I went to the doc and it cost about 150 bucks to have it drained, shot with cortizone, and for the antibiotics I needed. There's no need to pay per month what happens once or twice a year.
You have also been lucky to even have the option to shop around. Around here the hospitals seem to look at you funny if you don't have a plan under Anthem/Blue Cross. It's been a while since I looked to see what is actually out-of-network here, but my research at the time proved that it was pretty much Anthem/Blue Cross or bust, which was very frustrating to me.

I went to a number of doctors and told them I didn't have insurance and asked for their costs. Most of em had different costs for out of pocket (lower) and insurance (higher). Why do the same things cost different amounts depending on who's paying for them?
It may also vary depending on whether your insurance plan is with some sort of large employer that gets this nice group rate and plan, or the very basic catastrophic individual stuff that is barely worthy of the name "insurance".

That's going to be quite hard since the president won't even release the number of enrollees to date, much less any cost analyses.
Why would he? They are both embarrassing and meaningless, other than to tell the same story we already know: the website has had problems. We can't really extract any useful info from these numbers right now. Come closer to the deadline, assuming the website is working by then, this will be a different story.

There won't be any new plans comparable to what I had previously because the ACA outlaws those plans and forces me to buy a more expensive one with coverage I don't need. You can't add coverage and expect it to cost less while doing nothing on the other side to control those costs. Simply "more people buying more" doesn't equate to lower costs if you do nothing to take advantage of economies of scale. The ACA does nothing for economies of scale.
Subsidies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 06:21 PM
 
Snow-i, I still don't understand this impatience on your part with all of this stuff. Some sort of change to our health care system is LONG overdue. We all know how complex the current system is, so therefore it is pretty logical to assume that the transition will be bumpy. This would be true for *any* sort of transition away from what we have now. I know you want to label me as an Obama apologist, but honestly, I would be saying this with any transition under any president. It is hard to transition away from complex things of any nature, really, including computer software, for example.

You can argue that the transition should have been implemented differently, maybe phased in more slowly, something of this nature, and all of these arguments would be fair to make. You can even make the argument that so far the ACA has been a failure because a big part of the ACA deals with the transition. However, you yourself acknowledged that in theory the ACA vision is sound. Should we pull back on the ACA and rework the transitional process? Maybe.

However, let's not conflate the quality of the transitional process with the quality of the end result - they may or may not be the same. If this country were to transition to using metric over a 5 month period and after a little over a month there was some struggles with making this transition, we should be criticizing the transition and plan makers, not saying "wow, metric sucks, we shouldn't be converting to metric".

In other words, if your problem is both with the intent/theoretical side to the ACA, obviously you aren't going to like the transition, why not wait until the transition is complete to swoop in for the kill and point out the fallacies of both the transition and the end result? If your problem is just with the transition, it doesn't really need to be pointed out that it has been rough, we all see and acknowledge that, and have been frustrated with that. It's not a huge surprise though.
( Last edited by besson3c; Nov 7, 2013 at 10:50 PM. )
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You have also been lucky to even have the option to shop around. Around here the hospitals seem to look at you funny if you don't have a plan under Anthem/Blue Cross. It's been a while since I looked to see what is actually out-of-network here, but my research at the time proved that it was pretty much Anthem/Blue Cross or bust, which was very frustrating to me.
Why would you need to go to the hospital for outpatient care? I have a hospital 10 minutes from my house (and johns hopkins 40 minutes away) and aside from being born have never been there for myself.

Part of the problem outlined by Dr. Carson is that because of insurance, people take an ambulance for a papercut because it costs them the same. Make people shop around for these non-essential services! It works not only for improving quality of care (good ole' fashion competition) but as well for costs, since people will be much wiser with how much and where they are spending.


It may also vary depending on whether your insurance plan is with some sort of large employer that gets this nice group rate and plan, or the very basic catastrophic individual stuff that is barely worthy of the name "insurance".
Barely worthy? No no no besson. Those basic plans are the only ones that actually fit the definition of insurance. You're getting insurance confused with a health plan. They are not the same, but an easy thing to get mixed up.


Why would he? They are both embarrassing and meaningless,
Meaningless? You just said in the last post that it'd be nice to see some numbers so you can be better informed about the nation you live in. Holding them back is a dishonest way of preventing you from learning of the government's failures. The government is supposed to answer to us, hence his election promises about being the most transparent president ever. This action is literally the exact opposite of that. If he's willing to lie about transparency, why in the world would you take him for his word when you know he's keeping things from you. If he was smart he would have personally ensured the rollout was a success (instead he hit the campaign trail) and live broadcast the number of people signing up. Instead he released a pile of crap then stuck his arms in the air saying "how was I supposed to know?!?" You're the ****ing president, that's how. You can know whatever you want, especially with the NSA at your command.

other than to tell the same story we already know: the website has had problems.
But he just made us another promise that it would be fixed by the end of November. Considering his first blunder (letting that pile of crap launch) don't you think it's prudent to allow the people you answer to in on the progress of fixing it? I have a feeling this thing won't be ready for another year.
We can't really extract any useful info from these numbers right now. Come closer to the deadline, assuming the website is working by then, this will be a different story.
There are plenty of useful numbers to track. Like how much more is this costing? How many independent auditors did you have or plan to have look at the progress of the project? How many people are able to access it now and how many are having problems? Who are you holding accountable (this one can be put off until an investigation is complete)? [b]$500 billion is a lot of money[b]. Don't you think we ought to know why 500 billion of our money produced a non working product? It's not his money to waste and we deserve answers.

Obama doesn't want informed voters though. He wants voters who buy his narrative because he's the world's best campaigner. Nevermind that he's an awful president, he's charming and what he says makes sense (without doing any fact checking of their own).


Subsidies.
Besson, I don't think you understand how subsidies work. [i]A different person still has to pay for that[i]. The costs haven't dropped. [i]that's whats killing our health situation now, costs[i]. We've literally done nothing on costs, they're gonna keep going up and the government by default will continue to raise taxes to the point of absurdity. Cost, besson, we have to reduce the cost of healthcare and this is [i]not the way to do that[i]. You're simply sweeping that cost under the rug of some rich dude. This is not good for the economy. Small businesses will die as they bear a major burden of healthcare as a benefit and also provide somewhere around 70ish percent of the US's tax revenue. They cannot get rid of this benefit and are at the mercy of the insurance companies, who have no incentive to lower costs to become competitive since there is nobody in their state who is legally allowed to compete with them.

We have to lower the costs in general if we would like to be able to provide better care to lower income families and we are not doing that. You're simply shifting the costs but the net effect on the economy is the same. We don't have a good economy right now. The last thing we need is to further destroy the small businesses that make up our economic engine and pave the way for massive monoliths like walmart, BP, even ****ing chiquita banana (look them up they did some rad things) filling the empty space. Do you want that? I sure as hell don't. No economists right now are giving us positive outlooks and this should scare everyone lower, middle, or upper class. The only people that will be safe are government people and their friends in the big companies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why would you need to go to the hospital for outpatient care? I have a hospital 10 minutes from my house (and johns hopkins 40 minutes away) and aside from being born have never been there for myself.

Part of the problem outlined by Dr. Carson is that because of insurance, people take an ambulance for a papercut because it costs them the same. Make people shop around for these non-essential services! It works not only for improving quality of care (good ole' fashion competition) but as well for costs, since people will be much wiser with how much and where they are spending.
What's the point of buying insurance if the hospital is off-limits to you if you ever need it? We've only used the hospital once, but when you drive you're always one event away from needing it - whether yours or some other driver's.

Barely worthy? No no no besson. Those basic plans are the only ones that actually fit the definition of insurance. You're getting insurance confused with a health plan. They are not the same, but an easy thing to get mixed up.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I think you're wrong:

Health insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meaningless? You just said in the last post that it'd be nice to see some numbers so you can be better informed about the nation you live in. Holding them back is a dishonest way of preventing you from learning of the government's failures.
You know why I miss things in your posts? It's because you have a pattern of saying something I disagree with, and then expounding (often emotionally) upon your original point which I fundamentally disagree with, rendering all of this other stuff skippable.

It's meaningless because the website has not been working, I don't need to see crappy numbers to see what I can plainly see for myself.

But he just made us another promise that it would be fixed by the end of November. Considering his first blunder (letting that pile of weed launch) don't you think it's prudent to allow the people you answer to in on the progress of fixing it?
So people can play IT monday morning quarterbacks? It would be nice, I guess, but no politician is going to do something like this that puts themselves at risk when there is little upside to this even when it doesn't. Joe Sixpack would not understand the precise ramifications of a technical briefing about scalability, or why a JSON object is missing info, or why result sets do not pass validation, and this sort of technical stuff is probably precisely what they are dealing with right now. Joe Sixpack would appreciate the summary of this technical stuff as "it's not working, we're aware of this and working on this", but I think this is also pretty obvious.

Obama doesn't want informed voters though. He wants voters who buy his narrative because he's the world's best campaigner. Nevermind that he's an awful president, he's charming and what he says makes sense (without doing any fact checking of their own).
You're right, but find me any politician that would ever do this. This is just not realistic.

Besson, I don't think you understand how subsidies work. [i]A different person still has to pay for that[i]. The costs haven't dropped. [i]that's whats killing our health situation now, costs[i]. We've literally done nothing on costs, they're gonna keep going up and the government by default will continue to raise taxes to the point of absurdity. Cost, besson, we have to reduce the cost of healthcare and this is [i]not the way to do that[i]. You're simply sweeping that cost under the rug of some rich dude. This is not good for the economy. Small businesses will die as they bear a major burden of healthcare as a benefit and also provide somewhere around 70ish percent of the US's tax revenue. They cannot get rid of this benefit and are at the mercy of the insurance companies, who have no incentive to lower costs to become competitive since there is nobody in their state who is legally allowed to compete with them.
I understand how the subsidies work, and this takes balls to say after your stating that there is an Obamacare health plan (and that the Senate was responsible for the shutdown, which although a completely different subject, I don't think you've ever acknowledged). You're moving the goalposts. Are we talking about *your* monthly expenses, or the cost of the overall program? Until we focus on one or the other without shifting back and forth and thereby changing the scope and focus of this conversation, we can't really discuss this.

The subsidies are there to help people like yourself to have cheaper plans, which wealthier pay for. Whether this is "fair" to the wealthy or not is a different story, but as an insurance provider you can look at the subsidies, the higher volume of customers, and decide where you are going to make the bulk of your profits. To some, they may opt to be like Apple and profit from the higher end the most, while others may opt to be like Dell and profit more from the low end. Those that decide to profit more from the low end will naturally position to go after higher volumes of sales, because that is how you make lower profit margins work.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2013, 11:36 PM
 
Snow-i, believe it or not, our viewpoints on health care probably aren't that dissimilar.

I'm not at all a fan of our current system, I think that is pretty clear. I'm not rooting for the ACA to succeed as much as I am something that isn't the current system to succeed, so long as it doesn't somehow make what we have worse (which would be quite the accomplishment). If ebuddy's idea of regulation to allow competition across state lines was passed I'd be a fan of that over what we have, ditto for Medicare expansion, pretty much everything else in my other thread.

I see the ACA as the start of a new era of health care in this country. If it fails, it will at least be a lubricant to try again with something else, because I don't see us saying "well the ACA failed, let's just go back to the old shitty system that never really worked anyway".

There are some weird theories that Obama wants the ACA to fail so that the Democrats can push for single payer and get that to pass. That doesn't make any sense to me, because the failure in this program seems like a good way to lose political capital, and a good way for getting back on the horse to stall for many years. So, I'm rooting for its success only because I want things to get better, not because of Obama's legacy or some crap like that.

I don't care whether the program is called the ACA or the "Reagan-Jesus-Tea Party program, sponsored by Exxon-Mobil" so long as we are working on making things better. America seems to have a way of stumbling forward on a number of things, but it often seems to eventually get there. It could be the same thing with the ACA, I'm sure the ACA is a stepping stone forward more than some sort of immutable static piece of legislation that we'll be stuck with for the next 50 years.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2013, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is a different argument. You claimed co-pays and deductibles for bronze plans weren't competitive with the old catastrophic plans. Show me.
What I know is that folks from the individual market being canceled from plans that do not meet the minimum criteria are going to the exchanges and lodging complaints of higher premiums, copays, and deductibles.

I cited the California couple that found a comparable plan in the exchange that included a 40% increase in their doctor's office co-pay with deductible increasing by $2300. Can I guarantee that they had a catastrophic plan prior? No, but I can tell you that the folks getting canceled from the Individual Market are getting canceled because their plans are bare-bones policies that do not meet the required minimum coverage. That's why people are going to the exchanges. Either they had nothing or they had a plan that didn't meet the minimums. I cited a Christian Science Monitor article on the Individual Market cancellations featuring a North Carolina family with a BCBS plan for $380/month (catastrophic? Not 100%, but such a meager monthly rate for a family plan I can't imagine covered much more than catastrophic care and their shock began with the cancellation from a policy that no longer met the minimum requirements) who found the cheapest bronze plan was $1,124.50/month "still with an $11,000 deductible". That's not competitive. I cited a CNNMoney report about the family that found a bronze-level plan for roughly $357/month after the subsidy which they felt was doable, but returned a $12,600 deductible. For a catastrophic plan, you'll generally expect to pay $2k - 5k in deductibles. The cheapest Bronze plan in Connecticut for example has a minimum $3,250 deductible for single coverage.

Um, isn't that how insurance works? The healthy subsidize the sick.
If that were the case, we wouldn't have had a "crisis" in need of such expansive health insurance reform. There's a difference, albeit subtle; between "shared" or "pooled" risk carefully figured from actuarial data creating a win-win situation for all and the healthy subsidizing the sick under government-mandated minimum coverage requirements. Minimum requirements such as all having to cover maternal, newborn, and child coverage, as well as mental illness and drug addiction is indeed taking from one and giving to the other, but it is not a win-win scenario.

Well this is interesting. Those people we've been claiming don't need health insurance because they're in the prime of their lives happen to be the highest risk for mental illness.
Even so a relatively small, overall risk. The government is not using actuarial data, it's using a model of blanket coverage for all with no real incentive for the "healthy to subsidize the sick".

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you get your insurance from your employer there are no "drop maternity" plans or "no mental health coverage". All I have a choice from is HMO vs. PPO. (My experience with employer health insurance is limited)
Risks are pooled and the incentive for coverage is a win-win. Much of the insurance is subsidized by your employer as part of a benefits/compensation package and becomes part of your job search, leverage, and negotiation which is why the Union sector is now up in arms against the ACA. When the government skews the relationship with more coverage minimums, the plans are less win-win.
ebuddy
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2013, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What's the point of buying insurance if the hospital is off-limits to you if you ever need it?
Besson, the point insurance is that the hospital is there if you need it. But the majority of time, you don't need the hospital. You need the doctors office. This is the conundrum. People take an ambulance because it costs the same to them as going to their doctor. The ambulance costs an order of magnitude more then the doctor's office.
We've only used the hospital once, but when you drive you're always one event away from needing it - whether yours or some other driver's.
But that's exactly what catastrophic insurance is there to cover. Just in case you need the hospital, you have the hospital. We ought not to be going to the hospital where a doctor's office will suffice. The doctor can also refer you to the hospital (read: send you there in a hurry) should he recognize a need for it.


Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I think you're wrong:

Health insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Difference Between Health Care and Health Insurance | Heartlander Magazine

All health plans include an insurance component, not all insurance plans include a health plan aspect. They are not mutually exclusive but important in terms of terminology for our discussion.

You know why I miss things in your posts? It's because you have a pattern of saying something I disagree with, and then expounding (often emotionally) upon your original point which I fundamentally disagree with, rendering all of this other stuff skippable.
But expounding on it is the only part you should be reading. If you disagree with something I say, you should read my explanation as it may help you see where I'm coming from and the sources I've used to come to that position. I usually only skip posts that I agree with (since I hold the same position and understand the rationale behind it).
It's meaningless because the website has not been working, I don't need to see crappy numbers to see what I can plainly see for myself.
But I don't understand then why you would want to wait to see how it plays out if you already know it's a massive failure. We as a people need to hold our government accountable and inaction is not a viable means of accomplishing that. There's a problem, our money is being wasted, and we're the ones being affected (not congress and not the president). I don't understand how you wouldn't want this fixed right away and to the standards the population demands.

So people can play IT monday morning quarterbacks? It would be nice, I guess, but no politician is going to do something like this that puts themselves at risk when there is little upside to this even when it doesn't. Joe Sixpack would not understand the precise ramifications of a technical briefing about scalability, or why a JSON object is missing info, or why result sets do not pass validation, and this sort of technical stuff is probably precisely what they are dealing with right now. Joe Sixpack would appreciate the summary of this technical stuff as "it's not working, we're aware of this and working on this", but I think this is also pretty obvious.
Besson. If no politician is going to do that then we as a people must demand that these politicians are run out of office. Joe sixpack does not represent America and there are many many smart and informed individuals and groups that could help make it easy for Joe Sixpack to understand. They (we, really) are being kept in the dark. Lord knows how bad the problem is or how much more of our money is going to be wasted. We shuold know, because that will help us determine who the best man for the job is. If it's not Obama, we deserve to know that now vs a year from now and billions of dollars wasted.

You're right, but find me any politician that would ever do this. This is just not realistic.
I would, and I meet the legal requirements to be a politicians. You don't think we as a nation can find better people than this? This is the best we have to offer? I don't buy it and for the sake of our future generations we'd better get our shit together.


I understand how the subsidies work, and this takes balls to say after your stating that there is an Obamacare health plan (and that the Senate was responsible for the shutdown, which although a completely different subject, I don't think you've ever acknowledged). You're moving the goalposts. Are we talking about *your* monthly expenses, or the cost of the overall program? Until we focus on one or the other without shifting back and forth and thereby changing the scope and focus of this conversation, we can't really discuss this.
My costs align with all of the data that's been coming out. It's simply going to be way more expensive to insure people in the United States. We can set the frame of reference to either - the arguments are largely the same.
The subsidies are there to help people like yourself to have cheaper plans, which wealthier pay for.
Why would we not take a course of action that lowers the costs for everybody? (seriously, if you answer one question in my post let this be it).
Whether this is "fair" to the wealthy or not is a different story,
IMO it's irrelevant whether it's fair or not - it's still going to effect everybody in a negative way.
but as an insurance provider you can look at the subsidies, the higher volume of customers, and decide where you are going to make the bulk of your profits. To some, they may opt to be like Apple and profit from the higher end the most, while others may opt to be like Dell and profit more from the low end. Those that decide to profit more from the low end will naturally position to go after higher volumes of sales, because that is how you make lower profit margins work.
But wouldn't it make more sense to lower the costs so that the insurance companies don't have to choose where to make the bulk of their profits ultimately at the expense of us? I mean like, alot more sense? We can do it. We can do it today. There's no reason we can't. But for whatever reason lowering costs (which was a primary justification of the ACA) isn't a part of the plan. It baffles me that supporters of this law are silent on the cost issue. The net effect on the economy is the same regardless of who pays. A better economy is better for all people. A worse economy is worse for all people.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2013, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Besson, the point insurance is that the hospital is there if you need it. But the majority of time, you don't need the hospital. You need the doctors office. This is the conundrum. People take an ambulance because it costs the same to them as going to their doctor. The ambulance costs an order of magnitude more then the doctor's office.
Ok. Ummmm .... I'm not sure where you are getting this notion from. I looked at my Anthem health insurance card immediately prior to writing this post. Not that I needed to but I just wanted to be 110% certain. I can assure you that my co-pay costs 3 times as much to go to the ER ... where an ambulance would take me ... than for an office visit with my doctor. And that doesn't even include the cost of the ambulance ride! I think you are letting ideology blind you to some very fundamental facts.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Besson, the point insurance is that the hospital is there if you need it. But the majority of time, you don't need the hospital. You need the doctors office. This is the conundrum. People take an ambulance because it costs the same to them as going to their doctor. The ambulance costs an order of magnitude more then the doctor's office.
But that's exactly what catastrophic insurance is there to cover. Just in case you need the hospital, you have the hospital. We ought not to be going to the hospital where a doctor's office will suffice. The doctor can also refer you to the hospital (read: send you there in a hurry) should he recognize a need for it.
My point is that there is no competition and choice when there is only one insurance policy accepted by your local hospital(s). I agree with you that GPs don't play a big enough role, many people don't have a family doctor.

The Difference Between Health Care and Health Insurance | Heartlander Magazine

All health plans include an insurance component, not all insurance plans include a health plan aspect. They are not mutually exclusive but important in terms of terminology for our discussion.
Okay.

But expounding on it is the only part you should be reading. If you disagree with something I say, you should read my explanation as it may help you see where I'm coming from and the sources I've used to come to that position. I usually only skip posts that I agree with (since I hold the same position and understand the rationale behind it).
I'll sometimes do that when a poster doesn't do the wall-of-text thing.

But I don't understand then why you would want to wait to see how it plays out if you already know it's a massive failure. We as a people need to hold our government accountable and inaction is not a viable means of accomplishing that. There's a problem, our money is being wasted, and we're the ones being affected (not congress and not the president). I don't understand how you wouldn't want this fixed right away and to the standards the population demands.
Because I believe that any transition is going to be bumpy. It is hard to distinguish between normal and acceptable bumpy and unacceptable bumpy. I think we are in unacceptable bumpy territory right now, but I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to see if it will move towards acceptable bumpy. I've waited this long for health care reform, I can wait a little longer.

Besson.
That is my name. Just so you know, sometimes starting a sentence clearly addressed to me with my name comes across as confrontational, or your talking down to me, I don't know if this is your intent.

If no politician is going to do that then we as a people must demand that these politicians are run out of office. Joe sixpack does not represent America and there are many many smart and informed individuals and groups that could help make it easy for Joe Sixpack to understand. They (we, really) are being kept in the dark. Lord knows how bad the problem is or how much more of our money is going to be wasted. We shuold know, because that will help us determine who the best man for the job is. If it's not Obama, we deserve to know that now vs a year from now and billions of dollars wasted.
I believe in waging winnable battles, and building on a series of small victories that come out of realistic goals. Politicians are constantly guarded with all of their speech, especially during campaign season. They are constantly watching their backs, and constantly trying to prevent giving any slack in even their conversations with late night talk show hosts - hardly their adversaries. They are rarely candid and human sounding.

Maybe a more realistic goal is encouraging them to answer some questions that are asked directly in person? If they aren't willing to do that, and there are of course countless examples of this sort of evasion, why would they volunteer information?

I'm all for reshaping what is acceptable as a politician, I just think you need to find realistic places to start.

I would, and I meet the legal requirements to be a politicians. You don't think we as a nation can find better people than this? This is the best we have to offer? I don't buy it and for the sake of our future generations we'd better get our hush money together.
I agree. I just don't see this happening anytime soon, not when the citizenry eats up and seems to encourage stupid trash like all that stuff about Obama's birth certificate or flag pin, just to provide a recent example. Not when what cable news networks have figured out sells best is the near daily trash that is fodder for Jon Stewart.

I think our politicians will get their hush money together when we do.

My costs align with all of the data that's been coming out. It's simply going to be way more expensive to insure people in the United States. We can set the frame of reference to either - the arguments are largely the same.
Why would we not take a course of action that lowers the costs for everybody? (seriously, if you answer one question in my post let this be it).
IMO it's irrelevant whether it's fair or not - it's still going to effect everybody in a negative way.
No it is not. Some people will be negatively affected like you are, some positively affected, and some of both the positive and negative effects will be temporary, as is often the case with transitions of this magnitude. If the subsidy calculators prove to be accurate, I will be positively affected in a big way.

But wouldn't it make more sense to lower the costs so that the insurance companies don't have to choose where to make the bulk of their profits ultimately at the expense of us? I mean like, alot more sense? We can do it. We can do it today. There's no reason we can't. But for whatever reason lowering costs (which was a primary justification of the ACA) isn't a part of the plan. It baffles me that supporters of this law are silent on the cost issue. The net effect on the economy is the same regardless of who pays. A better economy is better for all people. A worse economy is worse for all people.
How would you lower costs?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok. Ummmm .... I'm not sure where you are getting this notion from. I looked at my Anthem health insurance card immediately prior to writing this post. Not that I needed to but I just wanted to be 110% certain. I can assure you that my co-pay costs 3 times as much to go to the ER ... where an ambulance would take me ... than for an office visit with my doctor. And that doesn't even include the cost of the ambulance ride! I think you are letting ideology blind you to some very fundamental facts.

OAW
IMHO, fundamental facts were never a concern for the folks now looking for disclaimers, asterisks, small print, and hairs to split. Fundamental facts have done far more to exploit and illustrate the ideological blindness behind this legislation than any single argument against it. Watching the legacies of long-term, reputable careers in civil service from folks like Sebelius, Reid, Clinton, and others get dragged through the mud for blind allegiance to this Administration is remarkable... and believe it or not, unfortunate. This, from a card-carrying Republican.

This folly has made Jay Carney only slightly more credible than Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How would you lower costs?
Get Wal-Mart to start practicing medicine on the frontend. Their vision center is fast, efficient, and inexpensive. They're also breaking into dentistry. For regular check-ups and visits, it could be a bellwether for the medical industry. You think I'm joking? I assure you, I'm not. Set up a Wal-Mart Express Clinic, with; a Doctor, 10 PAs, and a host of nurses, that can treat 50 patients an hour, with low wait times, you'll see some "change you can believe in", and while private practices can't be as inexpensive, they will improve efficiency and drop their prices to remain somewhat competitive.



(excuse the crudeness of the mockup, I'm on my tablet)
( Last edited by Shaddim; Nov 9, 2013 at 02:27 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 01:40 PM
 
We drastically need more "First Care" type services.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Get Wal-Mart to start practicing medicine on the frontend. Their vision center is fast, efficient, and inexpensive. They're also breaking into dentistry. For regular check-ups and visits, it could be a bellwether for the medical industry. You think I'm joking? I assure you, I'm not. Set up a Wal-Mart Express Clinic, with; a Doctor, 10 PAs, and a host of nurses, that can treat 50 patients an hour, with low wait times, you'll see some "change you can believe in", and while private practices can't be as inexpensive, they will improve efficiency and drop their prices to remain somewhat competitive.



(excuse the crudeness of the mockup, I'm on my tablet)


This seems like a good idea, but what's in it for Walmart? They would have to find enough qualified help, find some way to prevent being sued when their help turns out to be not-so-qualified, all while making a significant enough profit from this system.

It's also a little weird getting medical care from Walmart, but I'm sure I could get over that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 05:40 PM
 
What's in it for Wal-Mart? Linking it to their very lucrative pharmacy, and also the profits from the clinic itself. With fast enough turnover of patients, and improved efficiency (their optometric centers are twice as fast as the closest competitor at filling orders, with half the wait to get an exam), they can make a great deal of money. Qualified help? Just recruit like anywhere else, they learned a lot from their experience with pharmacy integration, I'm sure they'd find a way to adapt.

I'm not saying I'm for this 100%, but if you want to drive down costs, this is how you do it. No, it doesn't help with emergency care or major medical, but it doesn't have to. Simply filling the role of Family GP would bring about large changes in pricing structures. The healthcare industry is a bit of a sacred cow, maybe it's time to demystify it and bring it into a faster-paced environment.

A name... I like the sound of "Walton Medical System".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2013, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What's in it for Wal-Mart? Linking it to their very lucrative pharmacy, and also the profits from the clinic itself. With fast enough turnover of patients, and improved efficiency (their optometric centers are twice as fast as the closest competitor at filling orders, with half the wait to get an exam), they can make a great deal of money. Qualified help? Just recruit like anywhere else, they learned a lot from their experience with pharmacy integration, I'm sure they'd find a way to adapt.

I'm not saying I'm for this 100%, but if you want to drive down costs, this is how you do it. No, it doesn't help with emergency care or major medical, but it doesn't have to. Simply filling the role of Family GP would bring about large changes in pricing structures. The healthcare industry is a bit of a sacred cow, maybe it's time to demystify it and bring it into a faster-paced environment.

A name... I like the sound of "Walton Medical System".


Are you still also for Medicare expansion?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2013, 03:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you still also for Medicare expansion?
For citizens below the poverty level, if we could afford it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2