Obamacare Survives SCOTUS

[AshG]

I just want a system where that paradigm doesnt exist. Some people needing help doesnt screw over others. I am sorry you cant even process the thought to have a real conversation about it. It's too pie in the sky but the current health care for all proposals are completely grounded in rational measures.

We're in two different places. You're in a "moderately inconvenienced, taxation is theft" state of mind. I'm in a "I've been septic, have an eight year old hole in my shin, and have had three serious bouts with cellulitis all this year; how the hell do I take care of my family?" survival mode.

Telling a drowning man that he should have learned to swim while he's gulping air isn't all that effective.

 

[LouderVol]

How much in this perfect world should a 30-year-old be allocating per month to healthcare spending/saving?

Spending would be relatively low, basic check ups. Savings would depend on their situation. A diabetic with high blood pressure and a family history of cancer would need to save more than someone without.

The beauty is each individual is ultimately in charge of setting that amount. No government requirements that they spend 25% of their pay check before they get a say in the matter. Which is what happened to me. And that's not including the additional 20% the state, and fed taxes were taking. And that's also not including the other 8% SS, medicare were taking.

Hard to get ahead in life making 40k if the government spends 53% of your money before it hits your bank.

But no, we need to screw over the people like that even more because other people are in a bad place (too).

 

[LouderVol]

We're in two different places. You're in a "moderately inconvenienced, taxation is theft" state of mind. I'm in a "I've been septic, have an eight year old hole in my shin, and have had three serious bouts with cellulitis all this year; how the hell do I take care of my family?" survival mode.

Telling a drowning man that he should have learned to swim while he's gulping air isn't all that effective.

The government forcing a person learning to swim to go save that drowning man seems like an equally bad idea. Or do you disagree?

And there is a reason rescue divers are taught some pretty hardcore submission techniques to pacify the drowning people before they are both taken down.

And in the my post before this one I put the specifics of my mild inconvenience out there. Seems fair since you had been posting your particulars. Care to tell me how much more inconvenience I SHOULD have bore?

 

[NorthDallas40]

We're in two different places. You're in a "moderately inconvenienced, taxation is theft" state of mind. I'm in a "I've been septic, have an eight year old hole in my shin, and have had three serious bouts with cellulitis all this year; how the hell do I take care of my family?" survival mode.

Telling a drowning man that he should have learned to swim while he's gulping air isn't all that effective.

I have never been in your situation thankfully but I do understand where you are coming from. However I was in the same position louder is coming from now when I was younger. I rarely used healthcare and only went to the dr if I thought I was dying. And these two cases form a decent perspective position I’d guess. You’d like to know “how can I get healthcare that I can afford that provides what I need without bankrupting me” and I’d guess you understand you will be paying more than louder I think you’re intelligent enough to acknowledge that. Louder wants to know “why the hell am I now paying 6x more (the numbers he gave) for the same healthcare usage that I had last year?” and it’s a valid question. I’m also going to guess louder won’t see a lot of use in the feminine healthcare mandated preventive clauses in his coverage, not judging louder, but he simply doesn’t want or need that level of coverage and doesn’t want to pay for it.

I don’t know the final answer. Bit I know it doesn’t include the government providing it if it’s going to be efficient and specific to the consumers needs.

 

[AshG]

And in the my post before this one I put the specifics of my mild inconvenience out there. Seems fair since you had been posting your particulars. Care to tell me how much more inconvenience I SHOULD have bore?

Sure: none.

You got screwed over by a for profit entity using the cover of law to ensure shareholder dividends and CEO compensation.

 

[0nelilreb]

We're in two different places. You're in a "moderately inconvenienced, taxation is theft" state of mind. I'm in a "I've been septic, have an eight year old hole in my shin, and have had three serious bouts with cellulitis all this year; how the hell do I take care of my family?" survival mode.

Telling a drowning man that he should have learned to swim while he's gulping air isn't all that effective.

I’ve read this whole thread and It’s two very interesting concepts indeed .. forced taxation by government, making people help others when , how, how much , and once implemented will always grow more expensive vs charity , where the same group isn’t forced but does it out of the goodness of their hearts when they choose , by what degree and can start and stop as many times as they chose wouldn’t you agree ?

 

[LouderVol]

Sure: none.

You got screwed over by a for profit entity using the cover of law to ensure shareholder dividends and CEO compensation.

If you believe that why push insurance on everyone?
I pointed it out to septic. If insurance costs are the issue, why require more people to have insurance? At least if you are wanting to fix the problem.

Have the conversation with me. What about my HSA, medicare, catastrophic option doesnt work better for everyone?

All you have done so far is try to rub my nose in your high handed government enforced christian "charity" mindset.

 

[volinbham]

With many low income/poor families, it may as well be $3,000 or $30,000.

If they are poor they qualify for Medicaid (before and after ACA). Both poor and low income qualify for either Medicaid or CHIP for their children (depending on state CHIP goes to 2x to 3x poverty line). So the poor actually do have coverage via Medicaid and the low to low income families can cover their kids for hella cheap via CHIP (again pre and post ACA).

 

[LouderVol]

If they are poor they qualify for Medicaid (before and after ACA). Both poor and low income qualify for either Medicaid or CHIP for their children (depending on state CHIP goes to 2x to 3x poverty line). So the poor actually do have coverage via Medicaid and the low to low income families can cover their kids for hella cheap via CHIP (again pre and post ACA).

No no no. Young(er) LouderVol just needs to fork over even more of his pay check. Anything else is just him being greedy.

 

[VolStrom]

No no no. Young(er) LouderVol just needs to fork over even more of his pay check. Anything else is just him being greedy.

I haven't been reading back in this thread, but how old are you and how much are you paying for healthcare to be so bent out of shape over healthcare costs?

 

[AshG]

You’d like to know “how can I get healthcare that I can afford that provides what I need without bankrupting me” and I’d guess you understand you will be paying more than louder I think you’re intelligent enough to acknowledge that.

Louder wants to know “why the hell am I now paying 6x more (the numbers he gave) for the same healthcare usage that I had last year?” and it’s a valid question.

You hit several bullseyes with your post.

What happened to a lot of folks when the ACA went into effect just wasn't right. I have friends who were small and medium business owners who took it right on the face and had to pass costs on to their employees. I hate it. And it shouldn't have happened.

One of the things that benefits me as a teacher/professor is being in the large state-run pools. For me and my family, it was $450 a month with decent deductibles. I almost accepted a job last summer at a private school that would have had family costs of $1200 a month with through the roof deductibles that would have practically negated my salary because they were their own pool. Those large pools keep costs down and increase the states' negotiating power. The only difference to me post-ACA has been the elimination of the lifetime coverage cap. Edit: and preexisting conditions removal.

The smaller pools, smaller companies, individual purchasing, those need to be looked at and relief needs to be provided to the system ASAP. What happened to Louder and others in his situation just isn't right. Why isn't his company free to form a consortium with other companies to create a large pool and drop costs? There are so many questions. And the $$$ flows to our elected officials to keep them from being asked. Or answered.

 

[LouderVol]

I haven't been reading back in this thread, but how old are you and how much are you paying for healthcare to be so bent out of shape over healthcare costs?

32. The time I am complaining about I was paying about 1/4 of my paycheck on insurance thanks to ACA. That was up from less than a 1/12 before ACA.

I think I am up to 700 a month now. Not as big of a deal as it was the first couple years out of college. I think for about 18 months I was required to spend more on healthcare, that I didnt use, than I did in rent.

 

[VolStrom]

32. The time I am complaining about I was paying about 1/4 of my paycheck on insurance thanks to ACA. That was up from less than a 1/12 before ACA.

I think I am up to 700 a month now. Not as big of a deal as it was the first couple years out of college. I think for about 18 months I was required to spend more on healthcare, that I didnt use, than I did in rent.

You must have a really nice plan to be paying $700 for ACA insurance at 32 years old. I pay roughly $750/month for a Bronze plan and I'm in my 60's, your plan should be 1/3 of my plans price. If you're healthy it seems to me that you could just get a catastrophic plan for a hundred bucks a month or so at your age.

 

[AshG]

Have the conversation with me. What about my HSA, medicare, catastrophic option doesn't work better for everyone?

For me, it's that you're asking those who physically can't work a second job pay significantly increased costs to care for chronic illness and disease. For the healthy, it looks like a solid option. It may push significantly more people like me off the fence and onto disability rolls.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Gaming the system? Like so many are proud of doing with their taxes when the opportunity presents itself?

You're looking to make not having healthcare a result of being lazy, it's not. There are MILLIONS of American's who are hard working and are still a bad diagnosis from bankruptcy due to unaffordable healthcare.

using the system not to pay extra in taxes when they aren't required to anyway, ISN'T the same as welfare fraud nor using the ED as a hotel, get out of jail for a bit pass, restaurant OR a mentally ill holding facility. If a person has been to the ED 150 times in a year, then taxpayers don't need to be paying for it, and the ED should have the ability to refuse them

 

[volinbham]

You must have a really nice plan to be paying $700 for ACA insurance at 32 years old. I pay roughly $750/month for a Bronze plan and I'm in my 60's, your plan should be 1/3 of my plans price. If you're healthy it seems to me that you could just get a catastrophic plan for a hundred bucks a month or so at your age.

They are limited to people under 30 years old per Healthcare.gov website

Now if they were allowed; that plus the Direct Payment model from the article I posted several pages back would be a good way to cover both primary care and catastrophic but ACA makes this illegal for most people. Even the catastrophic includes the "essential benefits" part of ACA so if one could dump that and buy truly catastrophic plus utilize Direct Payment for primary care it would be great but the government knows best I reckon.

 

[Rickyvol77]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm afraid we are at an ideological impasse then. My faith and my understand of the above beloved phrase in the Constitution inform my belief that we exist in a community compact. As Americans, we should want to look out for each other so that the blessings of these inalienable rights truly extend to all her citizens. For my Christian brothers and sisters, our faith requires us to help bear the burden of others who are in a position where they cannot bear the burden themselves.

I don't care that my taxes and insurance costs have likely paid for narcan for an addict or insulin for a homeless person. I'm glad of it. "As you have helped the least of these, so have you helped me."

How about if you pay for 100 separate doses of Narcan which takes away from others who actually need it, and that person refuses to do anything to get better. Just continue to pour taxpayer money down that rabbit hole until he eventually dies?

 

[AshG]

using the system not to pay extra in taxes when they aren't required to anyway, ISN'T the same as welfare fraud nor using the ED as a hotel, get out of jail for a bit pass, restaurant OR a mentally ill holding facility. If a person has been to the ED 150 times in a year, then taxpayers don't need to be paying for it, and the ED should have the ability to refuse them

This. Absolutely, this.

 

[Rickyvol77]

He believes in the good work of voluntary charity, and that being required to do so takes the blessing away.

If a person happens to go bankrupt or die waiting on the charity, tough luck. Enjoy the hereafter.

you can't save everybody, and some will never take the help to do better. I will help those truly in need, but I also am not giving a homeless guy a bottle of scotch or a shot of heroin because he "needs it". You don't differentiate

 

[LouderVol]

You must have a really nice plan to be paying $700 for ACA insurance at 32 years old. I pay roughly $750/month for a Bronze plan and I'm in my 60's, your plan should be 1/3 of my plans price. If you're healthy it seems to me that you could just get a catastrophic plan for a hundred bucks a month or so at your age.

I have a history with health issues, and a family history of issues. I knew if something was going going to happen it would be bad. So I had a high premium but low deductible. I was able to plan around the premium, but knew a sizable deductible would sink me. So I went without on a lot of things people consider "must haves". They arent. Internet, tv, and phone, none of it. I lived in a black hole for all the connection I had to the outside world.

Meal planning, figuring out that fast food was not the cheapest option, taking transit instead of driving. I had a bed I bought, a recliner, and table from the parents storage, and the plastic bins I had in college for furniture. I bought a used car that was cheaper than I had budgeted for so I didnt stretch myself too thin. No social life what so ever.

My plan wasnt off the marketplace. It was the same plan deductible I had before ACA with all the extra stuff I didnt need thrown in. About the only improvement was my plan had wider coverage. Not that I was traveling to ever need it.

 

[LouderVol]

For me, it's that you're asking those who physically can't work a second job pay significantly increased costs to care for chronic illness and disease. For the healthy, it looks like a solid option. It may push significantly more people like me off the fence and onto disability rolls.

The point of my option is the long term benefit. Yeah if you are already having issues this doesnt help. But if you were on it earlier you would have more money for your issues once they arose. May not be enough but that's why the other options are there. Heck private insurance is still available too, it's just not required.

One of the issues is we keep putting off any type of suffering as unacceptable, and all that does is make the suffering worse in the long run.

Even with better insurance your issues arent fixed. They just dont get worse. But the flip side is still there, people are still getting pushed down the path towards fiscal damnation in order to avoid any near term suffering.

Imo your option just sets more people on the path you are already on. That's not an improvement imo.

 

[VolStrom]

I have a history with health issues, and a family history of issues. I knew if something was going going to happen it would be bad. So I had a high premium but low deductible. I was able to plan around the premium, but knew a sizable deductible would sink me. So I went without on a lot of things people consider "must haves". They arent. Internet, tv, and phone, none of it. I lived in a black hole for all the connection I had to the outside world.

Meal planning, figuring out that fast food was not the cheapest option, taking transit instead of driving. I had a bed I bought, a recliner, and table from the parents storage, and the plastic bins I had in college for furniture. I bought a used car that was cheaper than I had budgeted for so I didnt stretch myself too thin. No social life what so ever.

My plan wasnt off the marketplace. It was the same plan deductible I had before ACA with all the extra stuff I didnt need thrown in. About the only improvement was my plan had wider coverage. Not that I was traveling to ever need it.

Just curious, if you were so poor, why didn't you qualify for the subsidy? As you elaborate on things, it sounds like you are using more healthcare than you're paying for and enjoying a shared approach to all people paying for our healthcare.

 

[Orangeburst]

I recently was charged for a procedure that was not even performed. I called and was told to send a letter, not even email. So I did and was rejected. Dr supposedly put it on my record and said he did it and they said "we cannot just write it off as already filed with insurance", which is where the isue lay IMO. Said I would not pay it as I would remember someone sticking a tube up my nose. Paid it anyways just to avoid the hassle and out $255. Funny enough had the procedure performed by another Dr just weeks later. Bye Dr St Charles. Used you for 15 years as a physician and surgeon, not anymore.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I recently was charged for a procedure that was not even performed. I called and was told to send a letter, not even email. So I did and was rejected. Dr supposedly put it on my record and said he did it and they said "we cannot just write it off as already filed with insurance", which is where the isue lay IMO. Said I would not pay it as I would remember someone sticking a tube up my nose. Paid it anyways just to avoid the hassle and out $255. Funny enough had the procedure performed by another Dr just weeks later. Bye Dr St Charles. Used you for 15 years as a physician and surgeon, not anymore.

File a complaint with the state insurance ombudsman just out of spite. That is insurance fraud on that doctor.

 

[Orangeburst]

File a complaint with the state insurance ombudsman just out of spite. That is insurance fraud on that doctor.

Thanks...Not really up to speed on that, but basically my word vs his. Really dont think it was intentional, just an error on their part and probably open up a can of worms as insurance already filed. I cannot remember if I paid for the "office visit" as well upon my departure, so just not worth it.

I guess what is concerning to the thread topic, is it was billed at $510 and the insurance discount was 50%. That is where the whole scam is as they can make the costs anything they want. That 50% discount sure "sounds" impressive. It was a nasal endoscopy and takes less than 2 minutes, when actually perfomed. Nothing but a camera.