About Us

jps

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:29:07 -0400, wrote:

I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on
pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the
company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made
the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and
suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances.
Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance.

Let's assume for a minute that your subject was working for Walmart or
some other outfit making $10/hr and had to chose between a deduction
for health insurance or having enough money for food and rent?

**** 'em?

Vic Smith

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:01:18 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:28:18 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:29:07 -0400, wrote:

I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on
pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the
company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made
the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and
suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances.
Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance.

Let's assume for a minute that your subject was working for Walmart or
some other outfit making $10/hr and had to chose between a deduction
for health insurance or having enough money for food and rent?

**** 'em?

That sounds more like a problem getting affordable health care than an
"insurance" problem.

The insurance companies and the health care providers are all tied up
together. The high rates providers charge for their service is no
different than the Patco air traffic controllers that Reagan snuffed
out, except instead of a union the providers have lobbyists buying off
Congress.
Why should the insurance companies fight for lower health costs when
they can just up the premiums?
Besides, they get a good cut of the premium.
Now that system is falling apart. Tough ****.
Medicare reimbursement rates for all providers wouldn't lead to
reduction in the quality of health care, but more competition in
providing it. Still lots and lots of money there to go after.
It's just another commie-type industry, protected by the state.
The gov can set Medicare rates so the docs don't go to the poor house,
and toss all the defrauders in jail.
That's how it should be done. Good luck.

If the health care itself costs more than you make I am not sure what
to say except we need to find a cheaper way of providing the care. The
bookie really doesn.t change that

Sure does. The gov gets provider costs down with Medicare.
It's not funded and policed like it should be, but they pay less for
the same.
Let's call it bargaining power.
None of my bookies would bargain with me, no matter how much they
wanted my business.

--Vic

Vic Smith

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:09:00 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:01:18 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:28:18 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:29:07 -0400, wrote:

I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on
pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the
company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made
the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and
suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances.
Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance.

Let's assume for a minute that your subject was working for Walmart or
some other outfit making $10/hr and had to chose between a deduction
for health insurance or having enough money for food and rent?

**** 'em?

That sounds more like a problem getting affordable health care than an
"insurance" problem.

The insurance companies and the health care providers are all tied up
together. The high rates providers charge for their service is no
different than the Patco air traffic controllers that Reagan snuffed
out, except instead of a union the providers have lobbyists buying off
Congress.
Why should the insurance companies fight for lower health costs when
they can just up the premiums?
Besides, they get a good cut of the premium.
Now that system is falling apart. Tough ****.
Medicare reimbursement rates for all providers wouldn't lead to
reduction in the quality of health care, but more competition in
providing it. Still lots and lots of money there to go after.
It's just another commie-type industry, protected by the state.
The gov can set Medicare rates so the docs don't go to the poor house,
and toss all the defrauders in jail.
That's how it should be done. Good luck.

If the health care itself costs more than you make I am not sure what
to say except we need to find a cheaper way of providing the care. The
bookie really doesn.t change that

Sure does. The gov gets provider costs down with Medicare.
It's not funded and policed like it should be, but they pay less for
the same.
Let's call it bargaining power.
None of my bookies would bargain with me, no matter how much they
wanted my business.

--Vic

BTW, I just started looking at my wife's yearly health care
enrollment.
Premiums up 10%.
Since she had no raise, her cost is now at least 27.5% of her gross
pay.
Don't know if I'll keep the plan or go to something cheaper.
Looks like they're all Aetna plans. Real competition.
Probably stay with it, since I'm not hurting for money.
Have to see if I should do a "buy up" since I'm finding I'm still
subject to 20% of med costs.
That could really hurt with a "major" med incident.
But I'm really starting to get ****ed.

--Vic

Vic Smith

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:36:57 -0400, wrote:

From what I have seen over the years a high deductible policy is not
really that expensive but that means you actually have to spend some
of your own money for your day to day "maintenance" and you are really
only covered for that catastrophic ailment boogie man everyone talks
about.
My IBM policy is $3000 deductible.

Mine is $500 and then I still pay 20%.
Since we're paying $5k in premium $3k is a drop in the bucket.
We only do annual exams, and this year I had a colonoscopy.
When I get the bill I might find I would have saved having no
insurance at all.
I don't mind a high deductible, and look at insurance as catastrophe
prevention.
Bottom line is I don't want to lose my house or go bankrupt.
That 20% could break me in a catastrophe.
I'm looking at plans now, and I keep seeing this line that says
"Pre-existing conditions are excluded from coverage."
Sweet deal.

--Vic

jps

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:18:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:36:57 -0400, wrote:

From what I have seen over the years a high deductible policy is not
really that expensive but that means you actually have to spend some
of your own money for your day to day "maintenance" and you are really
only covered for that catastrophic ailment boogie man everyone talks
about.
My IBM policy is $3000 deductible.

Mine is $500 and then I still pay 20%.
Since we're paying $5k in premium $3k is a drop in the bucket.
We only do annual exams, and this year I had a colonoscopy.
When I get the bill I might find I would have saved having no
insurance at all.
I don't mind a high deductible, and look at insurance as catastrophe
prevention.
Bottom line is I don't want to lose my house or go bankrupt.
That 20% could break me in a catastrophe.
I'm looking at plans now, and I keep seeing this line that says
"Pre-existing conditions are excluded from coverage."
Sweet deal.

--Vic

Isn't there a gross cap on expenditures that you have to contribute
20%?

I seem to remember our policies having a cap, like 10K...

Have to look.

Vic Smith

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:14:27 -0400, wrote:

First, show me a place where the government actually negotiates the
cheapest price? They usually pay significantly more than private
industry when you add in the bureaucratic overhead.
Medicare should not be your ideal. The fraud and waste rate is
estimated to be up around 20% and a lot of doctors just avoid medicare
patients. It is still one of the most expensive programs in the
government taking 3% of every wage dollar in the country, serving
15-16% of the people..

Hell, the cat is out of the bag.
VA and DOD negotiate and get lower drug prices.
And that +half trillion dollar Medicare part D boondoggle passed a few
years ago - and not paid for - went through without the right for
Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Pols paid off by the drug industry. A drug industry that spends more
on advertising than research, and can't even provide H1N1 vaccine.
Have to get it from overseas.
Don't know about shareholder value. That might be okay.
Like I give a **** about health care or drug company shareholders.
Why do you think the providers whine about Medicare reimbursement
rates?
Yet I don't know a single person on Medicare that has a problem
finding a good doc. Might happen in the sticks, but that can be
handled.
What will the poor underpaid docs do when their cut back on how many
exotic cars they can garage? Flee to Cuba?
****ing commies. Let 'em go kiss Castro's ass.
I already said fraud has to be severely punished.
Your numbers are a bit distorted, seeing as how Medicare is insuring
only all the old folks, who need the most, and most expensive health
care.
You got to kidding me about Medicare adman costs being more than
private insurance admin and Wall Street vigorish.
You'd have to show me some real numbers.
Everything I've read indicates the reverse.
Besides, just doing the annual Aetna enrollment it struck me how
expensive the materials package is.
It's like a ****ing Hollywood production.
Hey, no big deal.
Vic and Dorothy will pay for that.
3% of every wage dollar for Medicare?
**** that. Here's a real number for you.
My wife is paying 27.5% of her gross on top of that 3% - to the
insurance companies.
You sound like a real status quo guy.
I'm not buying the status quo no mo'.
Nor are most others.
The cat is out of the bag. Americans are pretty aware they are
getting hosed with the health insurance scam.

--Vic

Vic Smith

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:49:27 -0400, wrote:

Before you ask me what I would do, understand I am punching out before
I use much medicine. I have seen people die wheezing and I am not
doing it.
I had a good run, why spoil it with 5 years of (very expensive)
torture?

You'll know more when you get there.
I thought it would be all over when I couldn't construct the
two-backed beast three times a day.
I've adjusted.

--Vic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Double Delicious!	A Nonie Mous	General	0	June 19th 09 09:23 PM
Delicious!	HK	General	0	June 19th 09 06:18 PM
The irony is, well, delicious	HK	General	1	June 18th 09 05:22 AM
What a delicious feast!	Boater	General	7	October 27th 08 02:32 AM
This is just too delicious not to comment...	Valgard Toebreakerson	General	103	February 27th 08 01:32 PM

Menu

About Us