"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 8:23 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

On Oct 9, 10:15 am, BAR wrote:
In article 556f91cc-f256-4845-9f8d-
,
says...

On Oct 7, 7:34 pm, Jim wrote:
Just did a once-over on the docs for 2011 enrollment that came
in
the
mail, and a provider lookup.
Looks like my premiums are about the same as for 2010.

Looks like "Obamacare" caused my employer (large
multi-national)
to
squeeze out the HMO and probably keep the PPO price in check.
Figures, since they're paying 50% and have negotiating clout.

Jim - hehe.

Count yourself as very lucky. Those of us that work at much
smaller
companies saw increases in the 150 - 200% range. Efforts to reel
that
in included concessions like doubling of deductibles and max
out-of-
pockets amounts that range in the $2000-3000 ballpark.

Obamacare is VERY expensive for the majority of Americans.

Jack - not laughing

I haven't seen my 2011 benefits package yet nor has my wife seen
hers.

I work for a company of 40,000 employees and my wife works for a
company
of 170,000 employees. Over the past 5 years or so my health
insurance
has cost about $100 ever two weeks where my wife's has cost about
$200
per week. The plans are very similar but the costs are extremely
different. My cost is $2600 per year and my wife's is $10,400 per
year.
Obviously we go with my insurance.

Those are large enough companies that they can get good deals from
the
insurance companies. I work for a company of 75 employees. When we
went shopping for insurance (after the renewal came in with such a
large hike) several insurance companies told us they were no longer
even offering policies to companies under 100 employees.

So, if we had single-payer, you would be covered.

But, we don't. The Dems went behind closed doors, and forced through
an Obamanation of a healthcare bill that screws everyone that
currently has health insurance. The Dems, idiots they are, addressed
the issue and screwed the pooch. They'll now get properly thrown out
and someone else will have to clean up that mess.

Jack, Jack.... the Dems certainly didn't do all they could, but the
antagonists were certainly the Republicans, who have blocked and continue
to
block every single bit of meaningful legislation related to health care
and
jobs.

The ones who were locked out of the process, who at the time didn't
have the votes to change or stop it? Those Republicans? Em, you are
too easy. This one rests squarely on the dims. Buh-bye.


Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill? Jack, you're an idiot if you think the Republicans nutjobs have
any interest in what's best for this country. At least the Democrats tried.
So, you're afraid of the facts, and you bow out. Got it.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between
55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

Feel free to vote Republican and see what happens. Of course, you're a down
and outer and can't afford a dime more. Sure.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:44:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:57:25 -0500, Jim wrote:

Health care is less "free market" than even auto insurance or cable TV.

We fired our cable company and went to satellite. Auto insurance
seems to have lots of competetion these days, and even boat insurance
is getting better/cheaper.

That's because you don't use your auto or boat insurance every time you
go fill up your tank or get a tune up. They are real insurance. Health
insurance is not real insurance.

I understand your point. It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.

On Oct 11, 10:33*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

Untrue and a gross exaggeration. In a sense, the military is "unfunded" for
a period of time. Most of these mandates require that the insurance
companies, who've been denying people coverage, stop those practices. So,
I'm still waiting for you to tell us which one's you'd prefer not to
have....

Oh wait... you're hiding from me.

Jack wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between 55
and 64.
When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

If there's no new legislation correcting the flaws, in 2014 the ****
will hit the fan.
That's when the exchanges and premium tax credits kick in.
And "mandatory" insurance.
Tax credits for those up to 4 x "poverty level."
Sent directly to the insurance companies apparently.
Oddly enough there are reports reports calling these credits "tax
cuts."
Here's a couple examples
http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/new...-cut-800110389
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...x-credits.html

What the hell?
Seems like basic finance/economics knowledge is lacking.
Anything the gov gives in credits must be raised as taxes first.
By not going with a "public option" and instead keeping the private
insurance companies as the sole providers of insurance, you'll get
double taxed - and one rate will be solely controlled by the failed
American health care insurance industry.
Though they're under pressure now to keep rates in check.

I really hope the supremes find the mandatory payments to private
insurance companies unconstitutional.
Then a Medicare buy-in might happen.
But given how both Dems and Reps are in the pocket of any organization
that can pump $millions into their coffers, it might not happen.
It's a shame how corrupt and gutless our pols are.
No surprise there's a Tea Party. No surprise at all.

Jim - Three card monte is most practiced by politicians.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

Untrue and a gross exaggeration. In a sense, the military is "unfunded"
for
a period of time. Most of these mandates require that the insurance
companies, who've been denying people coverage, stop those practices. So,
I'm still waiting for you to tell us which one's you'd prefer not to
have....

Oh wait... you're hiding from me.


I agree we won't raise taxes, that is not politically viable. We will
just borrow more money. Unfortunately the insurance companies do not
have that option so rates are going higher.



For-profit companies should not be involved in people's basic health
decisions. Still... no one has answered the question of which items you
would prefer to do without...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.
When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

If there's no new legislation correcting the flaws, in 2014 the ****
will hit the fan.
That's when the exchanges and premium tax credits kick in.
And "mandatory" insurance.
Tax credits for those up to 4 x "poverty level."
Sent directly to the insurance companies apparently.
Oddly enough there are reports reports calling these credits "tax
cuts."
Here's a couple examples
http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/new...-cut-800110389
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...x-credits.html

What the hell?
Seems like basic finance/economics knowledge is lacking.
Anything the gov gives in credits must be raised as taxes first.
By not going with a "public option" and instead keeping the private
insurance companies as the sole providers of insurance, you'll get
double taxed - and one rate will be solely controlled by the failed
American health care insurance industry.
Though they're under pressure now to keep rates in check.

I really hope the supremes find the mandatory payments to private
insurance companies unconstitutional.
Then a Medicare buy-in might happen.
But given how both Dems and Reps are in the pocket of any organization
that can pump $millions into their coffers, it might not happen.
It's a shame how corrupt and gutless our pols are.
No surprise there's a Tea Party. No surprise at all.

Jim - Three card monte is most practiced by politicians.



According to you. I guess legislation, after it's written, is never
amended... according to you of course.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:44:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:57:25 -0500, Jim wrote:

Health care is less "free market" than even auto insurance or cable TV.

We fired our cable company and went to satellite. Auto insurance
seems to have lots of competetion these days, and even boat insurance
is getting better/cheaper.

That's because you don't use your auto or boat insurance every time you
go fill up your tank or get a tune up. They are real insurance. Health
insurance is not real insurance.

I understand your point. It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate... this is slightly out of date, but gives
the big picture.

http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical..._insurance.htm