WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:00 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
Bob Juch wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
So what's your solution? Let them die?


don't you EVER pretend to act like you have any fucking idea what it's like to be poor, you don't have that right.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56440

Do you EVER pretend to know my life history. Apart from that, my daughter and her two daughters are barely making it and can't afford copays and deductibles.

I'm in favor of a single-payer system. What would you like to see?



how many times did you push your car to the closed gas stations late at night and squeeze what was between the upper and lower valves of each pump so you could get to your low-wage job in a few hours?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
jarnon wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
having the insurance does not give you access to quality medical care, especially when you can't pay the co-pays and deductibles. I've been homeless three times, and have had Cadillac insurance but couldn't use it because I didn't have the money for the co-pays and deductibles.

Forcing poor people to pay for insurance they can't afford, and don't have the money to use doesn't make things better for them, it makes things worse because now they don't have the money they paid for the premiums to keep the lights on, put gas in the car to get to work, or here's a really wild concept--eat!
Obamacare tried to avoid these situations with income-based subsidies, and preventive care with no co-pay. Obviously it doesn't always work. Some states like New Jersey are trying to fix Obamacare's problems locally. Congress should see what ideas work and adopt them nationwide, instead of throwing Obamacare away and replacing it with nothing (Republicans) or single payer (Democrats).


exactly, it doesn't work, and these poor people are being forced to pay for it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:

Well, if they can't afford the co-pays and deductibles then how are they going to afford the full cost of medical treatment for a life-threatening condition without insurance?


having the insurance does not give you access to quality medical care, especially when you can't pay the co-pays and deductibles. I've been homeless three times, and have had Cadillac insurance but couldn't use it because I didn't have the money for the co-pays and deductibles.

Forcing poor people to pay for insurance they can't afford, and don't have the money to use doesn't make things better for them, it makes things worse because now they don't have the money they paid for the premiums to keep the lights on, put gas in the car to get to work, or here's a really wild concept--eat!

But if the uninsured need health care, don't they go to the emergency room of the local hospital, which can't turn them away for inability to pay? In that case, who picks up the tab for their medical care? The taxpayer. Meaning that those of us who can afford insurance are not only paying for our own health care but are forced to pay the costs for the uninsured. Is that fair?

which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
triviawayne wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
Forcing poor people to pay for insurance they can't afford, and don't have the money to use doesn't make things better for them, it makes things worse


First, there are hardship exemptions available for those with minimal incomes so they aren't forced to pay for insurance. Second, many lower income individuals will get coverage through Medicaid, at least in the 31 states that have expanded Medicaid to cover them.


Like I first asked, how many are being forced to pay for insurance that they can't afford to use--the stats aren't showing that because the politicians don't care about it.
None. People who can't afford to use insurance make little enough money that they're eligible for subsidies or Medicaid. There are also provisions in the Affordable Care Act to provide for people who can't pay deductibles and co-pays -- in at least certain circumstances (perhaps sss can fill in the details), the carriers are supposed to pick those up. The carriers are supposed to be reimbursed by the federal government, but one of Donny's acts of sabotage was to cut off those payments to discourage carriers from continuing to pick up those deductibles and co-pays.

And then, of course, there's the issue of people who are unfortunate enough to live in the gap created by the Republican-controlled states that, for ideological reasons, refused to expand Medicaid when the Supreme Court opened that door, in which case the solution is simple -- the state should accept the Medicaid expansion.

Which state do you live in? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
T_Bone0806 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Just curious, what part are you "wow"ing at?



The "self-inflicted" part. I realize you said "most", but to me, "most" is still off-base.


We could debate that but smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, poor diet, and drug use are pretty much all self-inflicted and probably are the main contributing factors in most life threatening medical conditions for folks under 65 or 70. There are some minor exceptions for obesity and poor diet being self-inflicted.

Maybe I'd lose that wager, but how about saying a large portion of life threatening conditions?
The Affordable Care Act allows carriers to charge higher premiums to smokers, so they get to accept financial responsibility for their increased risk. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
FNGD Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:24 pm
Posts: 6053
Location: State of Confusion
BackInTex wrote:
T_Bone0806 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Just curious, what part are you "wow"ing at?



The "self-inflicted" part. I realize you said "most", but to me, "most" is still off-base.


We could debate that but smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, poor diet, and drug use are pretty much all self-inflicted and probably are the main contributing factors in most life threatening medical conditions for folks under 65 or 70. There are some minor exceptions for obesity and poor diet being self-inflicted.

Maybe I'd lose that wager, but how about saying a large portion of life threatening conditions?



No doubt there are plenty who have caused their own misery, as there are plenty who haven't. Smoking being chief among them, especially those who have smoking-related illnesses and CONTINUE to smoke, which is inconceivable to me. But not all lung cancer is caused by smoking, just as poor diet is not always a choice, as maintaining a healthy diet is a lot more expensive than the alternative and some folks just can't afford it. There are always exceptions in most every situation, which makes it maddening to discern legitimate choices from stupid ones.

_________________
"#$%&@*&"-Donald F. Duck


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15624
BackInTex wrote:
We could debate that but smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, poor diet, and drug use are pretty much all self-inflicted and probably are the main contributing factors in most life threatening medical conditions for folks under 65 or 70.


When poor people make bad decisions, it's their problem. When rich people make bad decisions, they get a heck of a lot of help recovering.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Posts: 12633
Location: mired in the bureaucracy
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:

having the insurance does not give you access to quality medical care, especially when you can't pay the co-pays and deductibles. I've been homeless three times, and have had Cadillac insurance but couldn't use it because I didn't have the money for the co-pays and deductibles.

Forcing poor people to pay for insurance they can't afford, and don't have the money to use doesn't make things better for them, it makes things worse because now they don't have the money they paid for the premiums to keep the lights on, put gas in the car to get to work, or here's a really wild concept--eat!

But if the uninsured need health care, don't they go to the emergency room of the local hospital, which can't turn them away for inability to pay? In that case, who picks up the tab for their medical care? The taxpayer. Meaning that those of us who can afford insurance are not only paying for our own health care but are forced to pay the costs for the uninsured. Is that fair?

which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.

So what is the solution?

_________________
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: Olympia, Washington
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
But if the uninsured need health care, don't they go to the emergency room of the local hospital, which can't turn them away for inability to pay? In that case, who picks up the tab for their medical care? The taxpayer. Meaning that those of us who can afford insurance are not only paying for our own health care but are forced to pay the costs for the uninsured. Is that fair?

which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.

So what is the solution?

The public is being driven down the socialized, government control road. Washington, dems and repubs alike, are fine with that. They all love control and power. We can have a healthcare system run by the same people who run the VA and the post office. My opinion is we need to go more the other way.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2017/09/health-care-reform-free-market-solution-works-countries.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
But if the uninsured need health care, don't they go to the emergency room of the local hospital, which can't turn them away for inability to pay? In that case, who picks up the tab for their medical care? The taxpayer. Meaning that those of us who can afford insurance are not only paying for our own health care but are forced to pay the costs for the uninsured. Is that fair?

which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.

So what is the solution?


Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 22055
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.

So what is the solution?


Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.

Are you aware of what Bernie Sanders's "Medicare for all plan" entails?

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob Juch wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
So what is the solution?


Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.

Are you aware of what Bernie Sanders's "Medicare for all plan" entails?


Trillions of dollars going to Washington, federal government waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse and even more federal debt and bureaucracy. But it is easy to sell Utopia to the dumb masses.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15624
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
But it is easy to sell Utopia to the dumb masses.


The dumb masses in almost every other Western democratic nation have had one form or another of government health care for decades and seem to be able to do it without all the dire results you predict.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:29 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
which is what still happens, and the taxpayer is paying it anyway, in one form or another; like food stamps and electric subsidies.

So what is the solution?


Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.
And yet the Republicans are using the deficits they created with their giveaway to the rich as an excuse to call for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

But I'm still stuck on what you've been saying. With one exception, I didn't think it was possible, under the Affordable Care Act, to be in a position where you're so poor as to be homeless or unable to put food on the table, yet still be required to spend money on premiums. That exception is the Republican-controlled states that created a coverage gap by refusing to accept federal money to expand Medicare to cover the working poor. (As a reminder, under the Affordable Care Act, states didn't have that option. The Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required them to have that option.) What am I missing? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
earendel wrote:
So what is the solution?


Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.
And yet the Republicans are using the deficits they created with their giveaway to the rich as an excuse to call for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

But I'm still stuck on what you've been saying. With one exception, I didn't think it was possible, under the Affordable Care Act, to be in a position where you're so poor as to be homeless or unable to put food on the table, yet still be required to spend money on premiums. That exception is the Republican-controlled states that created a coverage gap by refusing to accept federal money to expand Medicare to cover the working poor. (As a reminder, under the Affordable Care Act, states didn't have that option. The Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required them to have that option.) What am I missing? --Bob


It seems like anything you comment on has to include a reference to your hatred of republicans. It reminds me of something....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15624
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
It seems like anything you comment on has to include a reference to your hatred of republicans. It reminds me of something....


Pointing out that the source of a problem is due to Republican politics is called being factual. It seems that anything you comment on has to include a putdown of the Bob's or me. It reminds me of something....

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4365
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
It seems like anything you comment on has to include a reference to your hatred of republicans. It reminds me of something....


Pointing out that the source of a problem is due to Republican politics is called being factual. It seems that anything you comment on has to include a putdown of the Bob's or me. It reminds me of something....


No, it's bob-tel's OPINION, actually. Opinion painted by extreme bias and amplified by the echo chamber that you all seem to live in. Peter Strzok suffers from the same malady, but he was somehow put into a position of power where he acted on it. And my post wasn't a putdown. Actually, it was an observation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15624
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Peter Strzok suffers from the same malady, but he was somehow put into a position of power where he acted on it.


I wasn't aware that Peter Strzok had expressed any opinions about health care and, if he did, how he acted on them.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Peter Strzok suffers from the same malady, but he was somehow put into a position of power where he acted on it.
You have no evidence that his political biases in any way changed his professional actions. And you have no evidence that any of the people he was working with, subordinates or supervisors, turned or would have turned a blind eye to any such evidence. You're just making it up. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
triviawayne wrote:

Just because I can say why this system hurts the poor more than it helps them doesn't mean I have the solution. I certainly have my opinion, but many won't like it, and it would put many people out of work.

Ban insurance for everything other than major medical, and that insurance would be everyone in Medicare. Get rid of the cap on what people put into Social Security. Pass a law that doesn't allow congress to continue raping the SS/Medicare system.

Administrative costs are 2/3 of medical costs, savings/more affordability right there. Doctors would have to set their prices to be competitive with each other, which would bring prices down. Drug companies wouldn't waste billions on R&D of drugs that don't help 99% of people.

Lots of benefits...but people out of work and other issues are the downsides.
And yet the Republicans are using the deficits they created with their giveaway to the rich as an excuse to call for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

But I'm still stuck on what you've been saying. With one exception, I didn't think it was possible, under the Affordable Care Act, to be in a position where you're so poor as to be homeless or unable to put food on the table, yet still be required to spend money on premiums. That exception is the Republican-controlled states that created a coverage gap by refusing to accept federal money to expand Medicare to cover the working poor. (As a reminder, under the Affordable Care Act, states didn't have that option. The Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution required them to have that option.) What am I missing? --Bob


It seems like anything you comment on has to include a reference to your hatred of republicans. It reminds me of something....
Everything I wrote is factual. Not a word betrays any hatred of Republicans. Every state that turned down the Medicaid expansion was controlled by Republicans when they made that decision. The Affordable Care Act, when passed, required states to expand Medicaid if they wanted to continue participating in the program at all. The Supreme Court (5-4, with Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in the majority) invalidated that portion of the Act. And the refusal to expand Medicaid in those states created a coverage gap -- people in those states who have too little income to qualify for subsidies in the exchanges but (without the expansion) too much income to qualify for Medicaid.

That's why (another fact) coverage rates are much higher in states that accepted the expansion than in states that did not.

Here's the value judgment. Republicans played ideological games in those states and it cost some people their lives. That's both indefensible and unforgivable. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
amazing all that's been said, yet none of it answers the question I asked in the first place:

How many people are being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford to actually use?

This is a real problem, and just like the politicians in Washington, nobody here is acknowledging its existence.

Our health care system is broken even for those with healthcare. Even with my insurance, I often don't go to doctors when I should because of the co-pays and co-insurance.

While nobody has an answer to fix it, making things worse for those already in bad situations while claiming to be helping them is just ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 22055
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
triviawayne wrote:
amazing all that's been said, yet none of it answers the question I asked in the first place:

How many people are being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford to actually use?

This is a real problem, and just like the politicians in Washington, nobody here is acknowledging its existence.

Our health care system is broken even for those with healthcare. Even with my insurance, I often don't go to doctors when I should because of the co-pays and co-insurance.

While nobody has an answer to fix it, making things worse for those already in bad situations while claiming to be helping them is just ridiculous.

Who's forcing people to pay for insurance they can't use? No one that I know of.

You told about insurance that you had through your employer, that you erroneously called a Cadillac plan*, that you couldn't use because of high copays and coinsurance. Who forced you to have that?

(I was in the same situation: I couldn't afford to get a colonoscopy because it wasn't free as it is now, and my deductible was high. When I used some of my BAM winnings to get one, they found a polyp that was very close to bursting through the colon wall.)

*By definition, a Cadillac plan has very low or no copayments and deductibles.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:09 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17500
Location: By the phone
triviawayne wrote:
amazing all that's been said, yet none of it answers the question I asked in the first place:

How many people are being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford to actually use?

This is a real problem, and just like the politicians in Washington, nobody here is acknowledging its existence.

Our health care system is broken even for those with healthcare. Even with my insurance, I often don't go to doctors when I should because of the co-pays and co-insurance.

While nobody has an answer to fix it, making things worse for those already in bad situations while claiming to be helping them is just ridiculous.
I did answer. My answer was none. With the possible exception of working poor in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion, in which case the answer is for those states to adopt the Medicaid expansion. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
Bob78164 wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
amazing all that's been said, yet none of it answers the question I asked in the first place:

How many people are being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford to actually use?

This is a real problem, and just like the politicians in Washington, nobody here is acknowledging its existence.

Our health care system is broken even for those with healthcare. Even with my insurance, I often don't go to doctors when I should because of the co-pays and co-insurance.

While nobody has an answer to fix it, making things worse for those already in bad situations while claiming to be helping them is just ridiculous.
I did answer. My answer was none. With the possible exception of working poor in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion, in which case the answer is for those states to adopt the Medicaid expansion. --Bob


none with a possible exception to blah blah blah is not none; and this problem doesn't know state lines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:38 am
Posts: 516
Bob Juch wrote:
triviawayne wrote:
amazing all that's been said, yet none of it answers the question I asked in the first place:

How many people are being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford to actually use?

This is a real problem, and just like the politicians in Washington, nobody here is acknowledging its existence.

Our health care system is broken even for those with healthcare. Even with my insurance, I often don't go to doctors when I should because of the co-pays and co-insurance.

While nobody has an answer to fix it, making things worse for those already in bad situations while claiming to be helping them is just ridiculous.

Who's forcing people to pay for insurance they can't use? No one that I know of.

You told about insurance that you had through your employer, that you erroneously called a Cadillac plan*, that you couldn't use because of high copays and coinsurance. Who forced you to have that?

(I was in the same situation: I couldn't afford to get a colonoscopy because it wasn't free as it is now, and my deductible was high. When I used some of my BAM winnings to get one, they found a polyp that was very close to bursting through the colon wall.)

*By definition, a Cadillac plan has very low or no copayments and deductibles.


I think you need to look up the definition of "mandate"

with your definition of a Cadillac plan, "very low" is not a definition, so what is very low, and how did you come to conclude that my plan isn't in this boundary you failed to define?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.