Reply With Quote
How so?
Medicare will be bankrupt in ten years! I hardly call that efficient or a model for this health care reform.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n6145432/
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1294
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1791298
How so?
Yoni where are your partners now to back you up? Darrin, Jack? Fuzzy is tea-bagging the out of you and your pathetic partners in crime!
well, they aren't "really" deductible anymore, since the IRS raised the deductible level to only what is over 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income.medical bills etc are tax deductible arent they in america? if not then it really sucks
So for someone who makes, say, $50,000 AGI, and has $4,000 of medical expenses, can only deduct $250 on his tax return.
$50,000 x 7.5% = $3,750, so he can only deduct medical expenses above $3750.
The IRS is saying that they consider spending 7.5% of your gross income on medical expenses to be "normal".
Bravo for finding reports based on projections from the Bush budget cuts of 2004. If you cut funding to something its not going to remain soluble.
That doe snot mitigate the fact that medicare and medicaid are more efficient at getting people medical treatment and procedures over private insurers.
I spent 28 hours in the hospital and it was $13k. Those $6k MRI's are a that I am still fighting today.
Medical costs are so high that $4k isnt especially if you have to spend ANY time in the hospital.
You can blame whomever you want-it's irrelevant. Different parties take control of the white house and blame can go back and forth forever. I voted for Obama, so any party blaming is just unproductive to me and a waste of time.
Also, medicare had financial problems long before the year 2002. If you read up on it, you would clearly see the medicare mess started quite awhile back.
Some people would prefer to trust the government to run healthcare at all costs despite contrary findings. Most people do not believe the government is an efficient machine. I won't bother finding statistical and imperical data to refute your "efficiency" assertion. You clearly prefer the government health care plan thereby incurring more government control in your medical decisions. I would like to make my own choices regarding medical care.
And, I do not believe the government is an efficient machine that will decrease my medical costs, retain the quality of care I receive now while allowing me free choice to make my own medical decisions.
But I have no intention of attempting to change your mind. You are en iled to your opinion. As I am of mine.
I really don't give a for what you 'believe.' The numbers speak for themselves. The government pays less for a doctor's visit or hospital stay etc over AETNA etc. They get more out of a dollar then your precious AETNA and BlueCross. Thats more efficient no matter how much you put your hands over your ears and try to ignore it. Sorry if the truth doesn't jive with your bias.
You don't know how federal budgeting works. Its not like a business where a customer comes in and makes a payment and that is budgeted over time. A program is given large annual allotment and that serves as payment. Well when Bush in essence cut that payment in half it ed everything up. In essence it was the same as an exec taking half of the premiums coming in and then diverting it to building a new office or something. The fact that it was still expected to last for 11 more years is a testament to just how efficient it is. You do that to AETNA and I guarantee they wont last 11 years.
Thats what I love about conservatives. The GOP and Reagan started doing this back in the 80s. They would make sweeping tax cuts and then try and make up for the shortfall by cutting funding to social security and medical care and selling bonds. Yay lower taxes!!!
The sweetest part is they would then turn to the programs that their ing asses underfunded and then try to point to it as a failure. They ing sabotaged it.
Here's a hint: the money that you pay on your taxes thats supposedly earmarked for SS doesn't go to SS.
Your medicare crisis is a direct result of Reagan and then Bush cutting funding to it. Its not because they aren't run well. Its because they were sabotaged.
You can keep your plan until it is no longer available, which will wither away under Obamacare.
Look at a tax form sometime and see just how little you can deduct.
Did you ask for the MRI's or did they do it without your permission? They might have performed unnecessary procedures just so you couldn't sue them on the off chance it would discover something cheaper methods wouldn't discover. It would help to know what was wrong. Also consider how expensive those are, and technicians like me probably make $45 + per hour to calibrate them. They have to charge big money for the procedure to pay for the equipment. If it costs $250,000, then they have to do more than 41,000 of them just to pay for the equipment.
Did you really need a MRI?
The supposed exchange will offer both the public option and as many private options as the private companies want to offer.
Right now, your plan changes annually or bi-annually, so you're never really 'keeping the same plan'. What are you keeping is a plan somewhat similar that gives you certain coverage and deductibles that's important to you.
You can still pick up that program from an exchange. It will be different in that it will be mandated to cover certain baseline procedures. But any of these private plans will have to differentiate themselves enough from the public plan as to providing added value so people are willing to pay more for them.
You can still go with a private plan afterwards. It's really your choice.
I was unconscious from a head injury. The X-rays were negative and they took MRI's on my arms and legs anyway. I can understand the head, neck and back but its the extremities that I absolutely refuse to pay.
A 3 tesla machine costs $3 million. How many scans do you do a day?
Are you sure? I heard the way the legislation is in the current form, you cannot change plans. You must buy the government version if you leave the plan you have.
What he is talking about is how the plans for major businesses that do not meet the new minimum coverage requirements will no longer be available. Why anyone thinks its a good idea to pay a 20% deductible is beyond me.
But what I really think is funny is do people really think that say Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not going to offer a package that does meet the minimum requirements that will be available on the exchange? As it is right now, private insurers will change the plans that are available to your company and you're old plan won't be available. Its not like they dont have a new one. I don't see how this would be any different.
If your current policy meets those minimum requirements you will be able to keep your coverage. If it has one of those stupid deductibles or doesn't cover prescriptions and the like then its out.
The high deductible policies ABSOLUTELY have to go.
You don't. You drop into the exchanges. Now, programs offered through there have to have the baseline coverage that the public option has. But that's the floor. You're free to purchase insurance from a private insurer that offer added value (probably for more money) if you so desire.
Well, no, most people here claim you have to fall into the public option and you have no choice. That's simply not accurate.
They automatically assume that companies cannot provide anything of added value, and they will die away. I don't think that's accurate at all either.
I think most insurance companies will probably move to a system like AARP, where they offer additional value to complement the public option.
That nad companies have to pay additional tax if they don't offer their employees an insurance plans. Its in their best interest to provide coverage and you bet your ass that the previous proveder is going to do everything within their power to keep that contract.
Yeah I was just saying that that is the phenomenon that he is attributing the 'have to go to the state plan' to.
Depends on the tax amount. If they're taxed 8%, and they're currently paying 15-18% to provide coverage, then it might be more economical for them to simply pay the tax. I think the government is actually counting on some of this happening in order to fund part of the program.
Yeah thats true. I also think though that private insurers are actually going to legitimately attempt to negotiate prices down to what medicare and medicaid pay to try and bring those premiums down to compete.
I have no sympathy for them. For years they have negotiated in bad faith to spiral costs up and thus garner larger profits. People will pay whatever they have to when they or their loved ones are sick or hurt and they have preyed upon it the entire time.
These are excepts from the article "5 freedoms you'll lose in health care reform" they are in quotations or bold:
"The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer. "
"Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have."
We don't want full maximum coverage. What if we want what we already have? Why should the government choose what we need and don't need. Most people want choice and to be able to fit a plan according to their needs. Do they know our health more than we do? Mandating full coverage, makes it more expensive to keep my private insurance because the insurer is competing with the highly subsidized government mandated plan. Government Subsidies make it impossible to compete.
"The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services."
"The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses."
I would not have a choice to decline substance and mental health coverage. Yet, it's requiring all of us to pay for that. Also, young healthy people shouldn't be forced to have maximum insurance.
"Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care."
We use HSA together with our insurance, and it's a good combination. It certainly makes us more cost conscious. It seems this plan may be eliminated.
"The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months."
It's just as I thought. If I don't like my current private plan, and want to change it, I would be forced into the exchange which only has the mandated maximized health care coverage plans to pick from. So, this exchange will not allow us to pick a similar private plan.
Rather, we would be forced into the exchange where the minimum coverage is mandated by the government and is different from my original private plan.
Sine the government will mandate the minimum coverage allowed, like substance abuse or mental disorder coverages, all insurers in the exchange would have to carry that minimum policy. So, yes, everybody will have at least the government version policy -they have too.
So, if you don't carry any of the coverages that are mandated by the government, and you leave your private plan for whatever reason, you will be forced into the exchange. So, whether you like it or not, you will have to carry the minimum mandated government coverage plus whatever else you would like to add.
The bill in its current stage is mandating the mental and substance abuse coverage. No one knows yet how much more or less will be mandated until the final version is adopted.
LOL I am a young healthy American and I say you're full of . The only coverage I can afford right now is that bull with the 20% deductible and those policies are complete bull and even they won't give me those anyway.
Regardless medicaid/care already covers that and is cheaper than those plans anyway without any deductible.
Health Reforms hidden victims
Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...720472842.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
