# How do we fix our healthcare system in America?



## Chris

Just curious on your thoughts of how we can fix our healthcare system and make it more affordable for the masses?


Back in January my health insurance premium went up to almost $1700 a month for my family and I. I am 37, my wife is 29 and I have a 4 and 2 year old, thats $20,400 a year before deductibles and copay's. We have a 6500 Deductible. So no matter what happens to any of us we are out 27k before they pay anything. That is a lot of money. We decided that we would let our insurance lapse and pay cash for any doctor visits like we used to. It is a gamble if anything major happens but right now we can't afford the extra.

Personally I was better off before the ACA came around. I know that in order to give more people free or very low cost health care that others that pay more into the system like myself will have to help with this burden but I think it has been getting out of hand. At what point is it stealing from the working class to give to others? Four years ago a family plan cost me about 400 bucks a month and any extra kid was free and I had low copays, now it is more than four times that amount.

People say that we need to go on a system like Canada or the EU where we just get taxed more but healthcare is given to you but if you look at our government they haven't been able to run a succesful program yet so I am worried it would just be another failure.


Our problem is first the insurance companies are a business and businesses are in business to make profit. Second is our Doctors and hospitals are greedy and charge outrageous costs for anything they do or touch. Then you have our government which is also greedy and in business to make a profit and charge several times over for anything they do because of all the people that need to get paid off before the program even see's any tax money. You add them all together and you have the ACA. You force a private insurance company to cover any and all people and they will but they aren't gonna do it cheap and they also are taking advantage of this same situation.

Personally I think our only hope now that we have gone as far as we have and we can not just cancel policies of all these people that just got their free insurance that we need to open the borders and let people buy insurance from any other state. Make as much competition as possible and that will drive down prices. It's either that or let the government fully run it but I don't see that going good. 

What are your thoughts? All I want is my affordable health coverage back.


----------



## havasu

Quit your job, get free healthcare, get free Obama phones, get free Government subsidized internet, file for low income assistance for your utilities, get yourself a free loaded credit card, get free milk, cheese and staples from the various WIC programs, and apply for government (section 8) subsidized housing. Oh yeah, don't forget to apply for welfare, which for 4 of you will be about $1800 per month. Have mama pop out a kid every year, and watch your earnings grow exponentially. If you really want to outsmart California politics, have you and your wife get addicted to drugs. Give the two kids to your dad, and the government will pay your dad $2800 a month per child, and ask him to give you half that money back.


----------



## Chris

Sounds like you have it all planned out. Problem is I don't want to keep popping out kids. Everything else sounds great


----------



## slownsteady

havasu said:


> Quit your job, get free healthcare, get free Obama phones, get free Government subsidized internet, file for low income assistance for your utilities, get yourself a free loaded credit card, get free milk, cheese and staples from the various WIC programs, and apply for government (section 8) subsidized housing. Oh yeah, don't forget to apply for welfare, which for 4 of you will be about $1800 per month. Have mama pop out a kid every year, and watch your earnings grow exponentially. If you really want to outsmart California politics, have you and your wife get addicted to drugs. Give the two kids to your dad, and the government will pay your dad $2800 a month per child, and ask him to give you half that money back.


C'mon grow up for just a little while. Chris asks a serious question, and all you have is the same snappy answer that leads to the same "us & them circus" that always comes next. 
It's a real problem. It's not just the projects population that gets benefitted from the ACA. I saved a little bit under this program. And it is savings lives of real people who otherwise would just circle the drain. Middle class folks with existing conditions. Retirees, independent contractors in many fields, who have to live from paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## nealtw

Ain't going to happen, you don't have enough people to push for what needs to be done.
Do you think you have politicians that could take on insurance companies, doctors, drug companies, hospitals, med lab companies, ex-ray companies and unions all at the same time.

Countries that have a system do negotiate for drug prices, own the hospitals or most of them, they set the price for visits to the doctor, you can't get to a specialist with out a Dr. saying you need to.

Your system will bounce around a few times before one state really takes it up and does it properly then others may follow.

Our basic system does not pay for drugs, dental and few other things, we can buy that  privately. But nobody pays the prices you are quoting


----------



## Chris

When I pay cash like I have for many years I can go straight to a specialist. Also when I pay cash my bills are what they are supposed to be. I had some major back problems a dew years ago and it was cheaper to go cash than pay the co-pays on my insurance. I got my mri for 400 cash when my copay for one was 1000. I just couldn't tell them I had insurance or they would have had to run it that way. My specialist was 65 a visit cash while copay for my general doc was 40. 

I wish we could just get insurance to cover major stuff and pay cash for doctors and whatnot. Nobody should have to pay 20k plus just to see a doctor a couple times a year.


----------



## zannej

I know that it would be quite an undertaking, but I think that because medical treatment is absolutely essential, they need to have more regulation in terms of the pricing. There were two hospitals in the same state just two miles away from one another. The doctors performed the exact same type of treatment with the exact same type of equipment but one hospital charged literally $100,000 more for that treatment.

I think that medical facilities should have what are essentially menus that tell people how much things cost and that people should be able to know ahead of time how much things would cost them. I also think that the government (as overstretched as it is) should do something about price gouging. Now, obviously, prices aren't going to be the same in every state or even city because of the local economies-- but when hospitals are arbitrarily charging obscene amounts for things, they need to be stopped. 

I don't think an uninsured person should be charged more for something than an insurance company would pay for that treatment. I was charged literally 5x what my mother was charged for the same treatment at the same hospital.

And beyond that, they should find out how much things cost to make sure that the hospitals aren't gouging the insurance companies either.

They need to stop insurance companies from cutting people's benefits when they reach 65 (but not cutting the premiums) and forcing them to get supplementary insurance (this is what happened to my mother).

I understand that some people are too impoverished to pay even reasonable prices for things but I don't think it is fair the way they scaled the cost of insurance vs income. I can see making lower payments for people who are below the poverty line or barely making ends meet-- but scaling it up and punishing people who make more money isn't helping. It ends up hurting the middle class the most.

I think they should also do what the commissioner of insurance wanted to do-- which was to consider the $ the insurance companies have in reserve in banks as part of their assets when assessing whether or not those companies can be approved for raising their premiums. They currently don't allow them to consider that money and there are companies with billions in reserve that claim they need to raise rates.

The Medicare system has some pretty stupid things as well-- such as requiring patients to go to hospitals for treatment and testing instead of private doctors when the hospitals actually cost more.

Other than those things, I don't think there is a perfect solution and I don't know what other changes need to be made.

I don't know if the government would actually attempt it-- right now most of the clowns in power don't seem to care about the general masses. They have their special pensions and medical plans that take care of them so why should they give a damn about other people? Unless it actually affected them in some way, they are not likely to do anything.

But that doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to improve things.

Editing to add: I don't think insurance companies should be allowed to reject people for previously existing conditions or refuse to pay for things related to those conditions. And they should not have lifetime or annual payouts.

I'm still bitter that I had to drop my insurance because the premiums tripled, deductible doubled, and the lifetime payout dropped below what I had already paid the insurance-- and I only used that insurance ONCE in the entire time I had it-- and I had that insurance for over 5 years. Of course, as soon as I dropped it I got sick and had to go to the hospital.


----------



## frodo

You hit the nail on the head with a few points
one, if you think single pay is the way to go,   take a look at the VA  and how the vets care is managed
that is big gov, in full action.
the gov. needs to stay out of the health care business,  it needs to be private tised
to help the indigent pay for there health and give them quality care.
the monies that are to be refunded from taxes at the end of the year, should go into a health care account for that person

The only way i see for insurance to be affordable [  Thank you Chris,  could not say it any better my self]

'''Personally I think our only hope now that we have gone as far as we have and we can not just cancel policies of all these people that just got their free insurance that we need to open the borders and let people buy insurance from any other state. Make as much competition as possible and that will drive down prices. It's either that or let the government fully run it but I don't see that going good.'''


----------



## havasu

Bud, my response was not just a snappy, political answer. In California, everything I wrote still occurs on a daily basis. I know several people who have just thrown in the towel and chose the method I described. The problem for us in California is the system is completely broken. THIS is why Chris pays the amount of money he does. We can not change the insurance issue until we change the entire system. What I don't understand is the fact that I have Blue Shield HMO which I pay ~$550 a month for just myself, but the office visit co-pays are $15, and my meds usually cost about $4 a month. 

Chris, we have a very close friend who has helped numerous friends with their medical coverage, and is licensed from ACA to many HMO's and most PPO's. Have you shopped around to get price comparisons? Let me know, you can give her a call, and see if she can save you any money.


----------



## Chris

I am looking in idaho since I am technically a resident there. Hoping it is better. 

My wife has a good friend who is a business owner that is manipulating the system to get all those benefits. Just not taking a paycheck yet the business pays for everything, has been doing this for a few years. I am too scared to do anything shady and figure I can pay cash for my doctors and pay the fine for not having coverage and still save about 15k a year. It all works well until something big happens that's bankrupt me.


----------



## havasu

Here is a post from another Californian on a web site I frequent. It shows precisely why the system is broken.

_Some "lady" at a town hall meeting with a representative or congressman was flamed out.
""My health care was over 400 dollars a month before Obamacare, now it is only 1 dollar, I can't afford 400 dollars a month!"

Really, wow. My wife's health care was about $500 a month BEFORE Obamacare. The first new bill after it passed went up to $700. '
This year it is $850.
So, if she is paying a buck, then I am subsidizing her, almost entirely, because her COSTS didn't go down, just the part she pays.
Because ain't nobody not costing, but only some of us is paying...

This, IMHO, is at the core of what we are facing. More and more people convinced that Socialism is the way to go, thinking they won't have to pay.
And screw the rest of the country, that does pay. In fact, screw the country. Gimmie mine. 
Even if the federal .gov gets a workable repeal in place, and gets the ball rolling, this lady, and those of her ilk, are not going to be happy unless they pay one dollar. 
They have no concept of reality.
They have no self respect
They have no character, dignity, or sense of personal responsibility. None at all.
Gimmie mine.
They are, in a very real sense, for sale. Selling their political loyalty for what they see as free stuff.
_


----------



## bud16415

The old acronym applies TANSTAAFL (there aint no such thing as a free lunch). 

Any way you cut it the piper has to be paid as my mother used to say. 

The federal government has a few ways to do it. They can tax you directly with one of the many taxes you pay or they can tax you indirectly in several secret ways they do to fund things outside the free market like this. One is what they did pass a law that requires insurance companies to cover everyone in a supposedly &#8220;affordable&#8221; way. The companies are now no longer in a free market as regulations are forcing them to change. They can do a couple things they can limit their profits to help pay for the people that can&#8217;t and that isn&#8217;t fair to the investors who will quickly put their money someplace else. They can cut their salaries as many people think are too high and come up with a minuscule amount in the big picture, or they can pass the cost of doing business on to those that can pay until they can&#8217;t. As they have done. Another method they like to do is print money out of thin air and pay for things with that. The problem with doing that is every dollar they print makes everyone you get for working or everyone you have saved worth little bit less. They have done this trillions of times already and workers demand more some at the top get it some at the bottom don&#8217;t. That&#8217;s how we got the (One Percenters) we keep reading about, but it is really more like the 40 percenters as those are the people working at good enough jobs to be paying all these taxes hidden and others for the other 60%. 

Take all the money from the 1% and you won&#8217;t make a drop in the bucket of what is needed. 

IMO what is needed is one of two things ether let things keep going and water will reach its own level and some point and we will be living a third world class of life of equality, or make this into a country of workers and doers and tax payers. 

I heard a rumor that Trump has a new program he plans on putting in place where you can bring your Obama Phone in and trade it in for an alarm clock. This is just a rumor now.


----------



## slownsteady

_This, IMHO, is at the core of what we are facing. More and more people convinced that _[*selfishness*]_ is the way to go, thinking _*[that all the poor folks will just disappear]*._
And screw the rest of the country, that does pay. In fact, screw the country. *Gimmie mine. *_*[And gimme more and more of it.]*_
Even if the federal .gov gets a workable repeal in place, and gets the ball rolling, this lady, and those of her ilk, are not going to be happy unless they pay one dollar. _*(hardly anyone was happy before the ACA either, but that is forgotten)*_
They have no concept of reality.
They have no self respect
They have no character, dignity, or sense of personal responsibility. None at all.
Gimmie mine. _*[and f*ck you if you ain't got any]*_
They are, in a very real sense, for sale. Selling their political loyalty for what they see as_ *[an opportunity to have more.]*

just sayin'


----------



## Chris

Now where do I fall into this? I can't afford healthcare as it is but I'm not poor so I don't qualify for any discounts.


----------



## zannej

Chris, my friend who makes pretty much minimum wage and can't afford healthcare still had to pay the stupid fee for not having insurance because they said he technically made enough money that he should have to get insurance. So, I agree there. Making people pay a fee for NOT having insurance is BS. Yeah, I understand in theory that if those people need medical then it somehow gets covered by other taxpayers-- but that isn't how it always works. Some people still manage to pay.

I know people who were helped by getting lower insurance costs, but I know others who had to cut some of their kids from their policy in order to be able to afford it. One friend was told her rates would go up by $1k a month if she didn't cut her son from her policy. She removed her son from the policy and they hiked her rates up anyway-- and even more than $1k a month. So, she's paying almost $2k a month and her son isn't even covered.

I do think that insurance companies should be able to cross state lines to offer coverage.

In terms of private vs government, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge about it. I do know that the government is a total clusterf*** though.


----------



## slownsteady

Chris, you have options.  It sounds (to me) like you want just catastrophic care coverage. My family had that for a couple of years awhile ago.You would be covered for hospitalzation but you would pay all other health costs out-of-pocket.


----------



## Chris

First off, people in my situation get forgotten, Everyone seems to think of the poor and the 1% and all us working class who really are footing the bill get forgotten. The poor think the 1% should pay for everyone and the 1% don't care for the poor. Us working class get stuck with the real bills and nobody seems to care. I am told that I can afford healthcare and shouldn't complain (Doesn't matter that I can't save for my kids education because of it). They look at responsible people like myself to take care of everyone. I for one am sick of it.


If we could get all the people who pretend they are poor or refuse to work to support themselves we would be in a lot better shape. I for one know of several people who milk the system that don't have to. My father in law gets free health insurance and a few other items from the government. There is absolutely no reason he can not get a job. I have a friend that is on every sort of government assistance you could imagine living the same lifestyle as I am with his live in girlfriend and their kid. Once again absolutely no reason he can't get a job. I know another guy real well that hasn't worked in ten years, him and his live n girlfriend get all the assistance, own two homes and he grows pot for extra cash (All legal). Another example of no reason not to get a job. I personally know of at least 8-10 people that do this and I try to avoid people that do this. Now if I personally know these types and all of you guys know these types then really how many are there that are taking advantage of the system? On the other hand I personally know of maybe one or two people that get assistance that truly need it. I personally think that the majority in big city states like California who are on assistance don't need to be on assistance. I know some of you will say that XYandZ reason they can not get a job but these don't even look for work and will avoid work when it is presented.

Maybe we need to go to if you are an able bodied person and are applying for assistance then you have to put in so many hours of community service in order to get benefits?

I just don't get it. I live pretty frugal and I own a fairly successful company and I still can't afford these premiums. I don't finance anything but my home, all my cars are paid for. I have basic TV and we never go out to eat or do things.


----------



## Chris

slownsteady said:


> Chris, you have options.  It sounds (to me) like you want just catastrophic care coverage. My family had that for a couple of years awhile ago.You would be covered for hospitalzation but you would pay all other health costs out-of-pocket.



I would love that but it is not an option to me. I can get a plan close to that but it is still almost as expensive as a plan that covers things. I used to have a plan like that years ago and my insurance guy just can't find any anymore.


----------



## slownsteady

I guess that CA is different...as I have been told :hide:! I don't disagree that some things still have to change, and I feel your pain (and many others) on this topic. But I think it is still way above all that was happening before.
here's another thought: one of the big problems has always been that when you leave a company, you lose your health coverage...just another form of captive servitude. Instead of allowing tax breaks for corporations who provide health insurance, remove those incentives and let the insurance companies have to compete on the retail level.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> my friend who makes pretty much minimum wage and can't afford healthcare still had to pay the stupid fee for not having insurance because they said he technically made enough money that he should have to get insurance.



Dont forget ACA was the first time in the history of this country that the government made you buy something. Your friend didnt buy it and was fined for not doing so. That amount started out small and would have grown every year if HRC would have been elected and ACA continued. It is like putting a persons head in a vice and saying buy this item and the first year give it one turn the second 2 turns the third 3 turns. Pretty soon you will buy it or quit working and get it for free. So where did that money he paid in a fine go? Not to an insurance company.


----------



## Chris

slownsteady said:


> I guess that CA is different...as I have been told :hide:! I don't disagree that some things still have to change, and I feel your pain (and many others) on this topic. But I think it is still way above all that was happening before.
> here's another thought: one of the big problems has always been that when you leave a company, you lose your health coverage...just another form of captive servitude. Instead of allowing tax breaks for corporations who provide health insurance, remove those incentives and let the insurance companies have to compete on the retail level.



Competition is always good. 

You forget you don't loose your healthcare when leaving a company at least not here, you have the option to have Cobra insurance. It might cost you five times what it is worth but you do have the option to keep your insurance.:down:

I have wanted to give my employees healthcare for several years now but it is just not affordable. My last quote which was last year it would cost my company about 8k a month for the policy and then each individual would be the same as if they got their own insurance. Didn't make sense.

One thing I like about what our president is doing is the removal of two old regulations for every new one proposed, that forces the government o at least look at things. Many times what was good ten years ago is not good now.


----------



## bud16415

People are selfish now and the country believes they should be looked after by the government. In the history of this country people looked after people. Family, friends and churches took care of their own and industry stepped in and offered health insurance not to make you a slave of the company but to make you want to work there. It was competition to have the best work for you and to keep the best you offered the best. What is wrong with that? There have always been people that didn&#8217;t chose to work and it is a free country. Life isn&#8217;t at all fair some people get sick some get run over by a bus and some are naturally healthy and lucky. Some people are self destructive and smoke, drink, do drugs, eat poorly, are careless and don&#8217;t stay fit. Others do positive things and stay healthier. There is nowhere it says you always will be bailed out. 

It might sound cruel to have a system like this but without it you are hurting even more people by not making them try. When you make someone try the ones that truly need help will come to the surface and individuals will help not the collective.


----------



## zannej

I guess where I live the economy is so different. Most of the people I know who are on public assistance are ones who need it. A good majority of them work but don't get paid much because the job market here sucks and there aren't really many high paying jobs available. If anything, the assistance available to people in my area is not sufficient-- but that is because we don't have the same types of programs that are available in California.

What we have though, is a system that penalizes people for working and rewards people for being lazy. 

Over in NM, my sister has a friend who's mother totally abuses the system. She gets paid to take care of her disabled adult daughter, she doesn't declare income from rent she charges for people to keep their trailers on her property, and my sister's friend gets paid to be listed as a caretaker for her sister but she pays the entire amount she gets as rent to her mother (even though that disaster of a house would never pass safety standards to be rentable).

Over in another state (I can't remember which one) I have a friend who had to quit working to take care of her disabled sister fulltime. Her sister needs constant care and can't be left alone for any length of time and didn't have any type of insurance to pay to be put in a facility so my friend is stuck. She ended up getting on some programs to help her and to get some part-time care so she can go to the grocery store, and I think she basically gets paid by the government to take care of her sister-- so being the caretaker is essentially her job.

Louisiana doesn't pay people to take care of their family members-- so my mother provides for me financially in exchange for me taking care of her. I'm lucky that my mother can afford to do that. I know many other people who can't afford it. People die here from lack of medical care because they can't afford it.

I admit, I get very annoyed at the people who abuse the system and who live very well while some people I know go hungry or have their utilities shut off because they don't make enough from working to keep up. Some of them do make just enough, but can't afford any setbacks-- so when something breaks and they need to get it fixed or they have medical issues, it screws things up.

Bud, I wish communities still looked after people-- but when most of the community is not doing well themselves or when you have issues with family members on drugs, it can be hard for people to get help. I keep mentioning a friend of mine who works his *** off but gets little pay. His mother was an abusive drug addict (I think she's clean now), his father and uncles are drug addicts. The father and uncles steal from the grandparents and there are no reliable family members to help my friend. The local churches don't do much of anything to help. The Catholic church used to donate stuff to the needy and do things to help the community, but a "new" priest came over from India and has since canceled ALL charitable functions of the church. He canceled most of the social events as well- no more BINGO night, which actually helped the church to get money. We don't have any mega-churches around, but I know over in Texas there are a few of them. Huge multi-million dollar structures while there are people struggling to make ends meet.


----------



## zannej

bud16415 said:


> Don&#8217;t forget ACA was the first time in the history of this country that the government made you buy something. Your friend didn&#8217;t buy it and was fined for not doing so. That amount started out small and would have grown every year if HRC would have been elected and ACA continued. It is like putting a persons head in a vice and saying buy this item and the first year give it one turn the second 2 turns the third 3 turns. Pretty soon you will buy it or quit working and get it for free. So where did that money he paid in a fine go? Not to an insurance company.



True. I know some people argue that the government makes people buy insurance for cars-- but people can choose to have cars. They can't choose whether or not to be healthy (although they can do things to affect that health). That fee was just idiotic. My friend checked to see how much it would realistically cost for insurance for him and his daughter and it was over 50% of his income (after taxes). But the formula they used to calculate it made it seem like he could afford it.

Also, to Chris: I have a friend who is a nurse in Idaho. If you have any specific questions about healthcare there, I can ask her.

Editing because for some reason it quoted something I didn't click to quote.


----------



## nealtw

If I remember correctly the idea of insurance in the US started in a hospital in Texas in the twenties. You could join for $1 a month and that would entitle  you to 21 days in the hospital.

This was written by an unknown to me Doctor about hospital bankruptcies 2011.

He makes note of two changes made by politicians who didn't think it thru and attempted to solve a problem by creating another one . One in 1983 and one in 2003.
I think the lesson has to be that a lot of people have to do a lot of work, to work thru all the details.
Hospitals are only one part of the problem. 

http://truecostofhealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bankrupt_Hospitals.211200419.pdf


----------



## Chris

Neal, Can you tell me more about healthcare in Canada? I am curious about it, most people from there seem to thinks it works well. I am curious about a few things, what is covered? Is there long wait times like people say? How much higher are your taxes compared to here in the US? How much does it cost you that you know of? What else can you tell me about it?


----------



## slownsteady

Chris said:


> Neal, Can you tell me more about healthcare in Canada? I am curious about it, most people from there seem to thinks it works well. I am curious about a few things, what is covered? Is there long wait times like people say? How much higher are your taxes compared to here in the US? How much does it cost you that you know of? What else can you tell me about it?


If you move a little further north, you can answer those questions yourself :banana:
But seriously folks......there are a lot more variables in a tax bill than just medical insurance.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> Neal, Can you tell me more about healthcare in Canada? I am curious about it, most people from there seem to thinks it works well. I am curious about a few things, what is covered? Is there long wait times like people say? How much higher are your taxes compared to here in the US? How much does it cost you that you know of? What else can you tell me about it?



There are things to complain about, the long wait time for some tests is the big one. But with that too it has to be sorted out, most people see a Dr. 3 or 4 times a year and Dr.s order test that might be thought of as not needed but the attempt is to catch things early.  If you are really sick and show up at the hospital and need a MRI  they seem to find room in the schedule to fit you in.

Like I said earlier it does not cover drugs so for some people with certain drugs or dentists.
that can be tough. I think for some it might be helped a little. Years ago when I shut down a business and the following year I should no income on my taxes and for the prescriptions, I only paid dispensing fees  
the following year.
I think we get so many visits to a chiropractor and physio theripest , there might be a small co pay with those.

Each province runs their own system and both the province and the feds kick some into the system.

I would be surprised if a family of four would ever pay close to $500 a month but I don't know.
A few years ago I was paying $900 a year, when I turned 65 they sent me a check and said he didn't have to pay, then we got a different Gov. and I am back to $900 per year.

Just for a side story, 20 years ago back east they were having problems with cigarettes coming across the border  so the fed and the province back there lowered the taxes to take the money out of smuggling. The fed came to BC and asked them to do the same. Our premiere said that would cost more than we put into BC medical. So I guess we can thank the smokers for paying for our medical


----------



## slownsteady

Yes, People _are_ selfish....and that can be said of people on either end of the debate.


----------



## zannej

Too bad AlefromItaly is not here right now. He told me that they have free healthcare for most things in Italy but there are long waits-- but he also said that people can still see other doctors sooner and choose to pay for things out of pocket if they want. Italy also has mandatory 6-months maternity leave after a baby is born (which I was told by an Italian schoolteacher who was having a baby).
I think France also has free medical, but I would have to ask my friend Chantou more about that. 
I think that the mostly free medical probably works a bit better in smaller countries with good economies. 
But the US is huge and the economy varies rather drastically depending on where you go.
The supreme selfishness of some of the super-wealthy doesn't help. The ones who find loopholes to not pay taxes and worry more about accruing even more money because they can't stand the thought of anyone having more than they do. It makes me appreciate the ones who believe in helping people out and giving back to the community. On the flipside, we have lower income people who think that the government or society owes them something and they bilk the system for all they can get while the people who really need the help are screwed.
Jimmy Carter calling it "entitlement" was a huge mistake.


----------



## frodo

I do not believe the government owes you health care


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> There are things to complain about, the long wait time for some tests is the big one. But with that too it has to be sorted out, most people see a Dr. 3 or 4 times a year and Dr.s order test that might be thought of as not needed but the attempt is to catch things early.  If you are really sick and show up at the hospital and need a MRI  they seem to find room in the schedule to fit you in.
> 
> Like I said earlier it does not cover drugs so for some people with certain drugs or dentists.
> that can be tough. I think for some it might be helped a little. Years ago when I shut down a business and the following year I should no income on my taxes and for the prescriptions, I only paid dispensing fees
> the following year.
> I think we get so many visits to a chiropractor and physio theripest , there might be a small co pay with those.
> 
> Each province runs their own system and both the province and the feds kick some into the system.
> 
> I would be surprised if a family of four would ever pay close to $500 a month but I don't know.
> A few years ago I was paying $900 a year, when I turned 65 they sent me a check and said he didn't have to pay, then we got a different Gov. and I am back to $900 per year.
> 
> Just for a side story, 20 years ago back east they were having problems with cigarettes coming across the border  so the fed and the province back there lowered the taxes to take the money out of smuggling. The fed came to BC and asked them to do the same. Our premiere said that would cost more than we put into BC medical. So I guess we can thank the smokers for paying for our medical




Before the ACA a family medical plan was in the 4-500 dollar range here. The only complaints I can personally remember was pre existing conditions but that was only for personal policies, group policies that you would get through your employer did not exclude you because of a pre existing. I went through several specialists and a couple surgeries and never did I have to spend more than a couple hundred bucks on anything. For me and just about everyone I knew the old system worked just fine. I also remember all of my friends who were on welfare or assistance always had healthcare to and for free, I was confused when the ACA was proposed because I didn't know there were people that couldn't get healthcare. I remember a few times going to the hospital with no insurance and the nurses would have me fill out some paperwork and I would be given some sort of government insurance (Don't know if it was state or Fed, I was young) and it was free and covered things that already happened. I think the only people I knew that were not covered where people who declined the coverage from their employer, I had a couple buddies that just didn't want to pay for it. I am sure I didn't see it all but like I said I grew up very poor and all my friends were poor and most were on assistance and I just can't remember any of these problems people talk about. 15 years ago I was happier than a pig in poop with my healthcare, it cost me about 50 bucks a month and everything had a 10 dollar copay, specialist was 30 and er was 150. Super easy and cheap. I miss those days.


----------



## Chris

frodo said:


> I do not believe the government owes you health care



I agree, The government does not need to be babysitting me, I am an adult and can take care of myself. To me the government is there to build our military and protect us from foreign governments, keep our roads driveable and the normal police, fire and emergency services. We pay them to do that.  I think there is a thing of too much involvement.


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> I agree, The government does not need to be babysitting me, I am an adult and can take care of myself. To me the government is there to build our military and protect us from foreign governments, keep our roads driveable and the normal police, fire and emergency services. We pay them to do that.  I think there is a thing of too much involvement.



agree 100%

work or go hungry, community takes care of community
THIS also helps with crime, the closer a community is, the less BS they will accept from the people in the community
the church is the key to the heart of the community, and the local water hole for those that do not attend church
every one knows everyone and public shame/ridicule/ shunning works wonders
also, take patrol cars away from the cops, make them walk the beat.
they will get to know everyone, instead of ridding by in a car with the AC on

basically, make **** simpler, simple works, complicated does not


----------



## Chris

That works to an extent, take a place like CA, this place is so large cops can't walk any beat but I do agree they should park and get out and associate more often. When I was growing up they would stop and talk to us now they do just roll by with their windows up, very little community involvement. Same goes for neighborhoods, I try and meet everyone I possibly can and we work together on things and look out for eachother. People think I am odd because I do this. Most people in the big city here would rather not know their neighbor and better yet have something to complain about them. In big cities like here there is so much of one trying to scam the next out of something everyone on the road is cutting each other off and just plain rude. When you do actually get to talk to people most are pleasant but all think the other guy is at fault for whatever problem is in their head. Its just a Rat race to live and die in the big city. I am not anti government by any means but like anything, what works for you in your rural town doesn't always work here in the big city and vise versa. I feel for people like Zanne that live in a very rural and poor area but only to a certain extent, if a person has the motivation they will either find a way to succeed or move. I grew up in a small town with no future unless you could get into a government job when someone died. I dropped out of school to work, by 16 I was working a few jobs at once. I was tired of living off top ramen so I went out and worked my *** off and it has paid off now 25 years later. I never looked back and wasn't scared to take a chance. I believe if I can do it why can't others? I am not educated, I grew up dirt floor poor and only had one thing handed to me and that was a good honest work ethic and a grandfather that drilled it into my head my entire childhood to work hard, be honest, save every penny possible and pay cash for things and don't buy stuff I don't need. I was taught that financing anything other than a home and possibly a car is not a good idea. I learned more skills at a young age because I had to, first I didn't have TV or video games and when things broke we fixed them as a family, grandpa would show up and my brother, myself mom and grandpa would do whatever needed to be done whether it was roof the house or paint or plumbing, I mean everything, there was nothing we hired out or didn't do as a family. You don't see any of that now days, it seems teenagers are just plain dumb and have no interest in doing anything which makes them into lazy adults that have no skills.


----------



## zannej

Where I live, the cops are corrupt. There are at least two who "allegedly" use meth. The church-going folks act all pious and superior but treat other people like garbage. Shame and public humiliation doesn't seem to work because some people are proud of being criminals or scumbags. I met a guy recently who bragged about how he used to sell meth (and the cops were some of his clients).

Some communities have just devolved to the point where there just isn't the support that should be there.

Now, this is not the government's fault, nor do I think that healthcare should be entirely the government's responsibility-- but I do think that the government should look out for the best interests of the people by making sure people aren't getting screwed over by hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies.

As for health insurance, prior to the ACA, a friend of mine had a husband with MS. It caused him to have severe pain, angry outbursts, brain freeze, and he was unable to function at times. He was able to work for awhile, but his behavior at work was unacceptable (due to the brain lesions causing his outbursts) and his boss only kept him on out of pity-- but even that only lasted so long and when his symptoms got worse, the guy couldn't work anymore. So, my friend was supporting her husband and their daughter on a teacher's salary. She had medical through her work but the insurance companies started refusing to cover things for her husband-- first they said the medicines he needed were only covered for one year (and the meds were several thousand $ per month). The only alternative med that the insurance could help cover had an absurd co-pay over over $1k. Then the insurance companies said the husband had hit his lifetime payout and they refused to cover anything else for him-- yet she still had to pay her portion of the policy that included him as if he was still covered. She almost had to declare bankruptcy. Her husband was denied disability benefits (they said he could still move his arms and therefore he could work-- this was in North Carolina). On the flipside, I know people who claim to be disabled who aren't actually disabled. They could work-- and actually did do a lot of manual labor under the table while collecting disability payments. So, the medical is just not equal all over the country.

Editing to add: Once ACA came in to play, the insurance companies had to pay for stuff for the husband again. So it helped her. But I do know that the premium hikes and other BS hurt a lot of people.


----------



## slownsteady

I know that nothing is as black and white as it seems...lots of gray areas, but I like to blame the insurance companies. When they tell you that you can't go to this Dr. or that Dr. When they tell you that you can't take the only medicine that helps. When they won't pay for tests. I lost my brother in law that way. His cardiologist said he needed a stress test, the insurance company said he doesn't. He died of a heart attack just a few weeks later.
There is so much money in the medical industry that everyone wants a piece of the pie. I don't want an accountant making any medical decisions for me!


----------



## Chris

My mom died because a doctor wouldn't listen to her. She did not have insurance and went to urgent care where many that just want pills go. She was sent away four days in a row when she kept telling them there was something wrong in her chest. They pretty much ignored her and kept telling her she had some mild something or another. Never once would do any tests even though she begged for them.  I didn't know until it was to late. She kept an hourly journal the last week of her life like she knew the end was near. I just wish she would have called and said something and I would have made sure she got taken care of. The day she dies she called my sister at 5am but didn't want to go to the ER because of the cost and while waiting for the doctors office to open she died. I was in my way there and about an hour away. 

I agree there is far too much politics involved in health care. I honestly don't know of any good fix.


----------



## zannej

Chris said:


> My mom died because a doctor wouldn't listen to her. She did not have insurance and went to urgent care where many that just want pills go. She was sent away four days in a row when she kept telling them there was something wrong in her chest. They pretty much ignored her and kept telling her she had some mild something or another. Never once would do any tests even though she begged for them.  I didn't know until it was to late. She kept an hourly journal the last week of her life like she knew the end was near. I just wish she would have called and said something and I would have made sure she got taken care of. The day she dies she called my sister at 5am but didn't want to go to the ER because of the cost and while waiting for the doctors office to open she died. I was in my way there and about an hour away.
> 
> I agree there is far too much politics involved in health care. I honestly don't know of any good fix.


Oh man, I'm so sorry to hear that happened to your mother. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens so often. Particularly with women. There are all sorts of studies that have found that women generally are not taken as seriously by medical professionals and don't get the same standard of care. I think I read that on average, men will be made to wait 45 minutes in an ER while women are made to wait 60+. Men are more likely to be taken seriously and get tests run while women are often dismissed and told they are exaggerating or being babies about things. Women are more likely to complain of pain and have more severe pain but are less likely to be given pain medication.

There was an article about some of the more disturbing cases where women were ignored by doctors-- there was one particular woman who was in the ER over 13 hours and nobody would run tests or help her. If it hadn't been for her husband physically grabbing a doctor and convincing him to examine his wife, she would have died. And that woman had insurance.

It always makes me sad when I hear about people who died or had severe complications because the insurance wouldn't approve necessary treatment.  I've seen it happen to a few people I know.

And my mother has had to fight with her insurance for refusing to cover a doctor's bill because the hospital was covered but that particular doctor was not on their "preferred" list. She did successfully argue with them and get them to pay. If the hospital itself is "preferred" then it should cover all of the doctors in it.

I was reading somewhere that one of the wealthiest people in the country made their money selling medical supplies. I don't have a problem with medical companies making some profit, but I think that there needs to be some sort of balance where they aren't making an obscene amount of profit to the detriment of people's lives. When people are dying because they can't afford an essential medicine that is selling for thousands of $ while only costing about $1 or less, there is something wrong.


----------



## nealtw

Apparently no one knew how complicated solving healthcare would be.:rofl:


----------



## johnjh2o

Trump should come out with another health care program but also keep Obama care and give people the choice as to which one they want. Then sit back and watch Obama care implode.


----------



## oldognewtrick

Obama Care is already imploding, high cost, high deductibles, providers leaving, it either needs to be fixed or replaced. Its been a disaster since its inception, limited coverage, high costs, hard to understand, typical of what we see with government involvement in an industry that should remain privatised.


----------



## slownsteady

Yeah, who knew? We should have started this thread on Twitter, then maybe it would have been read by "someone".
Anyhow, yes, the ACA (Obamacare) was a hybrid that can't go on living too long. But it was a start and a patch to the existing (previous) system, which was also imploding. But if you leave it to free-market capitalism, people will die. And there is no guarantee that YOU (any of you) will always have the money necessary to buy healthcare. 
So come up with something GOOD and QUICK that everyone can like.


----------



## oldognewtrick

We've seen the result of quick, lets take a deep breath and find a workable system that we can read before its crammed down our throats.


----------



## Chris

I don't have the money to buy healthcare now. I did before the aca. They just shifted who could afford it from the working class to the non working class.


----------



## slownsteady

Chris said:


> I don't have the money to buy healthcare now. I did before the aca. They just shifted who could afford it from the working class to the non working class.


Part of that might be California's fault, not completely the feds.


----------



## Chris

slownsteady said:


> Part of that might be California's fault, not completely the feds.



Very well could be.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Yeah, who knew? We should have started this thread on Twitter, then maybe it would have been read by "someone".
> Anyhow, yes, the ACA (Obamacare) was a hybrid that can't go on living too long. But it was a start and a patch to the existing (previous) system, which was also imploding. But if you leave it to free-market capitalism, people will die. And there is no guarantee that YOU (any of you) will always have the money necessary to buy healthcare.
> So come up with something GOOD and QUICK that everyone can like.



Why is free market capitalism a dirty word. It is the engine that has taken us 200 years from nothing to the place we are in the modern world. 

Look at it instead of healthcare as an equally important maybe more important of us being healthy issue the food supply. It is a good example of free market capitalism. There is plenty of government oversight in all aspects of farming, processing and distribution of food goods and restaurant services all under the rules of the government but operating under the rules of free market capitalism. The government doesn&#8217;t tell you what you must eat and when and where you eat it. And if you don&#8217;t you have to pay a fine.  Well at least they didn&#8217;t used to tell you. If the food supply was run by the government we would all be starving without free competition in the market place.

ACA was never intended to work it was only a starting point as far as they could go to get something passed. What they really wanted was a one payer system. The adjusting that&#8217;s going on now would be going on to if HRC had got in but it would be adjusting in the other direction moving closer to a one payer system. That is why they are called progressives. That is the methodology they use to change things slowly in one direction.


----------



## slownsteady

bud16415 said:


> Why is free market capitalism a dirty word. It is the engine that has taken us 200 years from nothing to the place we are in the modern world.



I didn't say it was a dirty word. BUT....capitalism is a contest. It is a game which will produce winners and losers (remember that saying from the '80s: "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins.") Well, that's fine as long as you're winning. But eventually you will come up against somebody (or some company) that will beat you....and then you're a loser. What happens to all the losers? Do they disappear? If you have enough losers hanging around, they might get the idea to restart the game.
The alternative is a plutocracy, where the vast majority of us are relegated to some form of serfdom.



bud16415 said:


> Look at it instead of healthcare as an equally important maybe more important of us being healthy issue the food supply. It is a good example of free market capitalism.


Perhaps you were just making an analogy here, but free market capitalism allows grocers to choose not to put stores in unprofitable locations. hence the creation of "food deserts" in some urban areas. No good food choices= no healthy lifestyle.




bud16415 said:


> That is why they are called progressives. That is the methodology they use to change things slowly in one direction.


----------



## Chris

Remember you also choose where to live, you don't have to live in a food desert. Pretty much everyone has the ability to move or relocate unless they are in prison. We move for jobs all the time, I am personally moving for my health and tge quality upbringing of my kids. Life is what you make it. Key words "what you make it"


----------



## slownsteady

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have the ability to move because you have money. You are only seeing things through your own eyes.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> I didn't say it was a dirty word. BUT....capitalism is a contest. It is a game which will produce winners and losers (remember that saying from the '80s: "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins.") Well, that's fine as long as you're winning. But eventually you will come up against somebody (or some company) that will beat you....and then you're a loser. What happens to all the losers? Do they disappear? If you have enough losers hanging around, they might get the idea to restart the game.
> The alternative is a plutocracy, where the vast majority of us are relegated to some form of serfdom.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you were just making an analogy here, but free market capitalism allows grocers to choose not to put stores in unprofitable locations. hence the creation of "food deserts" in some urban areas. No good food choices= no healthy lifestyle.




I will agree with you on several points capitalism isnt a game or a contest it is a competition. It is one you can take part in or sit on the sidelines and watch. I can site you 1000s of people that used it to different degrees to lift themselves and the people they care about out of one class of life to a higher quality of life. Chris is a good example as he has told us his story before. He is not Bill Gates maybe but nonetheless he shows us the positive values of life in this country under free market capitalism. 

I never said the system wasnt cruel because there are always winners and losers.  Capitalism doesnt say that everyone will be a winner no system can say that. What it causes is an overall positive effect for those surrounding the winner. Just because one person does good doesnt mean the people around him are surfs. They might have not done as well as the boss they still are doing better than they would have in a stagnant system where everyone is forced to be equal. There are all kinds of equality and sometime everyone being equal is that they all suffer equally. 

The analogy to be made should be free market capitalism is an example of a rising tide lifts all ships.

I had to laugh at your counter statement to my food analogy, because it is so true of government intervention in free market capitalism. You suggest that grocery store owners shouldnt be allowed to try and put all their stores in profitable locations. I agree people in a town of 250 people out in the middle of nowhere deserve a super Wal-Mart center and the all rich and powerful Wal-Mart should have to build them one and truck in the 200 employees to run it as long as we are at it they need one each of the ten top fast food places all the big cities have and maybe a half dozen family sit down restaurants and 3 or 4 mini marts. They need a lowes and home depot. Maybe a big sports store and a cinaplex also. About that time the 250 people living there that liked the simple life will be moving out. 

Free market capitalism was never intended to be without a down side and suffering for some. Thats why the founders didnt make free market capitalism the God of the country. They allowed a system where people build their businesses under that system and form their beliefs how others should be treated according to their faith. So maybe something has been lost along the way. We now see a starving person and we dont think we are doing ok we should help this person because it is what our religion tells us to do. Instead we say it is because that 1% guy has too much and if he only had to give more of it to the government then the government could help this guy out. 

Thats the classic debate between individual salvation and collective salvation. HRC wrote a book about it It takes a Village BHO many times spoke of the idea of collective salvation.


----------



## slownsteady

Trust me, a person with water up to his neck does not appreciate a rising tide.



> I had to laugh at your counter statement to my food analogy, because it is so true of government intervention in free market capitalism. You suggest that grocery store owners shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to try and put all their stores in profitable locations. I agree people in a town of 250 people out in the middle of nowhere deserve a super Wal-Mart center and the all rich and powerful Wal-Mart should have to build them one and truck in the 200 employees to run it as long as we are at it they need one each of the ten top fast food places all the big cities have and maybe a half dozen family sit down restaurants and 3 or 4 mini marts. They need a lowes and home depot. Maybe a big sports store and a cinaplex also. About that time the 250 people living there that liked the simple life will be moving out.



Wow, you took that statement in a totally different direction than I was implying. Perhaps you should look up "food desert" and see what I was talking about.
I never said that grocers should not be allowed to put stores where they want (I don't think I even "suggested" it) I was illustrating how people that are poor are at such a disadvantage that even getting a crack at proper foods is a challenge, and how that relates back to healthcare issues. And I was not talking about small towns, although that can happen there as well. It is happening right in the middle of our biggest cities.
And you carrying the analogy to other big box stores in this context is just ridiculous.


----------



## zannej

Walmart won't even hire that many employees anymore-- not even the "super Walmart" in my town. The Walton kids are some of the wealthiest people in the country- the son is the wealthiest person in his state and the daughter is the wealthiest person in her state. Yet a majority of the employees require second jobs and/or public assistance to make ends meet. It is an example of the pure greed of huge corporations like that.

Granted, I don't know if there are any laws that the government could pass to make places like Walmart give better pay and treatment to employees. They would just find loopholes-- like when they had to give benefits to fulltime employees so they only have a few that they hire as fulltime and classify the rest as part-time and work them just under the amount of hours needed for fulltime. And they give them crap hours and they hire fewer people and expect a single employee to do the job of 5.  This was one of the ways that the ACA hurt employees indirectly because greedy places like Walmart cut much-needed hours just to avoid paying benefits. And the sad thing is, if they paid their employees a living wage, it would only reduce their profits by 1%.

Also, like slownsteady said, not everyone has the option to just up and move. Not everyone has enough money to get transportation to move. Where I live, there is no public transportation. There are only sidewalks in a few places. There are no bike lanes. People can't safely walk or bike to another town-- and even if they could, the nearest towns have crap economies too.

Now, granted, there is a problem with people having fatalistic attitudes where they really feel trapped and hopeless. When people are taught that they don't have options or when they have tried to better themselves only to get stomped right back down by life, it can be hard for them to get back on their feet without help. Not all people who work hard have the opportunity or luck to be successful. Especially when there are large corporations like Walmart that treat employees like garbage and violate the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by firing employees who get hospitalized, have severe health problems, or have to take care of sick relatives (mostly children) urgently. Granted, that doesn't happen at all Walmarts, but it happens at the one where I live. I have a friend who got fired for having a seizure at work. There were multiple ones who were fired for getting injured at work (due to unsafe equipment or managerial negligence) and one who got fired for having a medical crisis during childbirth that required her to stay in the hospital for longer than expected.

I think one of the problems is that people often view the world the way they have experienced it. So, if in your own experience you have found that something works for you, it is natural to feel that it should work for other people. But the economy and cultures vary drastically from one place to another in the US. You have people who are extremely wealthy and then you have people who are dirt poor.

Even if everyone had an excellent work ethic, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee success or that life wouldn't kick them in the balls. And on the flipside, there are some people who are just handed everything on a platter and never have to work for anything but they look down on the working class and/or completely lack empathy for others because they don't know what it is like to actually work. 

But I've digressed vastly from the topic now. I think that as long as we have people who value money over human lives, we will have this problem. And the government can't force people to care about others or to not be greedy.

I honestly don't know what could be done to rectify some of those problems. But I don't think it is ever as black and white as some people seem to think. Different situations require different solutions. I don't know if there will ever be one mass plan that can fairly cover it all. But, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find something that will help as many people as possible without causing unfair disadvantage to others.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Walmart won't even hire that many employees anymore-- not even the "super Walmart" in my town. The Walton kids are some of the wealthiest people in the country- the son is the wealthiest person in his state and the daughter is the wealthiest person in her state. Yet a majority of the employees require second jobs and/or public assistance to make ends meet. It is an example of the pure greed of huge corporations like that.
> 
> Granted, I don't know if there are any laws that the government could pass to make places like Walmart give better pay and treatment to employees. They would just find loopholes-- like when they had to give benefits to fulltime employees so they only have a few that they hire as fulltime and classify the rest as part-time and work them just under the amount of hours needed for fulltime. And they give them crap hours and they hire fewer people and expect a single employee to do the job of 5.  This was one of the ways that the ACA hurt employees indirectly because greedy places like Walmart cut much-needed hours just to avoid paying benefits. And the sad thing is, if they paid their employees a living wage, it would only reduce their profits by 1%.
> 
> Also, like slownsteady said, not everyone has the option to just up and move. Not everyone has enough money to get transportation to move. Where I live, there is no public transportation. There are only sidewalks in a few places. There are no bike lanes. People can't safely walk or bike to another town-- and even if they could, the nearest towns have crap economies too.
> 
> Now, granted, there is a problem with people having fatalistic attitudes where they really feel trapped and hopeless. When people are taught that they don't have options or when they have tried to better themselves only to get stomped right back down by life, it can be hard for them to get back on their feet without help. Not all people who work hard have the opportunity or luck to be successful. Especially when there are large corporations like Walmart that treat employees like garbage and violate the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by firing employees who get hospitalized, have severe health problems, or have to take care of sick relatives (mostly children) urgently. Granted, that doesn't happen at all Walmarts, but it happens at the one where I live. I have a friend who got fired for having a seizure at work. There were multiple ones who were fired for getting injured at work (due to unsafe equipment or managerial negligence) and one who got fired for having a medical crisis during childbirth that required her to stay in the hospital for longer than expected.
> 
> I think one of the problems is that people often view the world the way they have experienced it. So, if in your own experience you have found that something works for you, it is natural to feel that it should work for other people. But the economy and cultures vary drastically from one place to another in the US. You have people who are extremely wealthy and then you have people who are dirt poor.
> 
> Even if everyone had an excellent work ethic, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee success or that life wouldn't kick them in the balls. And on the flipside, there are some people who are just handed everything on a platter and never have to work for anything but they look down on the working class and/or completely lack empathy for others because they don't know what it is like to actually work.
> 
> But I've digressed vastly from the topic now. I think that as long as we have people who value money over human lives, we will have this problem. And the government can't force people to care about others or to not be greedy.
> 
> I honestly don't know what could be done to rectify some of those problems. But I don't think it is ever as black and white as some people seem to think. Different situations require different solutions. I don't know if there will ever be one mass plan that can fairly cover it all. But, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to find something that will help as many people as possible without causing unfair disadvantage to others.



We had a Wal-Mart move in a reasonable distance outside the little town I grew up in here. As a kid we had three little grocery stores a hardware and a Western Auto and three filling stations that also did car repairs and we even had a car dealer. The three stores battled it out until one survived and doubled in size it was a mom and pop operation and he employed locals and pretty much they had a job for life if they wanted it. I wasnt happy about Wal-Mart coming in particular, but what really surprised me was how many of the long-time locals quit their jobs in town and went to work for Wal-Mart as soon as it opened. So, there had to be some attraction to wanting to work there. As expected the last grocery store went under as all the towns people went to Wal-Mart to shop. I go in the Wal-Mart now and the people working I know seem happy and I havent seen a revolt or a walkout because they were treated like slave labor. 

If Wal-Mart could give up 1% of their profits and make all their employees lives so much better why doesnt the post office a government run business do the same thing. In our little town there are about a dozen employees and only one is full time he is the postmaster. My friend worked there for 30 years behind the counter weighing and stamping and saying hi to everyone that came thru the door and never got paid for one holiday or any of the full time benefits. And that is a federal job. On a local level all school bus drivers are part time with lousy benefits and they are trusted with our kids lives 5 days a week. Now the people at the top take a good salary and benefits spending my tax dollars. To me Wal-Mart is doing the same thing the rest of government is doing. How about the Military They get some pretty good benefits in terms of health care and comparable pay to working at Wal-Mart to boot but then again look at what we are asking of our service men and women Wal-Mart doesnt ask of their employees. The major one is you are required to put your life on the line for your pay and benefits along with your work day if needed is 24-7 without break time. For that we start you out at something like $25k per year. Oh and unlike Wal-Mart once you hire on if you dont like it you cant walk out the door.

I do agree we all view all things thru our own eyes and the life we have lived looking out thru them. I always try and reverse the view whenever I can and I will ask you to try and do the same for a week dig a little deeper into say the topic of why in the world do people go to Wal-Mart fill out an application and take a job there. And then really once they find out what a awful place it is why do they stay there. I wonder if Wal-Mart drugs them or hypnotize them or something mind altering to take away their free will. I was there once and a young kid came up to me in the electronics department wearing a blue bib thing and a big smile and asked if I needed any help. I said I did but I had a question first and he said shoot. I said do they make you smile and sound upbeat when you ask me if I need help. He said no thats just me I like to help people with computer questions and thats my job. He did a great job helping me and a couple days later at my work where I was getting paid a good deal more than he was someone came up to me with a question and I barked back What the hell do you want now? at that moment I viewed my job thru the kid at Wal-Marts eyes and I said Im really sorry that was uncalled for what can I do to help you.


----------



## zannej

bud16415 said:


> We had a Wal-Mart move in a reasonable distance outside the little town I grew up in here. As a kid we had three little grocery stores a hardware and a Western Auto and three filling stations that also did car repairs and we even had a car dealer. The three stores battled it out until one survived and doubled in size it was a mom and pop operation and he employed locals and pretty much they had a job for life if they wanted it. I wasnt happy about Wal-Mart coming in particular, but what really surprised me was how many of the long-time locals quit their jobs in town and went to work for Wal-Mart as soon as it opened. So, there had to be some attraction to wanting to work there. As expected the last grocery store went under as all the towns people went to Wal-Mart to shop. I go in the Wal-Mart now and the people working I know seem happy and I havent seen a revolt or a walkout because they were treated like slave labor.
> 
> If Wal-Mart could give up 1% of their profits and make all their employees lives so much better why doesnt the post office a government run business do the same thing. In our little town there are about a dozen employees and only one is full time he is the postmaster. My friend worked there for 30 years behind the counter weighing and stamping and saying hi to everyone that came thru the door and never got paid for one holiday or any of the full time benefits. And that is a federal job. On a local level all school bus drivers are part time with lousy benefits and they are trusted with our kids lives 5 days a week. Now the people at the top take a good salary and benefits spending my tax dollars. To me Wal-Mart is doing the same thing the rest of government is doing. How about the Military They get some pretty good benefits in terms of health care and comparable pay to working at Wal-Mart to boot but then again look at what we are asking of our service men and women Wal-Mart doesnt ask of their employees. The major one is you are required to put your life on the line for your pay and benefits along with your work day if needed is 24-7 without break time. For that we start you out at something like $25k per year. Oh and unlike Wal-Mart once you hire on if you dont like it you cant walk out the door.
> 
> I do agree we all view all things thru our own eyes and the life we have lived looking out thru them. I always try and reverse the view whenever I can and I will ask you to try and do the same for a week dig a little deeper into say the topic of why in the world do people go to Wal-Mart fill out an application and take a job there. And then really once they find out what a awful place it is why do they stay there. I wonder if Wal-Mart drugs them or hypnotize them or something mind altering to take away their free will. I was there once and a young kid came up to me in the electronics department wearing a blue bib thing and a big smile and asked if I needed any help. I said I did but I had a question first and he said shoot. I said do they make you smile and sound upbeat when you ask me if I need help. He said no thats just me I like to help people with computer questions and thats my job. He did a great job helping me and a couple days later at my work where I was getting paid a good deal more than he was someone came up to me with a question and I barked back What the hell do you want now? at that moment I viewed my job thru the kid at Wal-Marts eyes and I said Im really sorry that was uncalled for what can I do to help you.


How long ago was it that the Walmart moved to your town? If it was while Sam Walton was still alive, it was apparently a great place to work. He gave employees good pay and benefits and he wanted it to be a family atmosphere. Unfortunately, once he died, his kids were greedy little buggers and turned it in to a suckfest for the employees. Granted, some Walmarts are better than others. I think they are nicer in states that aren't At Will employment. The quality of the Walmart greatly depends on who the store manager is. Some are compassionate and good people-- and then there are others who are terrible. My local Walmart had some pretty bad managers-- one of them was so bad that 9 cashiers and 4 overnight stockers all quit the same day (the day they got their paychecks). That manager was verbally abusive to the employees AND to customers. First time I met her she was incredibly rude. 

The local Walmart also has a bad habit of making BS excuses to fire people who were just about to be eligible for a raise or some sort of benefits/bonus. A friend of mine checked her schedule and it said she wasn't supposed to be on a certain day-- she even directly asked her manager about it because she didn't request that day off. Manger said it was her day off. Then at the last second, the manager put her name on the list to say she was supposed to be working that day and wrote her up for no-call no-show. They generally will fire people and tell them to re-apply in a few months so they have to start out at the bottom again. And some people are so desperate for jobs that they keep coming back because there is nothing else in the area. Higher end places require a bachelor's degree (which most people here don't have) and the majority of places won't hire anyone who has ANY college experience. 

The previous manager was actually caught (on the security cameras with audio in her office) plotting with some of the supervisors to fire an employee who had worked there for over 10 years because she hated paying that employee $13 per hour.

I think they've changed managers about 4 or 5 times in the past 3 years. This store has a lot of theft and laziness from the employees-- because they don't reward good hard work and they generally treat people like garbage.

Quite a few people quit, but there are people who despise working at Walmart but realize they don't have other options because a lot of people in town have two jobs. So, even though the work and the pay sucks, they keep working there because it's better than being unemployed and having no income (because it is very difficult to get unemployment here now-- they closed the unemployment offices down and tell people they have to go online but their website is buggy as hell). 

I don't know much about the post office, but from what I understand, it doesn't even make a profit. When it comes to the government paying for things, they don't usually do things that make sense-- and the post office is one of the areas where they are screwing up. My local post office only has a few employees. People have to pay $300 just to apply for a job here. And if they have delivery people who have to use their own vehicles and are not given any medical benefits and are not compensated for their gas usage. (I know this because I read the flier they put up when they were hiring people and it included all of this info-- wish I'd taken a photo).

That said-- the post office and a big for profit corporation like Walmart are two very separate beasts. It's not like the government itself is rolling in $ from the post office. If anything, they are actually losing money.

We had 2 little grocery stores, a Radio Shack, and a few other small businesses before Walmart rolled in. All but one (an IGA)) closed because they couldn't compete. The IGA only stayed open because it was within walking distance of a lot of the lower income homes and it has better quality meat than Walmart. 

A Fred's opened up a couple of years ago but it is already closing down-- it had even worse pay and treatment than Walmart.


----------



## nealtw

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=kEPrUr33HsyFogSg2IKIDA#q=aetna+stock&*

Funny how this stock price has gone up over the last few years. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the next few years.:nono:


----------



## slownsteady

Meanwhile, back to healthcare...................


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> How long ago was it that the Walmart moved to your town? If it was while Sam Walton was still alive, it was apparently a great place to work. He gave employees good pay and benefits and he wanted it to be a family atmosphere. Unfortunately, once he died, his kids were greedy little buggers and turned it in to a suckfest for the employees. Granted, some Walmarts are better than others. I think they are nicer in states that aren't At Will employment. The quality of the Walmart greatly depends on who the store manager is. Some are compassionate and good people-- and then there are others who are terrible. My local Walmart had some pretty bad managers-- one of them was so bad that 9 cashiers and 4 overnight stockers all quit the same day (the day they got their paychecks). That manager was verbally abusive to the employees AND to customers. First time I met her she was incredibly rude.
> 
> The local Walmart also has a bad habit of making BS excuses to fire people who were just about to be eligible for a raise or some sort of benefits/bonus. A friend of mine checked her schedule and it said she wasn't supposed to be on a certain day-- she even directly asked her manager about it because she didn't request that day off. Manger said it was her day off. Then at the last second, the manager put her name on the list to say she was supposed to be working that day and wrote her up for no-call no-show. They generally will fire people and tell them to re-apply in a few months so they have to start out at the bottom again. And some people are so desperate for jobs that they keep coming back because there is nothing else in the area. Higher end places require a bachelor's degree (which most people here don't have) and the majority of places won't hire anyone who has ANY college experience.
> 
> The previous manager was actually caught (on the security cameras with audio in her office) plotting with some of the supervisors to fire an employee who had worked there for over 10 years because she hated paying that employee $13 per hour.
> 
> I think they've changed managers about 4 or 5 times in the past 3 years. This store has a lot of theft and laziness from the employees-- because they don't reward good hard work and they generally treat people like garbage.
> 
> Quite a few people quit, but there are people who despise working at Walmart but realize they don't have other options because a lot of people in town have two jobs. So, even though the work and the pay sucks, they keep working there because it's better than being unemployed and having no income (because it is very difficult to get unemployment here now-- they closed the unemployment offices down and tell people they have to go online but their website is buggy as hell).
> 
> I don't know much about the post office, but from what I understand, it doesn't even make a profit. When it comes to the government paying for things, they don't usually do things that make sense-- and the post office is one of the areas where they are screwing up. My local post office only has a few employees. People have to pay $300 just to apply for a job here. And if they have delivery people who have to use their own vehicles and are not given any medical benefits and are not compensated for their gas usage. (I know this because I read the flier they put up when they were hiring people and it included all of this info-- wish I'd taken a photo).
> 
> That said-- the post office and a big for profit corporation like Walmart are two very separate beasts. It's not like the government itself is rolling in $ from the post office. If anything, they are actually losing money.
> 
> We had 2 little grocery stores, a Radio Shack, and a few other small businesses before Walmart rolled in. All but one (an IGA)) closed because they couldn't compete. The IGA only stayed open because it was within walking distance of a lot of the lower income homes and it has better quality meat than Walmart.
> 
> A Fred's opened up a couple of years ago but it is already closing down-- it had even worse pay and treatment than Walmart.





If what you say is true and I dont doubt it is in part at least then you should be glad that we have free market capitalism in this country. It is not just about the owners being able to function in any manner they want it is also about employs and costumers being able to do the same. Sad as it sounds the Walton kids can ruin their fathers business anyway they want and will end up like so many Sears locations did. Once it was Sears and then it was Kmart and next it will be Wal-Mart, and a new Sam Walton guy will come along with a better idea and kick them to the curb thats how free market capitalism works. You screw up you lose, no one bails you out. You are right the post office would be out of business 40 year ago and something better would have fill the gap like FedEx. But they cant completely because the post office cant fail no matter how stupid they are because they are propped up by the government and do not play by the rules of free market capitalism. If DJT wants to pay for healthcare or building a wall I dont know why he doesnt let the post office die and let free enterprise take over. That would be a step in the right direction.  

Sounds like if I lived in your town I would work at Walmart and save up my money and buy a school bus maybe a used one. I would then start a business taking people someplace else to apply for work. I would pick up a load every morning and take them to a better place to work and eventually live and bring them home at night. There must be a town within 100 miles where the only game in town isnt Wal-Mart.  

We have a similar distressed ban of small towns strung out east and west here that were once serviced by the railroad. As a kid I remember hearing how poor these towns became when the railroad left and everyone worked for the railroad directly or indirectly. Here it is 50 years later and I still hear people not yet born 50 years ago, saying there is nothing here to do the railroad is gone. Guess what the railroad wasnt coming back 50 years ago it is time to stop waiting and drive 30 miles where there is work. It isnt easy but there is almost always a way to restack the deck in your favor. If Wal-Mart laid me off so as to not have to pay me more and then told me to reapply and start over, I would be putting my stuff in a wheelbarrow and heading down the road on foot if I had to before I would be giving them a second chance at me.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> If what you say is true and I dont doubt it is in part at least then you should be glad that we have free market capitalism in this country. It is not just about the owners being able to function in any manner they want it is also about employs and costumers being able to do the same. Sad as it sounds the Walton kids can ruin their fathers business anyway they want and will end up like so many Sears locations did. Once it was Sears and then it was Kmart and next it will be Wal-Mart, and a new Sam Walton guy will come along with a better idea and kick them to the curb thats how free market capitalism works. You screw up you lose, no one bails you out. You are right the post office would be out of business 40 year ago and something better would have fill the gap like FedEx. But they cant completely because the post office cant fail no matter how stupid they are because they are propped up by the government and do not play by the rules of free market capitalism. If DJT wants to pay for healthcare or building a wall I dont know why he doesnt let the post office die and let free enterprise take over. That would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Sounds like if I lived in your town I would work at Walmart and save up my money and buy a school bus maybe a used one. I would then start a business taking people someplace else to apply for work. I would pick up a load every morning and take them to a better place to work and eventually live and bring them home at night. There must be a town within 100 miles where the only game in town isnt Wal-Mart.
> 
> We have a similar distressed ban of small towns strung out east and west here that were once serviced by the railroad. As a kid I remember hearing how poor these towns became when the railroad left and everyone worked for the railroad directly or indirectly. Here it is 50 years later and I still hear people not yet born 50 years ago, saying there is nothing here to do the railroad is gone. Guess what the railroad wasnt coming back 50 years ago it is time to stop waiting and drive 30 miles where there is work. It isnt easy but there is almost always a way to restack the deck in your favor. If Wal-Mart laid me off so as to not have to pay me more and then told me to reapply and start over, I would be putting my stuff in a wheelbarrow and heading down the road on foot if I had to before I would be giving them a second chance at me.



Bud, @ $10 bucks an hour you are going to live and save money to buy a bus and run it a hundred miles both ways so people can look for work, who pays for the gas?
I like your idea of a wheel barrow but they can be expensive grocery carts are pretty handy. Most people will be looking down at you while you are pushing your cart from town to town.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Meanwhile, back to healthcare...................



It is about healthcare because healthcare is about money and paying a bunch of people and overhead involved in the Healthcare system. It wont happen by magic or by the will of the people it will only happen in some kind of an economy that produces things and is growing. If socialism is your thing then that system has to be made to work also and has to turn a profit or at least break even with enough extra to pay for healthcare. So in the perfect world the cardo surgeon would make $15 per hour and the Wal-Mart worker would make $15 and hour. For giving the surgeon more for his skills would be moving him in the direction of the 1%. We all live in the same size house and all go to the same schools. Nothing could be more fair. You would get tested and if you are good for work then you must work and if you like to work there will be none of this working two jobs to make more to get more stuff that would move you in the direction of the 1%.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Bud, @ $10 bucks an hour you are going to live and save money to buy a bus and run it a hundred miles both ways so people can look for work, who pays for the gas?
> I like your idea of a wheel barrow but they can be expensive grocery carts are pretty handy. Most people will be looking down at you while you are pushing your cart from town to town.



Good point about the shopping cart I would take one from Wal-Mart. I would take my bike it is faster and I could tell people Im wealthy and doing a cross country tour. 

You are right why would I care about helping my neighbors find work in a different place let the government do that. Thats what they are there for.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> Good point about the shopping cart I would take one from Wal-Mart. I would take my bike it is faster and I could tell people Im wealthy and doing a cross country tour.
> 
> You are right why would I care about helping my neighbors find work in a different place let the government do that. Thats what they are there for.



My point is, as long as politicians  come up with these kind of fixes, nothing will get better.

Really, people do pull up there socks and move along, they always have and they end up at or near a city and the Walmart job pays the same there.


----------



## bud16415

I have random thoughts driving to work and listening to the radio and this thread is as good as any for venting. We have enough of these threads and I didn&#8217;t want to start another on government and such so I hope Chris won&#8217;t mind if I ramble here on today&#8217;s thoughts. Some are even related to health care. 
Rant 1
One thing I was hearing is about the awful struggle people go thru to make their dream come true for a life in America. Some cross our boarders from the south without papers and find a safe home here and some work and start the process of the American dream. Others leave their countries across the ocean for fear of being killed or persecuted and leave family behind to get a taste of freedom in a country they don&#8217;t even speak the language of yet. The horrible lives they must have had to risk it all for a chance at something 1000&#8217;s of miles away knowing they will never see their home again. 
Then I know people that live here that won&#8217;t take a  chance and move 50 miles to where a company is hiring and say it is too far to drive twice a day and within 200 miles are even better jobs waiting. 

Rant 2
Now that we are back to having a Dem governor in Pa Governor Wolf quickly changed and legalized Pot. I don&#8217;t have a big problem one way or another about it as he keeps explaining what a source of taxes it will be. We once had one of the largest hardwood paper mills in the country maybe the world in Erie. Hammermill Paper / International Paper that employed 1000&#8217;s of people making the finest quality paper there was, until it closed up for all the same reasons everything else did 25 or more years ago. The site is a blight on our waterfront and dozens of businesses have tried to get in there to manufacture something and there is always a reason the community thinks it is too close to home. So now there is this plan to turn the property into a huge self-contained pot growing plant. Everyone thinks this is a wonderful idea and look how much it will help the city. 


I just have to get used to this new world I guess.


----------



## nealtw

What new world.
People have been complaining about the *other* as long as there has been more than one group with in hearing or seeing each other?
Some people use that to develop fear or even better hate and encourage people to freely discuss it in public.

The real question is what can we do to stop it?


----------



## zannej

Bud, fear of being murdered or worse is a pretty good motivator for the people who flee from their home countries. I could tell you some horror stories about the Snakeheads (Chinese human smugglers) but it's pretty gruesome and not really on topic. Most of the ones who came over from China (traveling in the fish-holds of boats) had TB. If they didn't have TB when they started the trip, they almost certainly had it by the time they arrived.

That is one of the facets a lot of people tend to ignore about illegal immigrants. They don't go through health screening and they can bring in diseases that are uncommon in the US and might not be recognized because of the rarity. When people go through legal screening to get in, they get vaccinations and tests done to make sure they are not contagious. 

Which brings me to a question for you guys. Whether you are opposed to government provided healthcare or not: Do you think the government should at least provide necessary vaccines for children for free or at low cost to minimize the spread of disease. And for that matter, how do you guys feel about mandatory vaccines for easily communicable things like TB, Mumps, Measels, etc? (I know in some places they do have free vaccines for people-- but do you think they should?)

How do you feel about medical facilities/clinics/hospitals refusing to take certain forms of insurance. Do you think that should be allowed? 

Also, since we do have Medicaid/Medicare-- I wish that it would have more allowances for regular checkups and getting tests and stuff done at regular doctors rather than the whole going to the hospital thing. I know that quite a few people end up taking their kids to the hospital instead of a doctor bc Medicare/Medicaid will cover that- and it ends up costing the taxpayers more $. And statistically, if people get regular checkups they are more likely to stay healthier.

I apologize if any of these have been answered already. I confess I did skip some pages to catch up and my memory is not cooperating today on the things that I did read.


----------



## mabloodhound

Do NOT look to Paul Ryan and HIS plan to fix this.  It's just more politicians protecting themselves.  Remember, Congress has it's own health care program.  Nothing like what the citizen has to go through.  Before Obamacare it was working like Chris said but once the gov't got their hands on it, healthcare became all FU.  Going back will be hard BUT competition is part of it.  Sadly, Ryan's bill does not include access across state lines.  Supposedly in the 3rd step it may be included but Democrats will never support it and we will be left with Obamacare Light.  Rand Paul and Jim Jordan have good ideas but the leadership won't allow them to add amendments.


----------



## bud16415

:agree: What he said. +1


----------



## ActuariallySpeaking

I dont know if I dare chime in here... if you can't tell by my username, I'm a pricing actuarial analyst for a health insurance company... For the people who's insurance increased so drastically... are you buying individual insurance, or is it through the workplace? Did you try to go on the exchange and price out options, rather than stick to your legacy plan? You may have qualified for the tax credit or cost share reduction, or the rates may have been flat out cheaper because legacy plans tend to turn into a death spiral (only high cost members stay in, healthy ones jump ship, since they're rated seperate from ACA, rates rise in a hurry)


----------



## 68bucks

OK here's my 2¢. I think we need to remove the profit motivation from the equation, both from insurance and from providers. I also have something of an issue with a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO making tens of millions of dollars, they're not worth it. Reduce it and pay the people that actually do the work more. Transparency in cost is another major issue. If your doctor orders a test for you just try to find out what the cost will be. Its like a snipe hunt. We're told we're bad because we don't check costs but that's bull. My doc ordered a stress test for me 3 weeks ago and I'm still waiting to get approval from the insurance company. One place told me the test was $900 while another within 1 mile told me it was $5600. What's up with that? When I call for a price on a procedure the provider should be required to quote a price instantly within +/- a percentage (10%?). No other industry hides the cost from the consumer like the medical industry. I also have trouble rationalizing that the cost of your health insurance and the cost of your medical treatment is directly linked to the returns that some anonymous shareholder is expecting. 

Now on the cost increases since the ACA came about. Insurance cost have been going through the roof for far longer than the ACA has been around. The facts say that the rate of increase has slowed considerably under the ACA, on average. There are locations though where that is far from the truth. Also the policies that are required now are different than before the ACA. No caps on lifetime benefits. Preventative care is paid 100%. Kids can stay on your policy until age 26.  No pre-existing condition refusals. 

Now to the OP, these are all things that contribute to increasing costs. Now look at the old system. Let's say your business had a really bad year and you dropped insurance for a while to get by and make ends meet. If you or a family member got seriously ill before you signed back up you would never get insurance again period.  And this was true for employer plans as well. If you had a pre-existing condition the company would have to fight with the insurance company to get you coverage. I saw it more than once with my employer. 

And one last thought. People gripe about paying for people that get free coverage. I look at it this way. What cost more? Person A receives totally free insurance from Medicaid or something. Person B has no insurance at all.
So what cost you more, when person A gets a nasty case of the flu and goes to the doctors office to get checked out and treated, or person B that just goes to the ER (the highest possible cost) for the same thing? You will still pay for either person whether you like it or not.


----------



## bud16415

How much should a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO make? Would one million be too high also. A family can live a nice life on $100k per year I would say the law should say no one in the health care business can make over 100k including doctors. That would be fair. 

We should apply the same laws to sports figures and music professionals also as long as we are at it. Oh and actors also. Why stop there no one should make over $100k Warren Buffet and all his buddies 100k. 

Sounds logical to me as I make under 100k.


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> How much should a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO make? Would one million be too high also. A family can live a nice life on $100k per year I would say the law should say no one in the health care business can make over 100k including doctors. That would be fair.
> 
> We should apply the same laws to sports figures and music professionals also as long as we are at it. Oh and actors also. Why stop there no one should make over $100k Warren Buffet and all his buddies 100k.
> 
> Sounds logical to me as I make under 100k.


Well I wouldn't be in favor of that. I basically don't have a problem with with what people make, more power to them. In the case of human health I tend to feel a little more strongly about top pay. When the top dog makes $20 million a year instead of $5 million that's a lot of medical care that someone isn't getting and the top dog wouldn't suffer too much if they only made $5 million.
I have always said that with any organization there should be a ratio of what the top person makes vs. what the bottom person makes. If we were ever going to regulate pay (a bad idea I believe) that's the way I would do it. Say if your the CEO of McDonald's you can't make more than, for example, 100x the lowest paid person. If you want to make more money, no problem give the person a raise. Never going to happen though.


----------



## ActuariallySpeaking

68bucks said:


> OK here's my 2¢. I think we need to remove the profit motivation from the equation, both from insurance and from providers. I also have something of an issue with a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO making tens of millions of dollars, they're not worth it. Reduce it and pay the people that actually do the work more. Transparency in cost is another major issue. If your doctor orders a test for you just try to find out what the cost will be. Its like a snipe hunt. We're told we're bad because we don't check costs but that's bull. My doc ordered a stress test for me 3 weeks ago and I'm still waiting to get approval from the insurance company. One place told me the test was $900 while another within 1 mile told me it was $5600. What's up with that? When I call for a price on a procedure the provider should be required to quote a price instantly within +/- a percentage (10%?). No other industry hides the cost from the consumer like the medical industry. I also have trouble rationalizing that the cost of your health insurance and the cost of your medical treatment is directly linked to the returns that some anonymous shareholder is expecting.
> 
> Now on the cost increases since the ACA came about. Insurance cost have been going through the roof for far longer than the ACA has been around. The facts say that the rate of increase has slowed considerably under the ACA, on average. There are locations though where that is far from the truth. Also the policies that are required now are different than before the ACA. No caps on lifetime benefits. Preventative care is paid 100%. Kids can stay on your policy until age 26.  No pre-existing condition refusals.
> 
> Now to the OP, these are all things that contribute to increasing costs. Now look at the old system. Let's say your business had a really bad year and you dropped insurance for a while to get by and make ends meet. If you or a family member got seriously ill before you signed back up you would never get insurance again period.  And this was true for employer plans as well. If you had a pre-existing condition the company would have to fight with the insurance company to get you coverage. I saw it more than once with my employer.
> 
> And one last thought. People gripe about paying for people that get free coverage. I look at it this way. What cost more? Person A receives totally free insurance from Medicaid or something. Person B has no insurance at all.
> So what cost you more, when person A gets a nasty case of the flu and goes to the doctors office to get checked out and treated, or person B that just goes to the ER (the highest possible cost) for the same thing? You will still pay for either person whether you like it or not.



...Just to chime in, profit on insurance is very regulated, and what we price in as profit is probably not as high as one would think. (for individual & SG ACA) Also, most insurance companies lost money on the ACA individual market from 2014 & 2015 (We can't tell for 2016 yet because the reinsurance payout hasn't been figured yet. Group business is, and probably always will be- what insurance companies make money on) The CEO's salary probably isn't considered profit, but more so an admin cost- so yes, that probably could be monitored more, but that probably means my income would suffer, not his- and I feel like I make just enough to make a house & car payment and live comfortably with no student debt- and we want more of those jobs, not less, right? Can we really "cap" someone's income? I'm not defending either way- but I doubt that would fly. Maybe in the long run, since insurance is extremely regulated, but I kind of doubt it in the current political environment. 

Transparency in pricing is tricky- and there are programs out there that try to "incent" the consumer to go to lower cost facilities. Whether it be through cash rebates for going to hospital a over hospital b, or a lower copay for lower cost facility (i.e- urgent care over ER for non-life threatening emergencies) Hospitals can't really just announce their pricing because individual vs. insurance company a vs. insurance company b vs. medicare/medicaid are all going to have different rates. Hospitals & care facilities are typically privately owned (unless we're talking VA) and there is not a lot in terms of regulation for pricing going on there that I know of. Not sure if that's a problem or not- however, there are a lot of hospital buyouts going on and I think that is significantly impacting rates. Trust me when I say we pretty much beg hospitals to drop prices to be more competitive in the marketplace. 

To the OP... I guess I assumed that you were buying insurance for just your family, not that you owned your business. What the poster above said is correct, if your group is above certain size. If it's a smaller company, you'll be placed in a pool and won't have your experience used for/against you. (If you are a larger group and it is used against you- I would recommend shopping around. Other companies will have less experience to use and will usually use more weight on the average vs. your experience)


----------



## French_guy

I'm French and live in the US.....(legally )
Every time I've to deal with the US health system, I'm SHOCKED !!!
1) it's waaaay too expensive
2) It seems very complicated, even for the providers. I'm the type of person who will ask as many questions as necessary before I clearly understand how it works. And when i have to dig more and more to understand, I realize it's not clear at all, even for them
3) America is the 1st power in the world.....How is that possible there are still people without health insurance??? To me, that's just insane

I'm not saying the French system is perfect...It's not
But I think we should be able to find a compromise between TOO MUCH and NOT ENOUGH


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> How much should a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO make? Would one million be too high also. A family can live a nice life on $100k per year I would say the law should say no one in the health care business can make over 100k including doctors. That would be fair.
> 
> We should apply the same laws to sports figures and music professionals also as long as we are at it. Oh and actors also. Why stop there no one should make over $100k Warren Buffet and all his buddies 100k.
> 
> Sounds logical to me as I make under 100k.



There is a problem there. I would bet that many people that are stuck in a min. wage job would agree with that logic. We know it wouldn't work but you have to get people in all stations to understand what fairness is.


----------



## nealtw

ActuariallySpeaking said:


> I dont know if I dare chime in here..)



In order to do your job, you need facts, yes?
In order to discuss your findings with another person, you both have to agree on the facts, yes?

Can two people ever agree on anything, if one or both people don't agree on the facts?


----------



## Chris

ActuariallySpeaking said:


> I dont know if I dare chime in here... if you can't tell by my username, I'm a pricing actuarial analyst for a health insurance company... For the people who's insurance increased so drastically... are you buying individual insurance, or is it through the workplace? Did you try to go on the exchange and price out options, rather than stick to your legacy plan? You may have qualified for the tax credit or cost share reduction, or the rates may have been flat out cheaper because legacy plans tend to turn into a death spiral (only high cost members stay in, healthy ones jump ship, since they're rated seperate from ACA, rates rise in a hurry)



I have a private plan because I am self employed. I dropped the plan I had before because it did skyrocket. I have had a few new plans in the last few years and on the aca website they were the same price or more. Because I am self employed on paper it looks like I make money and it is all based off that. It's worse than having another mortgage


----------



## frodo

I TOTTALY disagree about mandating wage caps :downn anyone for anything.
If you want to live in that type of system carry your socialist *** to socialist country

This is America, if you want to get rich work your *** off and do it,  It is called the Land Of Opportunity
The opportunity is here to make money if you get off the couch and do it.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> There is a problem there. I would bet that many people that are stuck in a min. wage job would agree with that logic. We know it wouldn't work but you have to get people in all stations to understand what fairness is.



fairness for who ?

the minimum wage worker ?


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> fairness for who ?
> 
> the minimum wage worker ?



That is my point. Every one will have a different idea of what fair is.


----------



## Chris

We all have the same fair opportunity to better ourselves. Life is what you make it. I've been on most levels of it and have seen.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> We all have the same fair opportunity to better ourselves. Life is what you make it. I've been on most levels of it and have seen.



So why aren't you a billionaire?


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> That is my point. Every one will have a different idea of what fair is.



let a man who works for his money keep his money
if you dont work you do not have money
if you have a problem with what a ceo makes, do not buy his product.

it all sounds like petty jealousy to me.
cry cry cry, he has more marbles than i do

give me his marbles, I want his marbles or i will hold my breath and stomp my feet.

that is what this bull**** reminds me of, a spoiled 6 year old


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> So why aren't you a billionaire?



Don't want the stress and headache.


----------



## slownsteady

Chris said:


> Don't want the stress and headache.


With a billion $$ you could buy all the aspirin and Zoloft you need.


----------



## slownsteady

68bucks said:


> OK here's my 2¢. I think we need to remove the profit motivation from the equation, both from insurance and from providers. I also have something of an issue with a hospital CEO or an insurance CEO making tens of millions of dollars, they're not worth it. Reduce it and pay the people that actually do the work more. Transparency in cost is another major issue. If your doctor orders a test for you just try to find out what the cost will be. Its like a snipe hunt. We're told we're bad because we don't check costs but that's bull. My doc ordered a stress test for me 3 weeks ago and I'm still waiting to get approval from the insurance company. One place told me the test was $900 while another within 1 mile told me it was $5600. What's up with that? When I call for a price on a procedure the provider should be required to quote a price instantly within +/- a percentage (10%?). No other industry hides the cost from the consumer like the medical industry. I also have trouble rationalizing that the cost of your health insurance and the cost of your medical treatment is directly linked to the returns that some anonymous shareholder is expecting.
> 
> Now on the cost increases since the ACA came about. Insurance cost have been going through the roof for far longer than the ACA has been around. The facts say that the rate of increase has slowed considerably under the ACA, on average. There are locations though where that is far from the truth. Also the policies that are required now are different than before the ACA. No caps on lifetime benefits. Preventative care is paid 100%. Kids can stay on your policy until age 26.  No pre-existing condition refusals.
> 
> Now to the OP, these are all things that contribute to increasing costs. Now look at the old system. Let's say your business had a really bad year and you dropped insurance for a while to get by and make ends meet. If you or a family member got seriously ill before you signed back up you would never get insurance again period.  And this was true for employer plans as well. If you had a pre-existing condition the company would have to fight with the insurance company to get you coverage. I saw it more than once with my employer.
> 
> And one last thought. People gripe about paying for people that get free coverage. I look at it this way. What cost more? Person A receives totally free insurance from Medicaid or something. Person B has no insurance at all.
> So what cost you more, when person A gets a nasty case of the flu and goes to the doctors office to get checked out and treated, or person B that just goes to the ER (the highest possible cost) for the same thing? You will still pay for either person whether you like it or not.


  Can I "like" this a couple more times?


----------



## zannej

There is a petition going around (don't have the link yet) to take away the medical benefits that Congress gets. If Congress had to jump through the same hoops as average citizens to get medical coverage, maybe they would care a little more about it and be more invested in making a plan that works. They have very little motivation to make a good system unless they are affected by it.


----------



## slownsteady

Socialism be damned..........and Capitalism be damned............and politicians be damned! 
Each and every one of you has to ask yourself what you value more.. a few extra dollars or the well being of your fellow man.
Sure you can be charitable to your neighbor because you know he's a hard working guy who had a bad break. But how many of you can cough up $20K - $100K when he gets cancer? We need to have a healthcare system that can cover that kind of illness without a Gofundme page.
We need a healthcare system that will offer preventative care to some poor person who gets exposed to ebola or zika, without regard to income.
The ACA may not be perfect, but it solves many problems which were present in the unregulated healthcare system. Things you may have forgotten about even though they are only a few years ago.
You want to improve it? Fine, You want to change it's name? Fine. But do you think that Trump(don't)Care fixes this?


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Socialism be damned..........and Capitalism be damned............and politicians be damned!
> Each and every one of you has to ask yourself what you value more.. a few extra dollars or the well being of your fellow man.
> Sure you can be charitable to your neighbor because you know he's a hard working guy who had a bad break. But how many of you can cough up $20K - $100K when he gets cancer? We need to have a healthcare system that can cover that kind of illness without a Gofundme page.
> We need a healthcare system that will offer preventative care to some poor person who gets exposed to ebola or zika, without regard to income.
> The ACA may not be perfect, but it solves many problems which were present in the unregulated healthcare system. Things you may have forgotten about even though they are only a few years ago.
> You want to improve it? Fine, You want to change it's name? Fine. But do you think that Trump(don't)Care fixes this?



Im with you brother. That would be a wonderful world. 

We have went full circle in this thread and we are back to where Chris started this. In order to move in the utopian direction just as starters Chris is going to have to pay an amount equal or greater than another mortgage payment. That was just under the beginning of the ACA while it was still loosing money getting going, it was going to get worse. 

Some people in the republican party were in favor of letting ACA run its course and after it imploded and taxes and health care payments on guys like us strangled us. There would be a revolt and the democratic party would have to own the mess. With this ACA lite they are doing now it is going to be every bit the same thing and the blame will be laid on the republican door step. I agree they should have done nothing. 

200 years ago there was no cancer centers and ct scanners and where did all this wonderful innovations come from in this country. General Electric the worst evil capitalist organization of them all a evil corporation with CEOs making hundreds of millions a year and rich stock holders getting richer invented this stuff. Not because they wanted to help mankind as that was a side effect but because they wanted to make money. Another side effect of this making money is they employ 300,000 people who pay taxes and buy things keeping a few more million people working and paying taxes. And low and behold all those working people and a whole bunch of unfortunate people have the benefits of having their cancer cured.

This country went from people dieing from a minor accident to being the leaders of the world and life expectancies double or triple in a couple hundred years as the result of a cruel selfish system that made people contribute because they wanted better. 

It is sad to see someone die because they dont have healthcare I agree. But the solution is more of what made us great and gave us all the innovations in healthcare in the first place. There is nothing wrong in wishing and dreaming for utopia but wishing and hoping doesnt make it happen. 

It is a simple ledger sheet money in money out goods produced and growth. Money makes the wheels go around it cant just be given away without something in return. 

They say money is in circulation. Think about that it is circulating. Like a pump and water going out and the pressure turning a machine and producing something and then returning back to the pump to go around again. The system we have is water being pumped out and a million spouts draining off the water and very little water or pressure at the end to turn the machine and hardly any water coming back to the pump. One case is circulation and the other is leakage. 


All people want to help the people that cant help themselves. It is the bigger picture and knowing you cant rob Peter to pay Paul as my mother used to say.


----------



## slownsteady

God bless 'ya, Bud, and I hope you're always lucky enough to stay on the bright side of that lucky break. The kind of break where some low income guy with the flu who is driving to the ER because he can't get into a doctor's office doesn't sneeze or get dizzy and cross the lane right in front of you. The kind of a break where you're on vacation in Florida and happen to get a mosquito bite that turns out to carry Zika because there was no money to fight the spread of infection. The kind of break where the only hospital within a hundred miles of Erie doesn't close because of unpaid bills.
Sometimes the repayment for money spent is not a direct transaction.
Remember Milton Freeman was just a guy with a theory and Atlas Shrugged is just a science-fiction novel.


----------



## nealtw

Cite

World > World Statistics > Health and Social Statistics
Life Expectancy for Countries, 2015
Find the average life expectancy for each country and the world. As of 2014, the country with the highest life expectancy is Monaco at 89.52 years; the country with the lowest life expectancy is Chad at just 49.81 years.

Rank	Country	(years)	Date
1	Monaco	89.52	2015 est.
2	Japan	84.74	2015 est.
3	Singapore	84.68	2015 est.
4	Macau	84.51	2015 est.
5	San Marino	83.24	2015 est.
6	Iceland	82.97	2015 est.
7	Hong Kong	82.86	2015 est.
8	Andorra	82.72	2015 est.
9	Switzerland	82.50	2015 est.
10	Guernsey	82.47	2015 est.
11	Israel	82.27	2015 est.
12	Luxembourg	82.17	2015 est.
13	Australia	82.15	2015 est.
14	Italy	82.12	2015 est.
15	Sweden	81.98	2015 est.
16	Liechtenstein	81.77	2015 est.
17	Jersey	81.76	2015 est.
18	Canada	81.76	2015 est.
19	France	81.75	2015 est.
20	Norway	81.70	2015 est.
21	Spain	81.57	2015 est.
22	Austria	81.39	2015 est.
23	Anguilla	81.31	2015 est.
24	Netherlands	81.23	2015 est.
25	Bermuda	81.15	2015 est.
26	Cayman Islands	81.13	2015 est.
27	Isle of Man	81.09	2015 est.
28	New Zealand	81.05	2015 est.
29	Belgium	80.88	2015 est.
30	Finland	80.77	2015 est.
31	Ireland	80.68	2015 est.
32	Germany	80.57	2015 est.
33	United Kingdom	80.54	2015 est.
34	Greece	80.43	2015 est.
35	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	80.39	2015 est.
36	Malta	80.25	2015 est.
37	Faroe Islands	80.24	2015 est.
38	European Union	80.20	2015 est.
39	Korea, South	80.04	2015 est.
40	Taiwan	79.98	2015 est.
41	Virgin Islands	79.89	2015 est.
42	Turks and Caicos Islands	79.69	2015 est.
43	United States	79.68	2015 est.
44	Wallis and Futuna	79.57	2015 est.
45	Saint Helena, Ascension,
and Tristan da Cunha


----------



## slownsteady

Make America great again.


----------



## Chris

I'm going to go back a few posts and agree with us needed to get rid of the government health care program. Not the aca but the program that everyone in government is on. All the way down to the local government level. None of these people have any clue the reality that we are talking about. They are on a great plan that is affordable and covers everything they need. Once they are in my shoes of trying to figure out why it is costing them another mortgage to have something they don't use then they might think about an actual fix. 

Last year it cost me. 20,600 dollars to see the doctor one time for a prescription of ibuprofen because of my bad back and they couldn't even give me a drug that works because they are afraid I'll become an addict. Almost 21k for a bottle of motrin. Tell me how that is fair to me? Or am I the exception? Should I feel good because I helped someone else get their care for free or should I be upset because I paid a mortgage while they paid nothing? Where is their incentive to better themselves when they know that if they do and make more money it will be taken away.

I just did my taxes and because I budgeted properly, didn't buy anything new for my company and paid off old debt I was rewarded with a higher tax rate of 38%. How many of you paid 38% of your income to taxes before having to pay this second mortgage of health Insurance?


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I'm going to go back a few posts and agree with us needed to get rid of the government health care program. Not the aca but the program that everyone in government is on. All the way down to the local government level. None of these people have any clue the reality that we are talking about. They are on a great plan that is affordable and covers everything they need. Once they are in my shoes of trying to figure out why it is costing them another mortgage to have something they don't use then they might think about an actual fix.
> 
> Last year it cost me. 20,600 dollars to see the doctor one time for a prescription of ibuprofen because of my bad back and they couldn't even give me a drug that works because they are afraid I'll become an addict. Almost 21k for a bottle of motrin. Tell me how that is fair to me? Or am I the exception? Should I feel good because I helped someone else get their care for free or should I be upset because I paid a mortgage while they paid nothing? Where is their incentive to better themselves when they know that if they do and make more money it will be taken away.
> 
> I just did my taxes and because I budgeted properly, didn't buy anything new for my company and paid off old debt I was rewarded with a higher tax rate of 38%. How many of you paid 38% of your income to taxes before having to pay this second mortgage of health Insurance?



No that does not make sense. :hide:


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> God bless 'ya, Bud, and I hope you're always lucky enough to stay on the bright side of that lucky break. The kind of break where some low income guy with the flu who is driving to the ER because he can't get into a doctor's office doesn't sneeze or get dizzy and cross the lane right in front of you. The kind of a break where you're on vacation in Florida and happen to get a mosquito bite that turns out to carry Zika because there was no money to fight the spread of infection. The kind of break where the only hospital within a hundred miles of Erie doesn't close because of unpaid bills.
> Sometimes the repayment for money spent is not a direct transaction.
> Remember Milton Freeman was just a guy with a theory and Atlas Shrugged is just a science-fiction novel.



I do worry about those things and I know if the poor guy going to the ER had a good job he would most likely have insurance also and could go to the doctor and the doctor would not have to lose money on him and tack it on to the next guy (Chris) coming thru the door. If that guy could keep his cost down he might be going to Fla and Disney World with his kids to enjoy the money he made just a little. The employ at Disney would now have a job he didnt have because people could afford to go there again. Those Disney people working now would be paying taxes and there would be money to fund infectious disease control and we could finally wipe out Zika. Oh and me with all this chain reaction happening in prosperity in the country I could finally up my United Way contribution from 2% to 3%.


----------



## Chris

I think I fall into the category of the ones that get hit the hardest. I am self employed and on paper I make good money. Remember on paper, all those big numbers never reach my pocket book. 

All that money I spent on my company only gets a partial write off depending on what I spend it on. I then learned that if I spend it on things that are truly important and not just buying new crap I don't need the tax rate goes up. Paying off old debt is also pass through income so paying 30k towards paying off an old loan is considered income like I put it in my pocket so not only do I pay the 30k to finish a loan I also get to pay 38% of that to the government because that could have gone in my pocket.

When all said and done I take home as much as any other full time worker with a decent job and on top of that I loose the child tax credit and I can't write off my child care and a few other things because that pass through income puts me in a different bracket which also raises my tax rate because now I am somehow making all this money. I then get a tax bill for more money than I actually paid myself.  I have learned a lot about how our government runs by running my business these last 9 years and that is why I am throwing in the rope now. There is no love for someone trying to make something of their life by starting a business. 

At this point in my life you can't tell me that I need to think about my fellow man and his free health care when my government does nothing to encourage me to continue moving ahead except try and suck any bit of money I might have made every year.


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I think I fall into the category of the ones that get hit the hardest. I am self employed and on paper I make good money. Remember on paper, all those big numbers never reach my pocket book.
> 
> All that money I spent on my company only gets a partial write off depending on what I spend it on. I then learned that if I spend it on things that are truly important and not just buying new crap I don't need the tax rate goes up. Paying off old debt is also pass through income so paying 30k towards paying off an old loan is considered income like I put it in my pocket so not only do I pay the 30k to finish a loan I also get to pay 38% of that to the government because that could have gone in my pocket.
> 
> When all said and done I take home as much as any other full time worker with a decent job and on top of that I loose the child tax credit and I can't write off my child care and a few other things because that pass through income puts me in a different bracket which also raises my tax rate because now I am somehow making all this money. I then get a tax bill for more money than I actually paid myself.  I have learned a lot about how our government runs by running my business these last 9 years and that is why I am throwing in the rope now. There is no love for someone trying to make something of their life by starting a business.
> 
> At this point in my life you can't tell me that I need to think about my fellow man and his free health care when my government does nothing to encourage me to continue moving ahead except try and suck any bit of money I might have made every year.



Fire your accountant.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Fire your accountant.



If Chris was paying 15% instead of 38% lets ask him what he would do with the difference? My guess it would go back into the business and growing the business and maybe a little more for himself and his family. After all the idea is growth so you can make more and then do more of the same. Growth means hiring people buying equipment. Both of those mean jobs and jobs mean more taxes. Now as he gets bigger he wants to keep the people that are making him wealthy and doesnt want them to go find another job. He finds one way of keeping them around is paying them more and they take the money and buy insurance or he offers them insurance as a benefit of sticking with him. 

Instead he takes Neals advice and fires his accountant (case of shooting the messenger) and closes up his business and moves on to a simpler life where he makes less employs no one, zero growth of others status in life and is happy now with less and not swimming up stream. 

The system has won they stopped him from becoming the 1% because we want everyone the same. 

All I know is I never got a job from a poor person.


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> Fire your accountant.



My accountant did everything legal and even a few questionable things. Only other way to get my taxes lower are to flat out lie, that is what most of these accountants do that make it to where you don't pay. My problem was that I followed the rules and got screwed. I talked to a few other accountant because I get upset with mine but its not her fault she just won't lie to save me money and I agree, I don't need the audit where they will find out. Right now I could be audited for every year and win every single one.  I would rather the rules be changed to to help someone trying to build a company instead of using every turn for them to charge more. Like Bud said, they won this battle, they took jobs away from six people including myself. They made it not worth it to keep fighting the fight. I had a very successful 9 years and every year that came more success came more charges for success to keep where I was the year before. It's funny I was up to 12 employees and doing a few million a year in sales and I took home less money than I did my first year in business when I was running the tractor with a helper. 

They want equality, they got it. They just made a hard worker into the poor class just like everyone else. Its not about bringing up the lower class it's about bringing down the middle class to the lower class for equality.


----------



## zannej

I will say that I don't think regular federal employees that are below Congress level and are affected by the salary cap (Particularly law enforcement agents) should lose their health benefits. The health benefits are part of the compensation to make up for lack of true overtime pay. The health and retirement benefits are the only things that sort of level the playing field when it comes to what they would make in private sector. Also, their healthcare is not free and it does not cover everything. They still pay quite a bit out of pocket for their plans. Also, feds working in covered positions are forced to retire at I think 57 now. So they can't continue working for longer and keep collecting $. 

Morale for federal LEOs already dropped quite a bit after certain policies went into effect, but taking away the health benefits might be a total dealbreaker. 
For the LEOs, they have to put in 50 hour work weeks every single week each month to qualify for LEAP (which is what passes for their "overtime"). They don't get time and a half or anything-- it's 25% of their base salary + locality pay in addition to their regular salary. And if they don't make it for 50 hours every week they don't get the bonus. Also, if they are in the higher ranks-- I think GS14 Step6 and up, they don't even get LEAP because of the salary cap. 

I do think it is unfair that people like Chris get hit hard by the current plan. That just isn't right. (Editing what I said before because I realize it seemed like I was implying that Chris isn't middle class-- and I consider him to be middle class). It isn't fair for *anyone* to suffer. And I don't like a system that punishes honest and hardworking people like Chris while giving breaks to dishonest people in much higher income brackets as well as encouraging people in lower income brackets to lie. Whenever people have to lie to benefit from the system (or not get screwed by it) it is not a good system.

However, I've already stated that they really need to regulate the whole medical system better to get prices down so medical care will be more affordable. Unless they do that, people will continue to get screwed.

Also, if anyone is interested in the link to the petition to take away the medical benefits from Congress, please let me know.


----------



## Chris

On another note did you guys hear that Los Angeles raised the homeless tax and now according to the mayor homelessness will be 100% gone in ten years. That's great news!


----------



## havasu

I won't shop in LA anymore. I won't spend an extra quarter cent sales tax just so the lazy can become even lazier.


----------



## French_guy

I work for a large company, and I have what I think is a good health insurance (I pay something like $450 per month for 2 adults and 1 child) and the deductible are $1,500 for the whole family, or $750 per person)
But still, I like to say this:
If I don't need to see the doctor too much (no major health issue), then yes, I have a more comfortable life in the US. But if I were to have serious health problem, I would prefer to be in France....As far as I know, I've never heard of anyone having to sell his house or make a loan to get treated for cancer or other terrible illness in France. And you don't have to shop around before doing an X-Ray or MRI to know which one is cheaper!!!
1 more thing: the concept of "deductible" when it comes to health is still for me very hard to swallow......:nono:


----------



## slownsteady

Looking back at Neal's post with the list of life expectancy, the US was ranked 43rd at 79.68 years using 2014 statistics
In 2010, when the ACA had not gone into effect, the US was ranked 51st with 78.37 year life expectancy for men

Neal: can you post the source of those numbers so we can compare 'apples to apples'?


----------



## slownsteady

Question 1: Do you think that the overall medical system prior to the ACA (unregulated?) was all that great? And as part of that answer, state whether you are basing that answer on your own personal monthly bill.

Question 2: If you think that the medical industry should be an all-capitalist proposition, then why should we continue to give tax breaks to companies who pay for medical plans?


----------



## oldognewtrick

If we are going to have universal health care, make every single person in the US on it, no exceptions, no exclusions for corporations, or law makers. My biggest gripe with Obama care was all the exclusions given to the Wal-Mart, McDonald's etc. As with anything the govt controls, its the old saying, a camel is a horse designed by committee.


----------



## slownsteady

I have to agree. Anything that politicians touch has been influenced by lobbyists, "experts", pundits, etc. But does that just means it is all hopelessly broken? i hope not.


----------



## zannej

slownsteady said:


> Question 1: Do you think that the overall medical system prior to the ACA (unregulated?) was all that great? And as part of that answer, state whether you are basing that answer on your own personal monthly bill.
> 
> Question 2: If you think that the medical industry should be an all-capitalist proposition, then why should we continue to give tax breaks to companies who pay for medical plans?



1. I think there is a yes and a no to this. I think that there were some elements of the ACA that helped people but others that hurt them. Making it so insurance companies couldn't reject people for having pre-existing conditions (or refusing to pay for treatment for pre-existing conditions) and barring them from having lifetime payouts and expanding coverage to lower income people was a good thing. Letting offspring stay on the insurance up until 26 was also good because it helped out some of the younger people. Unfortunately, when they tried to balance it by making people pay punitive taxes/fees for not having insurance, that was a bad thing. Also, making it so that people like Chris had to pay so much more for healthcare plans was just asinine and unfair. A plan that costs as much as his and had such a high deductible is just not worth it unless someone was afflicted with MS or cancer or some longterm seriously expensive medical condition that would have cost people more out of pocket than the insurance. Not only did this financially hurt the middle class, it also caused bitterness. When someone who has worked hard, invested  money well, and now is essentially hemorrhaging money because of this plan, something is seriously wrong. The money should not be coming out of their skin. And another major failure of the system was to NOT address the problems with greedy insurance companies finding all manner of excuses not to cover things, hospitals/doctors not accepting some insurance companies, and absolutely obscene pricing for medical equipment, medicine, and treatment. There are people who pay the punitive fee/tax because they don't realize that they are supposed to consider their net income (not gross) to factor in whether or not they owe it & assume they do-- and they really can't afford it. I know people who dropped family members from their healthcare plans to avoid the premiums going up-- but the premiums still went up to the point they can no longer afford it (when someone's premiums go up by $1k per month- that is a problem). If they had addressed the fact that in some places people get charged more for having insurance because they know they can get that money or charging people more for not having insurance because they want to make up for not getting as much as they want for stuff, it might have helped. But they failed to address some of those critical problems. 

2. I'm a bit on the fence on this one. On one hand, ideally it would be great if they were doing things for the greater good of the people. Realistically I recognize that humans are meretricious and being altruistic won't put food on the table. I think that without some sort of incentive (more than feeling good about doing the right thing or helping people) there wouldn't be as many people interested in going in to the medical field. When there are medicines and treatments deliberately being squelched because it could interfere with or lessen the profits of things like radiation therapy and so forth, we have a serious problem. I think that we need the capitalism to a point-- to encourage the competitiveness and for people to feel they need to strive to do better. I suppose I don't think it should be *purely* capitalistic. I think that maybe they should classify healthcare/medicine/equipment/etc as a necessary resource (like fuel, electricity, water, etc) and put a cap on how much profit they can make-- but still allow enough profit that the companies can feel it is worthwhile. Finding that happy medium would be tough though-- since there are some greedy bastards out there. 

I hope I'm making sense.


----------



## oldognewtrick

slownsteady said:


> I have to agree. Anything that politicians touch has been influenced by lobbyists, "experts", pundits, etc. But does that just means it is all hopelessly broken? i hope not.



Hopeless, I hope not. Its time for our nation to start thinking beyond political parties, time for common sense and not self interest groups to push agenda. We are so easily influenced by the latest news cycle. If we allow ourselves to be lead like sheep, you know where the sheep are usually lead....


----------



## soparklion11

Shaving $1k per capita would be a good start...

https://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2014/09/us-has-high-hospital-administrative.html


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> My accountant did everything legal and even a few questionable things. Only other way to get my taxes lower are to flat out lie, that is what most of these accountants do that make it to where you don't pay. My problem was that I followed the rules and got screwed. I talked to a few other accountant because I get upset with mine but its not her fault she just won't lie to save me money and I agree, I don't need the audit where they will find out. Right now I could be audited for every year and win every single one.  I would rather the rules be changed to to help someone trying to build a company instead of using every turn for them to charge more. Like Bud said, they won this battle, they took jobs away from six people including myself. They made it not worth it to keep fighting the fight. I had a very successful 9 years and every year that came more success came more charges for success to keep where I was the year before. It's funny I was up to 12 employees and doing a few million a year in sales and I took home less money than I did my first year in business when I was running the tractor with a helper.
> 
> They want equality, they got it. They just made a hard worker into the poor class just like everyone else. Its not about bringing up the lower class it's about bringing down the middle class to the lower class for equality.



Carried debt is deductible unless it is a big ticket item like a truck.


----------



## slownsteady

soparklion11 said:


> Shaving $1k per capita would be a good start...
> 
> https://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2014/09/us-has-high-hospital-administrative.html



Numbers like that are so hard to interpret since we don't know how they arrived  at it. If they are averaging all people in the country, some will have spent a fortune and some will have spent none.

But, for sure, it has a lot to do with what we are charged for health care in the US. Our drug prices are so much higher than every other country. We have access to so many more tests, and doctors use them extensively because we are so litigious.


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> Carried debt is deductible unless it is a big ticket item like a truck.



I had two truck loans and a few tractor loans that I paid off. Not supposed to pay them off


----------



## nealtw

Chris said:


> I had two truck loans and a few tractor loans that I paid off. Not supposed to pay them off



Well you can pay them off but you can't write them off just so much a year.
So you can earn money for the next few years and write them off, saving you money then.


----------



## Chris

Yeah ill be fine next year. It would be nice if you could write off what actually gets paid each year


----------



## slownsteady

So what is everybody thinking about the new plan that's on the floor?


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> So what is everybody thinking about the new plan that's on the floor?



I think it is Obamacare lite. I think it will be equally unsustainable as ACA and now the ball is stupidly in the republicans court to take the failure when it happens. I strongly disagreed with the mandate of having to buy insurance if you didnt want it. Now you dont have to buy it and people wont but you will still try and cover everyone when the time comes. ACA picked up all the millions of people at the bottom by expanding Medicaid. The states dont have that kind of money and relied on the federal government the plan is for the federal government to slowly back off leaving the states the job of figuring it out. Meaning more taxing. It doesnt matter there is only so much money the working man can hand over in taxes. Like I have been saying the piper has to be paid. If you taxed the 1% 100% of what they made and have there isnt the money needed. It is the 50-99% that are going to pay the bills for the bottom 50%. What we need is one of two things a lower standard of living for all including poor healthcare for all or we need more people working. 

The republicans should have done nothing to it and let it fail and never stop pointing out where it came from. They are trying to keep everything people now feel is their rights to have and not have a way to pay for it.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Cite
> 
> World > World Statistics > Health and Social Statistics
> Life Expectancy for Countries, 2015
> Find the average life expectancy for each country and the world. As of 2014, the country with the highest life expectancy is Monaco at 89.52 years; the country with the lowest life expectancy is Chad at just 49.81 years.
> 
> Rank	Country	(years)	Date
> 1	Monaco	89.52	2015 est.
> 2	Japan	84.74	2015 est.
> 3	Singapore	84.68	2015 est.
> 4	Macau	84.51	2015 est.
> 5	San Marino	83.24	2015 est.
> 6	Iceland	82.97	2015 est.
> 7	Hong Kong	82.86	2015 est.
> 8	Andorra	82.72	2015 est.
> 9	Switzerland	82.50	2015 est.
> 10	Guernsey	82.47	2015 est.
> 11	Israel	82.27	2015 est.
> 12	Luxembourg	82.17	2015 est.
> 13	Australia	82.15	2015 est.
> 14	Italy	82.12	2015 est.
> 15	Sweden	81.98	2015 est.
> 16	Liechtenstein	81.77	2015 est.
> 17	Jersey	81.76	2015 est.
> 18	Canada	81.76	2015 est.
> 19	France	81.75	2015 est.
> 20	Norway	81.70	2015 est.
> 21	Spain	81.57	2015 est.
> 22	Austria	81.39	2015 est.
> 23	Anguilla	81.31	2015 est.
> 24	Netherlands	81.23	2015 est.
> 25	Bermuda	81.15	2015 est.
> 26	Cayman Islands	81.13	2015 est.
> 27	Isle of Man	81.09	2015 est.
> 28	New Zealand	81.05	2015 est.
> 29	Belgium	80.88	2015 est.
> 30	Finland	80.77	2015 est.
> 31	Ireland	80.68	2015 est.
> 32	Germany	80.57	2015 est.
> 33	United Kingdom	80.54	2015 est.
> 34	Greece	80.43	2015 est.
> 35	Saint Pierre and Miquelon	80.39	2015 est.
> 36	Malta	80.25	2015 est.
> 37	Faroe Islands	80.24	2015 est.
> 38	European Union	80.20	2015 est.
> 39	Korea, South	80.04	2015 est.
> 40	Taiwan	79.98	2015 est.
> 41	Virgin Islands	79.89	2015 est.
> 42	Turks and Caicos Islands	79.69	2015 est.
> 43	United States	79.68	2015 est.
> 44	Wallis and Futuna	79.57	2015 est.
> 45	Saint Helena, Ascension,
> and Tristan da Cunha




Im not sure why Neal posted the health and life expectancy information listed above but I believe I found the answer to his question this morning driving to work with the radio on NPR. 

It seems the death rates in the USA have been rising from 1999 on and a husband and wife team have been studying it and just released their findings. It seems it is caused mainly by the group consisting of middle aged age white males going up faster than any other group. In fact some of the groups I thought could be contributing have actually came down and shown improvement. 

It is an interesting study and you can read more here with graphs and all. It is called Deaths of Despair

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...g-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair


----------



## nealtw

Bud, I posted that in response to your comment on life longevity.
I guess I should have posted the list of happiest countries.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Bud, I posted that in response to your comment on life longevity.
> I guess I should have posted the list of happiest countries.



Well now we know the reason. We may well have the best health care in the world, but the numbers are being pulled down because middle age white men can&#8217;t take it anymore and are killing themselves in one form or another.   :help:


----------



## 68bucks

slownsteady said:


> So what is everybody thinking about the new plan that's on the floor?


I think the republicans are climbing out on a limb and sawing it off behind themselves. Trumpcare is no better than Obamacare, just different. If the CBO is half right on their numbers I think they stand to lose a bunch of seats in 2018 and probably more in 2020. If they would have just put in a little effort in the last 6 years trying to improve the ACA maybe we could have made it into something that was better. But because there is no such thing as a compromise any more we end up where we are. 

It's also debatable if we have the best healthcare in the world. From my reading we lead in innovation and availability and that's about it. By availability I mean the ability to see a doctor when you need to. As for other big metrics we lag, like % of people covered, outcomes, cost, etc. Another thing I hate about our system is it's too tied to your employer. Why should your employer control such a vital thing? It has nothing to do with them really and makes changing jobs or career paths way to difficult especially if you have a family to worry about. It's not like most companies get some great deal. I see what our company pays for my healthcare every year and I could buy the same coverage for less. But we are a smaller company, only about 100 employees. I suppose a GM or AT&T might do better with a larger group.


----------



## slownsteady

68bucks said:


> I think the republicans are climbing out on a limb and sawing it off behind themselves. Trumpcare is no better than Obamacare, just different. If the CBO is half right on their numbers I think they stand to lose a bunch of seats in 2018 and probably more in 2020. If they would have just put in a little effort in the last 6 years trying to improve the ACA maybe we could have made it into something that was better. But because there is no such thing as a compromise any more we end up where we are.
> 
> It's also debatable if we have the best healthcare in the world. From my reading we lead in innovation and availability and that's about it. By availability I mean the ability to see a doctor when you need to. As for other big metrics we lag, like % of people covered, outcomes, cost, etc. Another thing I hate about our system is it's too tied to your employer. Why should your employer control such a vital thing? It has nothing to do with them really and makes changing jobs or career paths way to difficult especially if you have a family to worry about. It's not like most companies get some great deal. I see what our company pays for my healthcare every year and I could buy the same coverage for less. But we are a smaller company, only about 100 employees. I suppose a GM or AT&T might do better with a larger group.



I totally agree. Now if the feds want to lower the deficit, why don't they just eliminate the tax write-offs that companies get for healthcare. Let everyone shop retail. That would be a truer form of capitalism.


----------



## bud16415

It goes back to companies wanted a loyal workforce and employees wanted a job for life. unions and  companies at one time worked these issues out in labor agreements. They could have asked for just more money but instead asked for benefits. Healthcare was one and pensions another. I&#8217;m 61 and about to retire in a year. My choice. I grew up and came into this IMO during the end of the good old days. I will have had healthcare with an employee plan from the age of 17 when I left my parents employee plan. I will have participated in a pension plan for 44 years when I retire and will take home a little less than I make now and factoring in all the costs of working it will be roughly the same. My company will provide my healthcare plan until I switch to Medicare. While I worked there they paid for all my education as long as I wanted to go to school, and many other benefits. They didn&#8217;t do it just for me they did it for 15,000 other people at my location when I started. Companies got wealthy, employees got wealthy and the community got wealthy with all the support functions of having 15,000 paychecks getting cashed every week. I never had a desire to jump ship and change jobs going someplace else and I had plenty of offers. It was a nice run and capitalism pure and simple was the driver. It wasn&#8217;t a science fiction novel like Atlas Shrugged. It was reality and I had a good and wonderful run under that system. The way it is ending could be a few chapters out of that book though. The company I remember were decent people from the top to the bottom it was made up of men and women, black and white and everything in between all working together. People got hired and some that couldn&#8217;t play by the rules got fired. None of it was a free ride for anyone and no one expected a free ride. There were and will always be people that need extra help and they got it. The government had very little to do with any of this and took a healthy cut of my paycheck every week for those 44 years and did what governments do in providing services to people. 

There are new ways coming to healthcare and every other aspect of life. I used to wonder if there was a tipping point to this and where and when it would be. I hope I&#8217;m not turning into that old guy that&#8217;s full of doubt for the future. But watching what republicans had 8 years to think about correcting and doing if they ever got the chance again and these are the best plans they can come up with. I&#8217;m going to sound like the old guy and say we passed the tipping point and I never even noticed. SNS is right I will never in my life see a country I lived in thru the 70&#8217;s and 80&#8217;s again. I don&#8217;t think Trump can correct it because I don&#8217;t think the people have the will or desire to correct it. If you are on the other side of the coin you feel it is being corrected and moving in a good direction let&#8217;s hope you are right. I don&#8217;t see it moving any other direction.


----------



## Chris

Priced out healthcare in idaho today for my family and it is almost half of what it is in california.


----------



## slownsteady

...and that's under the ACA.

Politics prevails as usual today with the House putting off the vote.


----------



## zannej

68bucks, I think it depends on the type of treatment and where you go for it. People who can afford higher payments can get in faster, but people who can't have to wait to get in to specialty clinics. I had to wait 4 months for a cardiology appointment. My friend's ex had to wait 6 months for an obgyn appointment and she had to go to a city that was 3 hours away. That brings me to another thing: there aren't always clinics or doctors nearby. I imagine in larger cities there are a plethora of facilities, but you get out to more rural areas and states like Louisiana, and it is harder to find good care. We actually had to take my father to Houston, TX for some of his medical treatment because it wasn't available in Louisiana.

I don't know if any of the healthcare plans could help with that situation.


----------



## Chris

The one quoted to me will cost me 900 a month and have a 7k deductible. No free office visits until deductible is met. So in reality I will pay 900 a month and pay for all my doctor visits because of go maybe once per year. My kids well check will still cost me as if I didn't have insurance. I guess it's 10,800 a year just in case something happens. Seems fair I guess?


----------



## zannej

Chris said:


> The one quoted to me will cost me 900 a month and have a 7k deductible. No free office visits until deductible is met. So in reality I will pay 900 a month and pay for all my doctor visits because of go maybe once per year. My kids well check will still cost me as if I didn't have insurance. I guess it's 10,800 a year just in case something happens. Seems fair I guess?


That is still pretty damn high. Most of the people where I live couldn't afford to pay that much.


----------



## frodo

$900.  a month ?  If I was you,  get insurance for the kids but not you and Mrs Chris,  pay cash for ya'lls


----------



## bud16415

I&#8217;m glad to see that Trump and Ryan have been reading this forum and took my advice. 

Now we all can sit back and enjoy the ACA.

For quite a few people we might have to take that first &#8220;A&#8221; off the name though. Wait for the rest of it to kick in.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> That is still pretty damn high. Most of the people where I live couldn't afford to pay that much.



Zannej

You have to understand the basic idea behind ACA. Most of the people where you live wont have to afford that price, because Chris and tens of millions of other people like Chris will be paying more than their share so people that cant afford it will get it for a low price or for free. 

Keep in mind the unintended consequence of such things. In our example this and other such programs are stopping or slowing down the Chriss of the country and the 10 people he employed will be looking for a job soon. Instead of him continuing to grow his business he is downsizing. Instead of growing from 10 people working for him to 20 and then 30 and then 100, he will be going to zero or one. Thats the potential for 100 people to have a better life because of him and 100 people paying taxes and being able to afford healthcare, to no one moving up. That is what capitalism is all about and what socialism is not about. 

Is healthcare more important than food to keep people going? Most people would say both are important equally I think.

So lets take this to the next level and make a law called AFA (A,Food,A) when we fill our shopping cart at the supermarket when we check out we have to show our card. The rich guy pays 10 bucks for a loaf of bread and 30 bucks for a gallon of milk because he can afford it. The poor guy in line ahead of him that not working because the rich guy cant afford to hire him gets his bread and milk for a quarter each because thats what the AFA has done to help everyone have quality food at affordable prices. On the surface this seems wonderful look at that everyone can now afford good food. I think you can see how this type of thinking causes a downward spiral for everyone though.

That where the saying a rising tide raises all ships came from. The new saying in this country is a lowering tide sinks all ships. Or another way to think of it is we want all people to be equal. Thats a noble cause. Just remember all people can be equal when they all hit bottom.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> Zannej
> 
> You have to understand the basic idea behind ACA. Most of the people where you live wont have to afford that price, because Chris and tens of millions of other people like Chris will be paying more than their share so people that cant afford it will get it for a low price or for free.
> 
> Keep in mind the unintended consequence of such things. In our example this and other such programs are stopping or slowing down the Chriss of the country and the 10 people he employed will be looking for a job soon. Instead of him continuing to grow his business he is downsizing. Instead of growing from 10 people working for him to 20 and then 30 and then 100, he will be going to zero or one. Thats the potential for 100 people to have a better life because of him and 100 people paying taxes and being able to afford healthcare, to no one moving up. That is what capitalism is all about and what socialism is not about.
> 
> Is healthcare more important than food to keep people going? Most people would say both are important equally I think.
> 
> So lets take this to the next level and make a law called AFA (A,Food,A) when we fill our shopping cart at the supermarket when we check out we have to show our card. The rich guy pays 10 bucks for a loaf of bread and 30 bucks for a gallon of milk because he can afford it. The poor guy in line ahead of him that not working because the rich guy cant afford to hire him gets his bread and milk for a quarter each because thats what the AFA has done to help everyone have quality food at affordable prices. On the surface this seems wonderful look at that everyone can now afford good food. I think you can see how this type of thinking causes a downward spiral for everyone though.
> 
> That where the saying a rising tide raises all ships came from. The new saying in this country is a lowering tide sinks all ships. Or another way to think of it is we want all people to be equal. Thats a noble cause. Just remember all people can be equal when they all hit bottom.



nice post Zanne,


----------



## zannej

Bud, yeah. That is why I think it is unfair for Chris to be paying that much. And in my state they really didn't do much to expand the coverage so there are a lot of people who can't get coverage even though there are people like Chris who are paying more. 
Taking it out of the middle class is only hurting the economy. That is why I think they will never have a successful plan until they do something about some of the root problems-- such as the absurd amounts that are being charged for medicine and treatment. Nurses get a pittance compared to the administrators of the hospitals. Granted, I get that a doctor's salary is supposed to be decent to make up for the expense of getting a medical degree, but it is expensive for nurses too and they don't make that much. So, where is the money going? It's not all going to cover lawyers or actual expenses-- a lot of it is going to hospital administrators. I know they need the administrators to run things, but I don't think they should be making that much profit off of people's suffering. The question is, how do we do something about it? And can we?
If we could find a reasonable way to bring down what people get charged, then it wouldn't cost as much for insurance and people like Chris wouldn't have it taken out of their hides. I do think it is wrong for people to be charged that much more because of their income. They already get it taken out from the taxes they pay. And a lot of the 1%ers are not even paying taxes or not paying their fair share and their companies are getting government subsidies. But smaller companies like Chris' get screwed.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Bud, yeah. That is why I think it is unfair for Chris to be paying that much. And in my state they really didn't do much to expand the coverage so there are a lot of people who can't get coverage even though there are people like Chris who are paying more.
> Taking it out of the middle class is only hurting the economy. That is why I think they will never have a successful plan until they do something about some of the root problems-- such as the absurd amounts that are being charged for medicine and treatment. Nurses get a pittance compared to the administrators of the hospitals. Granted, I get that a doctor's salary is supposed to be decent to make up for the expense of getting a medical degree, but it is expensive for nurses too and they don't make that much. So, where is the money going? It's not all going to cover lawyers or actual expenses-- a lot of it is going to hospital administrators. I know they need the administrators to run things, but I don't think they should be making that much profit off of people's suffering. The question is, how do we do something about it? And can we?
> If we could find a reasonable way to bring down what people get charged, then it wouldn't cost as much for insurance and people like Chris wouldn't have it taken out of their hides. I do think it is wrong for people to be charged that much more because of their income. They already get it taken out from the taxes they pay. And a lot of the 1%ers are not even paying taxes or not paying their fair share and their companies are getting government subsidies. But smaller companies like Chris' get screwed.




The way to get cost out of anything is called competition. Chris is reacting to competition he is moving to a new state and look what happened his bill is lower. Ford doesnt charge you 100k for a car because you will go buy a Chevy for 20k. or a Kia for 15k. Thats free enterprise and what makes jobs and wealth and brings cost down. It also makes products better. It is true of every product and service healthcare included. 

We are going to have the opportunity now to watch ACA react to all the market forces and the total plan unfold. No one talked about how it was setup to change each year and work fairly well in the beginning. With a plan that is not sustainable they knew they had to force buy in slowly. It wasnt a secret it just wasnt talked about. 

Just remember what we heard over and over if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan. 

In a year or two we can come back and talk about it and see how it is working out. Trust me I hope Im wrong and everyone has great health care and no one has to pay too much. The opposition to repeal and replace wants to keep ACA so now they can. It was a major win for the left. 

We now know exactly the answer to Chriss question in the first post. More of the same.


----------



## Chris

In reaction to "you can keep your plan" yes you can and I tried. My plan went from 188 bucks for medical and dental for just myself to 322 and then to 417 for the exact same plan, nothing changed except what I pay. Every January I would get a notice stating that I agree to these changes and they are now in affect.  I did have to change my doctor when I had to change my plan due to costs and my doctor did not accept the new insurance. Now I am uninsured and saving soo much money, as long as I am healthy its a win. I have always been that guy who is too paranoid to not have insurance but when it comes down to a raping or strong arm robbery why should I sit back and take it. Right now I am trying to see what I can do to get my income lower for this year so I can pay less for my new insurance that we want to get. Stupid that it is based on income. None of my other insurances are based on income, why health? Maybe it should be based on health and lifestyle? Now that would make sense.


----------



## slownsteady

> The opposition to repeal and replace wants to keep ACA so now they can. It was a major win for the left.



No, it was a major **** up for the right. They had seven years to compose a better healthcare plan *and they did squat*. It was never about the health of Americans for them. It was about defeating the other party. Never about the good of the people.


----------



## slownsteady

My biggest gripe about the current healthcare system - and the system prior to the ACA, is I do not want an accountant making decisions about my care. But there they are, trying to scrounge every dollar they can for their own benefit.


----------



## zannej

Bud, I agree that there needs to be more competition with the insurance agencies. They need to be able to try to be better or charge less to get more customers. But, how would you propose they encourage the competition with the healthcare itself? Especially when people don't always have a choice. If someone gets knocked out, they don't get to pick where they go. And it's not like the prices are readily available for people to know how much it will cost them to go to a particular clinic or hospital. Not everyone has the option of just picking up and moving like Chris. Not everyone can afford it.
Chris is fortunate in that he has the guts, knowledge, and finances to be able to move but unfortunate to have had to move in the first place because of an unfair policy.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Bud, I agree that there needs to be more competition with the insurance agencies. They need to be able to try to be better or charge less to get more customers. But, how would you propose they encourage the competition with the healthcare itself? Especially when people don't always have a choice. If someone gets knocked out, they don't get to pick where they go. And it's not like the prices are readily available for people to know how much it will cost them to go to a particular clinic or hospital. Not everyone has the option of just picking up and moving like Chris. Not everyone can afford it.
> Chris is fortunate in that he has the guts, knowledge, and finances to be able to move but unfortunate to have had to move in the first place because of an unfair policy.



Regulation is one thing and telling someone and everyone that they must do something in every detail is another. Say we pass a law and say everyone in this country has a right eat healthy food and it is not fair some people get to go to fancy restaurants and others must eat at home or at best go to McDonalds. Because we all know those rich people eat better food at that fancy place that charges $50 for dinner per person. So we make a law we give some people coupons to go get free meals at the fancy restaurants because they have no income. We pay for the coupons by taxing the upper half of the working people a little more. Then the people that are not poor but not rich and wouldnt be able to eat there normally we tell them we have a plan for you also. We will make the fancy restaurants charge less based on your income and it is ok because we will just tell them they can charge the rich folk that come in more say $100 for dinner because that will be fair they make more anyway. So now the rich guy is paying double taxes on what he makes and if he wants to eat out at the fancy place he gets to pay double there as well. He starts adding things up in his head and says ya know I cant afford this eating out stuff anymore Im going on a diet. Then it dawns on him if I make less money I will pay less taxes and I can get in on the voucher system to eat out. So lets see Ill down size my company and let my workers go and  I wont make so much and my income will fall in line with lower middle class and now I can go eat out for 25 bucks. 

Isnt America great we brought down the cost of eating out and we now can have everyone eating at a fancy restaurant and we did it with people downsizing and not working as hard. :thbup:


----------



## French_guy

I know you gave this as an example, but you don't have to be reach to eat healthy.....!
As an example, A MacDonald menu is more expensive than the Costco salad ($3.99)
And it doesn't cost more to cook healthy at home than to eat junk food


----------



## bud16415

Chris said:


> In reaction to "you can keep your plan" yes you can and I tried. My plan went from 188 bucks for medical and dental for just myself to 322 and then to 417 for the exact same plan, nothing changed except what I pay. Every January I would get a notice stating that I agree to these changes and they are now in affect.  I did have to change my doctor when I had to change my plan due to costs and my doctor did not accept the new insurance. Now I am uninsured and saving soo much money, as long as I am healthy its a win. I have always been that guy who is too paranoid to not have insurance but when it comes down to a raping or strong arm robbery why should I sit back and take it. Right now I am trying to see what I can do to get my income lower for this year so I can pay less for my new insurance that we want to get. Stupid that it is based on income. None of my other insurances are based on income, why health? Maybe it should be based on health and lifestyle? Now that would make sense.



 You mean your car insurance isnt based on income? It should be driving should be a right and people that cant afford a car should get one for free along with the car insurance and the only way to do that would be to base the rates on income. It is only fair. Think about it I have heard a lot of people saying driving is not like going to a doctor its not as important. Duh, How do you get to the doctor you need a car to drive there. Plus if the poor people not working all had cars maybe they would drive around and find some work a greater distance from home. Yep I think owning a car and having car insurance is a right and the government should do something about that. Same with owning a house I think it is so unfair they wont let you buy a house unless you have enough income to pay for it. Thats not fair owning a home should be a right because without a nice place to live it just isnt safe or healthy. 

I think cars and houses are god given rights and people that cant afford them the government should give them one just like cell phones. We have enough rich people if we just charge them more we can get the money so everyone can have a car and a house. Think about it all the jobs we will have building those cars and houses. It is a win / win if you ask me.


----------



## bud16415

French_guy said:


> I know you gave this as an example, but you don't have to be reach to eat healthy.....!
> As an example, A MacDonald menu is more expensive than the Costco salad ($3.99)
> And it doesn't cost more to cook healthy at home than to eat junk food



I know but that would be like asking a sick person to go to a free clinic instead of the Mayo Clinic. 

If Costco started a chain of Hospitals attached to the pharmacy and you could go in and get a complete physical checkup for $3.99 would you go?


----------



## oldognewtrick

bud16415 said:


> I know but that would be like asking a sick person to go to a free clinic instead of the Mayo Clinic.
> 
> If Costco started a chain of Hospitals attached to the pharmacy and you could go in and get a complete physical checkup for $3.99 would you go?



Heck yeah I'd go in a heartbeat. Costco always has free sample give a ways at their stores. And a terrific return policy.


----------



## bud16415

oldognewtrick said:


> Heck yeah I'd go in a heartbeat. Costco always has free sample give a ways at their stores. And a terrific return policy.



There you go the solution to the health care problem. Turn the whole thing over to Costco and Walmart. Prices will come right down. 

You could drop your car off for new tires. Go have a colon scope and then get a $3.99 salad. Hopefully the same guy doesnt do all three jobs.


----------



## oldognewtrick

Don't forget $1.50 for a hotdog and coke.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> I know but that would be like asking a sick person to go to a free clinic instead of the Mayo Clinic.
> 
> If Costco started a chain of Hospitals attached to the pharmacy and you could go in and get a complete physical checkup for $3.99 would you go?



https://www.thestar.com/business/pe...t_to_add_more_superstore_medical_clinics.html


----------



## havasu

I get my dental insurance through Costco currently. For $85 a year, I get my teeth cleaned twice a year and have heavily discounted other repairs. Bad thing is it is only in California.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> https://www.thestar.com/business/pe...t_to_add_more_superstore_medical_clinics.html



There you go leave it to Walmart Canada to figure out a better way.


----------



## bud16415

havasu said:


> I get my dental insurance through Costco currently. For $85 a year, I get my teeth cleaned twice a year and have heavily discounted other repairs. Bad thing is it is only in California.



I knew it was too good to be true. The darn CEO makes $ 6,000,000 per year. If we could just get him to shape up your dental would only be $35 per year. 

http://www1.salary.com/W-Craig-Jelinek-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-COSTCO-WHOLESALE-CORP.html


----------



## nealtw

havasu said:


> I get my dental insurance through Costco currently. For $85 a year, I get my teeth cleaned twice a year and have heavily discounted other repairs. Bad thing is it is only in California.



I think that works because they don't need a lawyer to figure out what is covered and what isn't, everyone has the same plan or the clinic can easily check what you coverage is.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> There you go leave it to Walmart Canada to figure out a better way.



There is nothing to figure out. Everyone has the same plan so payment is guaranteed, all med. records are on line, not everyone has a DR. so the clinics keep people out of the ER.
No lawyers at the clinic, DR.s office, hospital, insurance office.:trophy:


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> There is nothing to figure out. Everyone has the same plan so payment is guaranteed, all med. records are on line, not everyone has a DR. so the clinics keep people out of the ER.
> No lawyers at the clinic, DR.s office, hospital, insurance office.:trophy:



So if I go into Walmart in Canada I could bump into The Prime Minster Justin Trudeau coming out with a bout with the flu. 

Does it bother you that the Walton Kids are getting rich off the Canadian Government? Thru your tax dollars.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> So if I go into Walmart in Canada I could bump into The Prime Minster Justin Trudeau coming out with a bout with the flu.
> 
> Does it bother you that the Walton Kids are getting rich off the Canadian Government? Thru your tax dollars.



I am sure he has a Dr. that does house calls.:trophy:

But we do have problems with the system here, like the Dr. group decides how many Dr. can be in a given area so sometime it is hard to find a DR, that will take new people. So clinics pop up everywhere. Not always on routes for transportation. Walmart always seem to get on the bus route so people with out cars can get there.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> I am sure he has a Dr. that does house calls.:trophy:
> 
> But we do have problems with the system here, like the Dr. group decides how many Dr. can be in a given area so sometime it is hard to find a DR, that will take new people. So clinics pop up everywhere. Not always on routes for transportation. Walmart always seem to get on the bus route so people with out cars can get there.



Those darn Walmarts seem to always be where the people are. If I didnt know better I would think they plan it that way. So they are kind of luring people into their clinics as they are anchor locations for so many other products and services and people are already there and familiar with how to get there. Pretty smart of them. Walmart normally doesnt get into things unless there is money to be made and lots of it. Do you think they are making money on these clinics? Like tacking on 10% to what the doctors are charging or making sure the clinic uses Walmart brand Band-Aids and such.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> Those darn Walmarts seem to always be where the people are. If I didnt know better I would think they plan it that way. So they are kind of luring people into their clinics as they are anchor locations for so many other products and services and people are already there and familiar with how to get there. Pretty smart of them. Walmart normally doesnt get into things unless there is money to be made and lots of it. Do you think they are making money on these clinics? Like tacking on 10% to what the doctors are charging or making sure the clinic uses Walmart brand Band-Aids and such.



Whether you like Walmart or not, we can't knock there ability to make money.
The store here has insurance company, hairdresser and Mac Donalds all in store.
So I am sure it is how many dollars per sq foot. 
So if you go to their clinic, which drug store are you going to?

I think a visit is a visit so the same $ value where ever you go. 
For the most part the hospitals are part of the system but the get paid the same as a DR. visit. They do have their own budget so it is in their interest to have the clinics in place for people who don't need the expensive service.


----------



## zannej

Bud, I think comparing car insurance and restaurant meals to health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges.
Having a car is very helpful and there are times when it can be a life-saver to be able to drive away, but there are other people who can drive someone (not always, but most of the time) if need be.
A person can still get some less expensive food at grocery stores and such (if they don't live in a "food desert") and still survive.
But medical care is not something that can really be compromised. 
Medical treatment requires very specific care, medicines, and procedures. People can and do die from lack of treatment. People don't die because they can't eat at a fancy restaurant and ones who are very desperate for food will pick through the trash (I've seen people doing that). But you can't pick through the trash for medical care.

I'm not saying we should bring all the medical prices down to an unfair level so they would need to make up for it in other ways. I'm saying we should bring it down to a reasonable level so that they are able to make a little bit of profit over breaking even as an incentive. When they have a test that costs maybe $5 to run and they charge $800 or even $8,000 for it, that is absurd. They can charge maybe $20 to $50 or even $80 if they need to make up for the cost of the equipment. And the more people that can afford it, the more likely they are to get $ from doing those tests.

As for the cheap/free clinics-- they aren't available in some areas. People might have to get a lift to places 2 to 3 hours away. And some people aren't able to get there. And places like Walmart (at least where I live) won't always let people have days off when they need to go to appointments or even when they have medical emergencies. The local Walmart here has fired at least 5 employees (that I know of) because they needed medical treatment. (Which is why I think they need to enforce the rules for the Family Medical Leave Act more strictly).

I'm not sure how I feel about a Walmart run clinic. Maybe they can pull it off in Canada, but not where I live. I know they sometimes have eye clinics at Walmarts, but actual regular medical.... I wouldn't trust them. I think I'd trust Costco more, but there is no Costco in my area.

I'm not suggesting that people just straight up get a free ride, but people should not be dying because they can't get medical treatment- and I do know that some hospitals will refuse to treat children because the parents can't afford it. I've had friends who couldn't get their kids treated for painful injuries/medical issues because they couldn't afford to pay the full amount up front and the doctor's refused to do the treatment without said payment. And if they were charging reasonable amounts or allowing payment plans, my friends would have been able to afford it. I get they don't trust payment plans because people don't always pay, but necessary treatment should not be withheld because of money.


----------



## nealtw

Just sign up to be a cow.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopbmwQTrwI[/ame]


----------



## slownsteady

Have you noticed that you're not allowed to drive around in an uninsured car? Why? Because it's the law that you must be insured. And what happens if you're caught without car insurance? You pay a fine.

Hey everybody! Let's abolish car insurance!!!


----------



## nealtw

Let's talk about car insurance, we have had gov. insurance since the late sixties, I still don't pay a much for insurance as I did in 1967, the only people complaining are those that get caught skiing when they are suing for a broken neck or something.


----------



## Chris

I just wish car insurance was different. I have a few vehicles a couple that only see the road a few miles a year. I wish I could insure myself and not each vehicle. A can't drive them all at the same time anyway. A pay about 600 a year for two jeeps that don't get driven but if I didn't the registration would get suspended.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Have you noticed that you're not allowed to drive around in an uninsured car? Why? Because it's the law that you must be insured. And what happens if you're caught without car insurance? You pay a fine.
> 
> Hey everybody! Let's abolish car insurance!!!



There is a big difference between car insurance and ACA. The government does not tell you that you have to own a car. Owning and driving a car is a privilege not a right. The government does not go to people that do not own a car and say you have to pay for car insurance even though you dont own a car, because if spreading the burden of car insurance over everyone will lower the cost for all. Government does not say when you go to get your car insured tell us your income because the more you make the more you should have to pay so that people that make less can better afford car insurance. Instead they ask you what kind of car what year and how much do you drive. They also look at your driving record. Then they ask you how much coverage do you want. 

No one that does not own a car and does not drive a car has ever been made to pay a fine for not having car insurance. People that do not want health insurance and do not have health insurance are being fined for not signing up. 

It is our right to live our life free. We are free to work or not work and work as hard as we like. If we are blessed with a skill or intelligence it is our right to use it or squander it as we best, see fit. If we think the money we earn would better be spent on something else we should be free to do that. 

I just had stone chip in my windshield that turned to a crack and I called my car insurance company. They reminded me I had $500 deductible and told me the cost was just under 500 and I was SOL. I could have had glass breakage on my insurance but I chose to keep my money and take the chance I didnt have glass breakage and I lost. 

Having any kind of insurance has never been a right in this country.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Let's talk about car insurance, we have had gov. insurance since the late sixties, I still don't pay a much for insurance as I did in 1967, the only people complaining are those that get caught skiing when they are suing for a broken neck or something.



Im a little confused. Are you saying your car insurance in Canada is also thru government? And that you pay the same or less now as you did in 1967?  If so how do you explain where the money comes from to pay out claims?


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Bud, I think comparing car insurance and restaurant meals to health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges.
> Having a car is very helpful and there are times when it can be a life-saver to be able to drive away, but there are other people who can drive someone (not always, but most of the time) if need be.
> A person can still get some less expensive food at grocery stores and such (if they don't live in a "food desert") and still survive.
> But medical care is not something that can really be compromised.
> Medical treatment requires very specific care, medicines, and procedures. People can and do die from lack of treatment. People don't die because they can't eat at a fancy restaurant and ones who are very desperate for food will pick through the trash (I've seen people doing that). But you can't pick through the trash for medical care.
> 
> I'm not saying we should bring all the medical prices down to an unfair level so they would need to make up for it in other ways. I'm saying we should bring it down to a reasonable level so that they are able to make a little bit of profit over breaking even as an incentive. When they have a test that costs maybe $5 to run and they charge $800 or even $8,000 for it, that is absurd. They can charge maybe $20 to $50 or even $80 if they need to make up for the cost of the equipment. And the more people that can afford it, the more likely they are to get $ from doing those tests.
> 
> As for the cheap/free clinics-- they aren't available in some areas. People might have to get a lift to places 2 to 3 hours away. And some people aren't able to get there. And places like Walmart (at least where I live) won't always let people have days off when they need to go to appointments or even when they have medical emergencies. The local Walmart here has fired at least 5 employees (that I know of) because they needed medical treatment. (Which is why I think they need to enforce the rules for the Family Medical Leave Act more strictly).
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about a Walmart run clinic. Maybe they can pull it off in Canada, but not where I live. I know they sometimes have eye clinics at Walmarts, but actual regular medical.... I wouldn't trust them. I think I'd trust Costco more, but there is no Costco in my area.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that people just straight up get a free ride, but people should not be dying because they can't get medical treatment- and I do know that some hospitals will refuse to treat children because the parents can't afford it. I've had friends who couldn't get their kids treated for painful injuries/medical issues because they couldn't afford to pay the full amount up front and the doctor's refused to do the treatment without said payment. And if they were charging reasonable amounts or allowing payment plans, my friends would have been able to afford it. I get they don't trust payment plans because people don't always pay, but necessary treatment should not be withheld because of money.



Of course you are right comparing anything that is not exactly the same is comparing apples to oranges. Even when going grocery shopping for fruit. 

Basically the discussion comes down to two or three things. The first being is healthcare a commodity like apples and oranges or a car, to be bought and used to make our life better and more enjoyable, or is it a right all men are entitled to give to us from God. Secondly is compassion to our fellow man that we should all have. The third item is cost and how far we should go with our compassion and then what happens when we hit the cost prohibited point and our compassion persists. 

All people are different in their beliefs. Where I live we have a large Amish population. Their belief is they take care of their own. If they get sick they doctor themselves as best they can and when they cant they go see a doctor and insist on paying cash. If a kid gets a tooth ache they go to the dentist and tell him to pull the tooth out. It is their way and it is their right. They drive their buggies down the public roads without the inspections I have to pay for every year and without car insurance.  

So lets assume health care is a right given to us from God. I think you will agree we need to put limits on it. I have needed reading glasses for the last 10 years and I would love to go get eye surgery and have 20/20 vision again. The thing thats stopping me is my very good insurance says go for it and pay for it yourself because all they think I need is a 10 dollar pair of glasses from Walmart. I could make a case thats not very compassionate. Or should we only be compassionate when it is life or death. Well that is a hard one also because most of the cost of health care is at the end of life. And who makes the call when someone is very old and wants a procedure that costs 100 grand and will keep them alive another 6 months. 

No matter how much money is available and how low we lower costs there will never be enough and sadly people wont get treatment with or without insurance. The goal of ACA was to insure everyone. All we heard about was the 14 million that didnt have insurance. Then lately if Trump had his way it would be 20 million. It would be easy to insure everyone if we lower our compassion for our fellow man to the point the funding will cover. We are all covered now. Granddad who is retired needs a knee replacement we take a look at his knee and we tell him you dont work anymore you are on social security here is a cane (next). Grandma needs a bypass she is 88 here are some nitro pills (next). 

What level of quality do we expect and at what level of compassion do we show. We have a ER doc in our family and he tells me most of his 12 hour shift is telling people they dont need painkillers they are asking for or bringing back to life ODs with some expensive drug and then seeing them come back in a week later OD again. Do we lower costs and toss these drug users out the door and help some sick people. 

We do agree on one thing if Im having chest pain I would much rather go to Costco than Sams Club.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> Im a little confused. Are you saying your car insurance in Canada is also thru government? And that you pay the same or less now as you did in 1967?  If so how do you explain where the money comes from to pay out claims?



I think BC is one of three Provences with gov. insurance.
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/6/icbc-slips-out-bad-news-balance-sheet/

All a little different.
http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2014/DOC_42062_C4-2_McCandless_Letter-of-Comment.pdf

The gov. uses it has a cash cow and then complains it is always losing money.


----------



## zannej

Bud, you make some very good points.

I don't think giving everyone insurance will fix things. I also don't think that lowering the costs of medical treatment alone will fix things. There need to be multiple things done and I am not naive enough to ever think we will have a perfect system.

However, just because we may never have a perfect system does not mean we can't try to have a better system-- and while lowering medical prices may not fix everything, it could actually save a great number of lives. 

The question of how far to go and so forth is a good one. That is something that will have to be decided upon.

I do certainly think that children should not be made to suffer. Anything that causes debilitating pain or is life-threatening should be treated. If a kid breaks his/her arm, they should not be told they can't get a cast because their parents can't pay for it up front.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Bud, you make some very good points.
> 
> I don't think giving everyone insurance will fix things. I also don't think that lowering the costs of medical treatment alone will fix things. There need to be multiple things done and I am not naive enough to ever think we will have a perfect system.
> 
> However, just because we may never have a perfect system does not mean we can't try to have a better system-- and while lowering medical prices may not fix everything, it could actually save a great number of lives.
> 
> The question of how far to go and so forth is a good one. That is something that will have to be decided upon.
> 
> I do certainly think that children should not be made to suffer. Anything that causes debilitating pain or is life-threatening should be treated. If a kid breaks his/her arm, they should not be told they can't get a cast because their parents can't pay for it up front.




I dont know what it is like where you live but here Im very sure before and after ACA no little kid with a broken arm hasnt been treated in our hospitals with or without insurance. If there have been some I would love to read more about it. I know homeless people often get treatment both before and after ACA. 

This is pretty much what I see around here.  

http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm


----------



## slownsteady

bud16415 said:


> I dont know what it is like where you live but here Im very sure before and after ACA no little kid with a broken arm hasnt been treated in our hospitals with or without insurance. If there have been some I would love to read more about it. I know homeless people often get treatment both before and after ACA.
> 
> This is pretty much what I see around here.
> 
> http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm


Then of course, there is the argument that the ACA has lowered losses for hospitals enabling them (in some cases) to stay open. There was a report on this recently which I can't exactly recall to memory. The whole concept of preventative care combined with the reality that taxpayers are already paying for ER care (very expensive and often not necessary) means a net lowering of costs, which (either by ignorance or intent) is not calculated into the argument by Congress.


----------



## Chris

I don't know of any ER in America that is allowed to refuse treatment to anyone? I am still trying to figure out how it cost me 12k to have my wife deliver a baby. The baby was born within minutes of getting there. She stayed their two day minimum, no surgeries or anything special and 12k for that. There is no way they are not making a profit off that.


----------



## slownsteady

Profits from you may be covering losses at the ER. I'm not offering excuses for the prices they charge, just saying that might be the case.
I guess the rest of that argument could start with: why did you choose that hospital? Did you price other hospitals? Did you consider a mid-wife? Etc.


----------



## bud16415

Chris said:


> I don't know of any ER in America that is allowed to refuse treatment to anyone? I am still trying to figure out how it cost me 12k to have my wife deliver a baby. The baby was born within minutes of getting there. She stayed their two day minimum, no surgeries or anything special and 12k for that. There is no way they are not making a profit off that.



It is the same argument you use when you dig a hole for someone and it takes you 15 minutes. And they want to give you 25 bucks after all thats $100 per hour in their mind. They dont take into account you have a million dollars in equipment waiting to be used. Tell them to dig it by hand with a shovel and a month later they will have the same hole. I get it plowing snow all the time. They figure it takes 2 swipes total of 3 minutes for a 100 foot long driveway with 2 foot of snow. So they hand me 5 bucks for my 3 minutes work. I tell them buy a 30 grand truck and a 10 grand plow and come back and we will talk then I loan them my shovel. 

You had healthy babies thats great but part of the cost was all the pediatric doctors waiting around in case your baby needed heart surgery or something. 

I also am not defending them as there is loads of waste it is just putting the government in charge never reduces waste.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> Then of course, there is the argument that the ACA has lowered losses for hospitals enabling them (in some cases) to stay open. There was a report on this recently which I can't exactly recall to memory. The whole concept of preventative care combined with the reality that taxpayers are already paying for ER care (very expensive and often not necessary) means a net lowering of costs, which (either by ignorance or intent) is not calculated into the argument by Congress.



I agree. And that is the argument I hear a lot. If it is true ERs should be freed up by now and laying people off. I havent seen that as the case yet. Once we give ACA a couple more years we should be seeing everything improving. We will know as time goes on. 

As to money / cost not calculated in by the Congress keep in mind all the money they are using to keep afloat these programs is also coming out of nowhere. If they print money or quantitative ease money where did that new money come from. And who is going to pay it back. Neal gets his for free why cant we do the same thing? Money is free if you can make it whenever you want.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> I agree. And that is the argument I hear a lot. If it is true ERs should be freed up by now and laying people off. I havent seen that as the case yet. Once we give ACA a couple more years we should be seeing everything improving. We will know as time goes on.
> 
> As to money / cost not calculated in by the Congress keep in mind all the money they are using to keep afloat these programs is also coming out of nowhere. If they print money or quantitative ease money where did that new money come from. And who is going to pay it back. Neal gets his for free why cant we do the same thing? Money is free if you can make it whenever you want.



You heard free, perhaps you should pay attention. You can't have a discussion unless you want to understand the facts and build on them until everyone understand the facts so that solutions can be found.

Governments all over the world subsidize the healthcare system, many pay less than your government does. If the free market works so well in this industry, what was the problem. 
No body ever ran over the limit.
Nobody ever lost their house..


----------



## slownsteady

> As to money / cost not calculated in by the Congress keep in mind all the money they are using to keep afloat these programs is also coming out of nowhere. If they print money or quantitative ease money where did that new money come from. And who is going to pay it back. Neal gets his for free why can&#8217;t we do the same thing? Money is free if you can make it whenever you want.


That argument goes astray of this discussion. I know your reply is it all comes down to money - you've said that before. But that argument could be made about anything the govt touches (yes, everything), even to "keep afloat" the navy.
Money is the key issue, granted, but my point is more about how the political parties use or disregard facts and figures as it suits them. I haven't heard about a CBO report based on if we went backwards to the previous system.


----------



## Chris

I am not complaining about my 12k bill. Just pointing out that with the amount of people that go to the hospital that pay should far out weigh those who don't. 800 bucks for a bag of water for an iv seems steep. I think hospitals are probably doing better than they lead on to be.

Speaking of government waste this amphibious forklift cost the government more than 500k to buy. My buddy bought two from the marine base both with less than 75 hours on them for 3k. 

View attachment 1490906120126.jpg


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> That argument goes astray of this discussion. I know your reply is it all comes down to money - you've said that before. But that argument could be made about anything the govt touches (yes, everything), even to "keep afloat" the navy.
> Money is the key issue, granted, but my point is more about how the political parties use or disregard facts and figures as it suits them. I haven't heard about a CBO report based on if we went backwards to the previous system.



I wont disagree with that political parties are government and as Regan said

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg[/ame]


----------



## bud16415

Chris said:


> I am not complaining about my 12k bill. Just pointing out that with the amount of people that go to the hospital that pay should far out weigh those who don't. 800 bucks for a bag of water for an iv seems steep. I think hospitals are probably doing better than they lead on to be.
> 
> Speaking of government waste this amphibious forklift cost the government more than 500k to buy. My buddy bought two from the marine base both with less than 75 hours on them for 3k.



Thats your tax dollars at work. Dont forget who bought those two forklifts for a million dollars and didnt use them. The government bought them but you paid for them. The government with all its million employees doesnt make any money. It takes your money and spends it for you.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> You heard free, perhaps you should pay attention. You can't have a discussion unless you want to understand the facts and build on them until everyone understand the facts so that solutions can be found.
> 
> Governments all over the world subsidize the healthcare system, many pay less than your government does. If the free market works so well in this industry, what was the problem.
> No body ever ran over the limit.
> Nobody ever lost their house..



When you say a government subsidizes the health care system it sounds like governments are some big pile of money that will never run out. Ours is 20 trillion in debt and growing. 

Watch the clock and the dollars coming in and going out. Who owes the debt? Not the government the people that live here do. Whos paying it? The tax payers. 

I just went another million in debt as I typed this.  

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## nealtw

You don't think there was a problem in 2009 when your taxes were already paying the same as mine but you had all that other stuff going on.


----------



## Chris

bud16415 said:


> When you say a government subsidizes the health care system it sounds like governments are some big pile of money that will never run out. Ours is 20 trillion in debt and growing.
> 
> Watch the clock and the dollars coming in and going out. Who owes the debt? Not the government the people that live here do. Whos paying it? The tax payers.
> 
> I just went another million in debt as I typed this.
> 
> http://www.usdebtclock.org/



$61,145 per person. If it would cancel out our debt and we would not accrue any more I would come up with the money to pay my share. Heck thats less than I paid in taxes last year.


----------



## zannej

bud16415 said:


> I dont know what it is like where you live but here Im very sure before and after ACA no little kid with a broken arm hasnt been treated in our hospitals with or without insurance. If there have been some I would love to read more about it. I know homeless people often get treatment both before and after ACA.
> 
> This is pretty much what I see around here.
> 
> http://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm


Bud, a friend of mine had doctors refuse to put a cast on her daughter's broken arm until she could cough up the money up front. They did splint her arm, but they wouldn't give her a cast.
Another friend of mine who had insurance but a high deductible couldn't get the doctors to treat her daughter for some sort of severe nerve pain that required surgery. They insisted that she pay up front before they would treat the child and she had to save up for two months and then take her child back in. Those were both prior to the ACA. First incident was in Texas and second was in North Carolina.



Chris said:


> I am not complaining about my 12k bill. Just pointing out that with the amount of people that go to the hospital that pay should far out weigh those who don't. 800 bucks for a bag of water for an iv seems steep. I think hospitals are probably doing better than they lead on to be.
> 
> Speaking of government waste this amphibious forklift cost the government more than 500k to buy. My buddy bought two from the marine base both with less than 75 hours on them for 3k.


Chris, I agree that the amount people pay is obscene. And there is proof that the prices are arbitrary.
I can't find the initial article I'd been reading, but I googled and found a few:
https://thinkprogress.org/new-gover...ical-bills-are-completely-random-221492d89900

http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/03/...harge-19-for-an-aspirin-and-get-away-with-it/

Last one is more relevant to your wife's situation-- they charged $40 to hold the newborn baby.
https://qz.com/805664/arbitrary-hos...rn-and-other-hidden-charges-new-parents-face/

Also, hospitals can and do bill people again for stuff that was already paid by their insurance or that the people already paid. They double bill. That is why you always have to look at the itemized bill. We've had that happen numerous times and had to call them and say "This was already paid". But they do it because some people don't check and just pay it. And they will even charge for services they did not tender. Like the time they charged me for two injections (plus the medicine) that I never received. And this is not just some clerical error, one of the articles I read before (I don't think I found it again) had hospital staff admitting that they deliberately charge for things that they think patients won't notice so they can get more $. They really LOVE to charge Medicare and insurance for things they didn't actually give to patients.

I forgot to quote it, but I completely agree that if a person doesn't want to have health insurance, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it and they shouldn't be fined for not having it.


----------



## French_guy

No offense, but..............18 pages of posts to somehow realize that America is $$ first !!!


----------



## Chris

We like to vent about our corruption because there is little we can do but wonder how these people stay in office.


----------



## French_guy

Yes...Venting is always good, and at least it's free


----------



## oldognewtrick

French_guy said:


> Yes...Venting is always good, and at least it's free



Nothings free when it comes to the govt.....&#128542;


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> Bud, a friend of mine had doctors refuse to put a cast on her daughter's broken arm until she could cough up the money up front. They did splint her arm, but they wouldn't give her a cast.
> Another friend of mine who had insurance but a high deductible couldn't get the doctors to treat her daughter for some sort of severe nerve pain that required surgery. They insisted that she pay up front before they would treat the child and she had to save up for two months and then take her child back in. Those were both prior to the ACA. First incident was in Texas and second was in North Carolina.
> 
> 
> Chris, I agree that the amount people pay is obscene. And there is proof that the prices are arbitrary.
> I can't find the initial article I'd been reading, but I googled and found a few:
> https://thinkprogress.org/new-gover...ical-bills-are-completely-random-221492d89900
> 
> http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/03/...harge-19-for-an-aspirin-and-get-away-with-it/
> 
> Last one is more relevant to your wife's situation-- they charged $40 to hold the newborn baby.
> https://qz.com/805664/arbitrary-hos...rn-and-other-hidden-charges-new-parents-face/
> 
> Also, hospitals can and do bill people again for stuff that was already paid by their insurance or that the people already paid. They double bill. That is why you always have to look at the itemized bill. We've had that happen numerous times and had to call them and say "This was already paid". But they do it because some people don't check and just pay it. And they will even charge for services they did not tender. Like the time they charged me for two injections (plus the medicine) that I never received. And this is not just some clerical error, one of the articles I read before (I don't think I found it again) had hospital staff admitting that they deliberately charge for things that they think patients won't notice so they can get more $. They really LOVE to charge Medicare and insurance for things they didn't actually give to patients.
> 
> I forgot to quote it, but I completely agree that if a person doesn't want to have health insurance, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it and they shouldn't be fined for not having it.



Every activity you mentioned above is illegal. If hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all break the law regularly we dont need new or different laws we need the ones we have enforced.


----------



## zannej

bud16415 said:


> Every activity you mentioned above is illegal. If hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all break the law regularly we dont need new or different laws we need the ones we have enforced.


True-- of course it costs money and more organization to enforce it. And you pretty much just mirrored my stance on gun control. 

But, the double billing and charging for stuff people didn't receive is only a very small part of the medical bills. The biggest problem is the arbitrarily inflated prices and the fact that a lot of people don't know how much things are going to cost before they seek treatment. So, we still do need to reform the healthcare system. If costs go down, then the insurance companies can't justify charging so much for insurance. They have to get permission from the commissioner to raise their rates. 

I hope I'm making sense-- my bro got me sick so now I'm coughing so hard I can taste blood.


----------



## French_guy

Watching TV right now.......I can't stand those commercials for medicine, where   only ~1/4 of the commercial is to talk about the product itself, and the 3/4 left is to talk about side effects, just to protect themselves in case of a law suit !!!
That's ridiculous.......!
And why a medicine that is cheap in some countries is outrageously expensive in the USA?


----------



## Chris

Just got the call back that I don't qualify for the discount on my Idaho health coverage for my family. Back up to 1500 a month on the quote. I am probably going to have to go a year without or pay the high price. Once 2018 starts my business will be no longer and my tax forms will start looking more normal and realistic again. I am stuck with a dilemma, I sold a couple rental homes this year in order to reinvest in Idaho and continue so I have some sort of retirement when the time comes. These rentals have never made me any money on a monthly basis but I have done well on the equity side. My plan was to take those proceeds through a 1031 exchange that defers the taxes and reinvest into new rentals closer to my new home. In order to pay the 18000 for health insurance I will have to pull 30,000 from my 1031 account to cover the taxes in order to pay the 18k for insurance and then that is one less rental for my retirement and my children's future. What would you do? As it is right now my company did a couple jobs this year and probably didn't even make enough to cover the taxes let alone give me a paycheck. I an getting close to the time where I need to get my stuff moved and start looking for a new source of income in Idaho.


----------



## zannej

So, anyone heard about the current clownery in Congress? They took away the ACA for everyone but themselves-- they actually voted to exempt themselves from the new plan but it's apparently good enough for the rest of us? And the things that were added as preexisting conditions are absurd-- like being the victim of rape, assault, or domestic violence. It's almost unbelievable.

Sorry, venting a little. I don't know a single person who doesn't have something that would be considered a preexisting condition and I really wish we could get a referendum going to take away the ability of Congress to give its members exemptions/privileges that are not afforded to average citizens.


----------



## French_guy

Why did you use "almost"......?
It's COMPLETELY unbelievable.....and UNACCEPTABLE !!!


----------



## zannej

French_guy said:


> Why did you use "almost"......?
> It's COMPLETELY unbelievable.....and UNACCEPTABLE !!!


I said "almost" because it isn't overly surprising given the history and the selfishness of Congress. I agree that it is unacceptable, but I was only mildly surprised. What would truly shock me is if they did something that wasn't selfish.


----------



## French_guy

I've already said that I hate the US Health system, but this is going to get worse......


----------



## Chris

I bet they need to pass it to see what's inside.


----------



## frodo

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2192/summary


ya'll need to stop listening to the left wing media,   they are pumping out false news as fast as they can




H.R. 2192: To amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate the non-application of certain State waiver provisions to Members of ...
... Congress and congressional staff.
Overview
Summary
Details
Text
GovTrack's Summary
This bill has been proposed to be passed in tandem with the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the bill that would replace the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). In order to meet the requirements of the budget reconciliation process so that the AHCA is not subject to the Senate filibuster, the AHCA exempt Members of Congress from some changes to the health care law. This bill, H.R. 2192, removes those exemptions so that Members of Congress face the same health care options as other Americans.

https://policy.house.gov/legislativ...ervice-act-eliminate-non-application-certain-


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjCqPABDwE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjCqPABDwE[/ame]


----------



## slownsteady

What makes you think govtrack has any better sources for what they call news???


----------



## frodo

slownsteady said:


> What makes you think govtrack has any better sources for what they call news???



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2192/text

this better than cnn  or msnbc, ?


----------



## Chris

The more I see about our government and healthcare the more I think they should not be involved at all.

They change things in the name of forcing insurance companies to pay for things then the insurance companies retaliate by ripping us off.

Government makes us hate the insurance companies.

Insurance companies make us hate our government. 

I'm starting to think we are just pawns for both of them to get rich off us.


----------



## frodo

Well,   I have been pretty much silent on this subject on this site.
I do not believe the government should have anything to do with health care. 
certainly not the insurance aspect of it.
because what they are pushing is not insurance it is a health tax, plane, and simple

insurance
a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality:

tax
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions

going to the doctor for check-ups is not part of a possible eventuality
that is maintenance, 
insurance is to take care of accidents and unforeseen illness

anyway, I ramble.
Should we provide our own healthcare and the poor?  what about them?
it is part of Gods plan,  the weak get sick and die, the hardy gene pool is replenished by strong genes
that are the way of life. it is harsh and not fair. no one ever said mother nature was or is fair
I know, my views are not PC and I am a meany poo poo head who must be a racist bigot to say such a thing about the poor poor people who can not help themselves
fair enough, 
The government's job is to protect borders, keep enemies away and deal with infrastructure
their job is not handing out phones and health care, that is the responsibility of the communities at the community level
all issues pertaining to the homeless and welfare and HEALTH CARE are in my opinion community issues


Chris, we are not just Pawns,  we are pee-ons , if you catch my drift


----------



## havasu

You racist, meany poo poo head!


LOL


----------



## 68bucks

frodo said:


> Well,   I have been pretty much silent on this subject on this site.
> I do not believe the government should have anything to do with health care.
> certainly not the insurance aspect of it.
> because what they are pushing is not insurance it is a health tax, plane, and simple
> 
> insurance
> a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality:
> 
> tax
> a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions
> 
> going to the doctor for check-ups is not part of a possible eventuality
> that is maintenance,
> insurance is to take care of accidents and unforeseen illness
> 
> anyway, I ramble.
> Should we provide our own healthcare and the poor?  what about them?
> it is part of Gods plan,  the weak get sick and die, the hardy gene pool is replenished by strong genes
> that are the way of life. it is harsh and not fair. no one ever said mother nature was or is fair
> I know, my views are not PC and I am a meany poo poo head who must be a racist bigot to say such a thing about the poor poor people who can not help themselves
> fair enough,
> The government's job is to protect borders, keep enemies away and deal with infrastructure
> their job is not handing out phones and health care, that is the responsibility of the communities at the community level
> all issues pertaining to the homeless and welfare and HEALTH CARE are in my opinion community issues
> 
> 
> Chris, we are not just Pawns,  we are pee-ons , if you catch my drift


See herein lies the problem, not everyone sees it your way, there are hundreds of viewpoints. For example I would wager if you were born with serious health issues or your children were and you literally could not afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthcare cost you would have a different viewpoint. If your child would die because you couldn't afford the care and an insurance company said no coverage you have a pre-existing condition you would think differently.
On the other hand I have been blessed with good health. My children have  been blessed with good health. I have worked continually since I was 14 years old, 35 years with the same company. I have a great, good paying job and a fantastic retirement plan. I pay a lot in taxes. But you know what? I'd pay more to help get everyone decent healthcare. Whether that system is administered by the government or by a private company or some combination I'm flexible, what ever costs the least and works the best.  But my faith and conscience would not let me take the "you can't afford it too bad go die" attitude. You say its God's plan well you don't have to thumb through the bible too far to see how God thinks we should treat our fellow man. If Jesus Christ we're walking the earth today what plan do you think He'd support? 

I respect your opinion and support and defend your right to have that opinion but when it all boils down we disagree. Our problem as a country is we seem to have lost any ability to look at each others opinions and come to a compromise between them and move forward. The media and our leaders have slowly groomed the American people to dig in their heels and refuse to work with the opposition on any basis. So nothing gets done. We had 8 years of it with the last administration and it looks like we are headed for at least 4 years with the current one. What a waste.


----------



## frodo

68bucks said:


> . You say its God's plan well you don't have to thumb through the bible too far to see how God thinks we should treat our fellow man. If Jesus Christ we're walking the earth today what plan do you think He'd support?
> 
> .



God says to help your fellow man, He does not say that the ACA is the way we should have health care

I posted that I think the community should take care of health issues and my comments are on the same path as Gods word
acts 20;35
Galatians 6:2


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> God says to help your fellow man, He does not say that the ACA is the way we should have health care
> 
> I posted that I think the community should take care of health issues and my comments are on the same path as Gods word
> acts 20;35
> Galatians 6:2



Can you define how you are thinking "community" means


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Can you define how you are thinking "community" means



sure , 

would be the town/ city you live in.
I believe welfare should be controlled by your state not the federal government and the town you live in

what better way to administer the help people need 
the town knows more about your situation than the feds in Washington do

imo,  the closer the help is to the person, the less fraud you will have


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> sure ,
> 
> would be the town/ city you live in.
> I believe welfare should be controlled by your state not the federal government and the town you live in
> 
> what better way to administer the help people need
> the town knows more about your situation than the feds in Washington do
> 
> imo,  the closer the help is to the person, the less fraud you will have



So a small coal mining town with the mine closed and the town dying and all the men have lung problems, they're on their own?


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> So a small coal mining town with the mine closed and the town dying and all the men have lung problems, they're on their own?



hyperbole much?


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> hyperbole much?



:nono:..................:nono:


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> :nono:..................:nono:



a small town such as that would not have the resources to treat the black lung
with aca or any other type of medical care
they would naturally go to the nearest larger community

common sense should always be applied


back on topic
 their benefits can be handled at the smaller community level


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> a small town such as that would not have the resources to treat the black lung
> with aca or any other type of medical care
> they would naturally go to the nearest larger community
> 
> common sense should always be applied
> 
> 
> back on topic
> their benefits can be handled at the smaller community level



Maybe that was unfair, up here the black lung would be covered by WCB.

I think it will take a few more trys, a few more elections before you have a system.


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Maybe that was unfair, up here the black lung would be covered by WCB.
> 
> I think it will take a few more trys, a few more elections before you have a system.



of course, it would be covered
that was not the topic nor the question

the discussion was on WHERE benefits would be administered FROM

NOT where treatment is provided or what is covered


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> of course, it would be covered
> that was not the topic nor the question
> 
> the discussion was on WHERE benefits would be administered FROM
> 
> NOT where treatment is provided or what is covered



Ours is backed by the feds but the province actually runs it, collects the money and pays the bills. Then we have area Health Authorities that I guess tweak what services we get and where.


----------



## Chris

How about having an aca that only covers catastrophic problem like car insurance and maintenance and check ups are covered by You?


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> How about having an aca that only covers catastrophic problem like car insurance and maintenance and check ups are covered by You?



that would be real insurance


----------



## 68bucks

frodo said:


> sure ,
> 
> would be the town/ city you live in.
> I believe welfare should be controlled by your state not the federal government and the town you live in
> 
> what better way to administer the help people need
> the town knows more about your situation than the feds in Washington do
> 
> imo,  the closer the help is to the person, the less fraud you will have



I agree with you in regards that that for most things the closer you are to the problem the better you understand the solutions so coping at the community level is usually best for cost and outcome. Fraud possibilities go down too, that's why I don't donate to United Way but concentrate my charity to our church and local organizations. But on some things it is just difficult or plain not cost effective to handle that way insurance being among those, the costs are so astronomical. Insurance of course relies on spreading the risk over a large pool of healthy and sick so the larger the pool the lower the cost for everyone in it. Even taken on a state level the populations range from 30+ million to less than 1 million let alone if you tried to get to a county sort of level or something. One thing I don't know is how would diminishing returns apply to insurance. How much less cost would insurance be for a pool of 30 million vs 1 million? What about a pool of 350 million? What about a county with only 50,000 people? I have no idea. 

I also differ a little on the idea of preventative care being included in the cost of insurance. You can separate that and pay out of pocket. It's not terribly expensive to pay cash to see the doc once a year for a physical or get to the dentist a couple times a year. However if people have to dig in their own pocket and shell out the cash you will for sure have less participation, I would guess buy a good margin. Preventative care will save cost by helping catch things early. Not to mention the human aspect of early detection of serious disease. So you can make a case that paying for the preventative care lowers the end cost any way.


----------



## Chris

I agree to a certain extent. The problem I see locally is people with insurance go to the doctor for every little thing, a cough, a sniffle, a pain in their toe. Every time I sit in the waiting room which is maybe 1 time a year it is full of people there for reasons I wouldn't bother leaving my house for. I wonder how much waste there is with people going for not any good reason?


----------



## zannej

Chris said:


> I agree to a certain extent. The problem I see locally is people with insurance go to the doctor for every little thing, a cough, a sniffle, a pain in their toe. Every time I sit in the waiting room which is maybe 1 time a year it is full of people there for reasons I wouldn't bother leaving my house for. I wonder how much waste there is with people going for not any good reason?


I think it all depends on the people. There are some who go in too much and there are some who don't go in enough. I know that Medicaid discourages regular checkups to an extent and my friends who have it end up going to the hospital or taking their kids to the hospital because Medicaid is not accepted by some of the local doctors and the clinics are hours away.


----------



## nealtw

zannej said:


> I think it all depends on the people. There are some who go in too much and there are some who don't go in enough. I know that Medicaid discourages regular checkups to an extent and my friends who have it end up going to the hospital or taking their kids to the hospital because Medicaid is not accepted by some of the local doctors and the clinics are hours away.



And it is the cost of the hospital that you want to get away from.


----------



## zannej

nealtw said:


> And it is the cost of the hospital that you want to get away from.


Exactly. Now that my mother was forced to get Medicare (her regular insurance informed her that they were going to cut back on the coverage-- without reducing her premiums-- because she was eligible for Medicare and that Medicare would cover certain things; so now she has to pay even more to have Mediare), she has to go to the hospital for bloodwork and they charge twice as much as the doctor's office. She constantly complains that they would save money if they let her get it done at the doctor's office, but the system is retarded.


----------



## frodo

zannej said:


> Exactly. Now that my mother was forced to get Medicare (her regular insurance informed her that they were going to cut back on the coverage-- without reducing her premiums-- because she was eligible for Medicare and that Medicare would cover certain things; so now she has to pay even more to have Mediare), she has to go to the hospital for bloodwork and they charge twice as much as the doctor's office. She constantly complains that they would save money if they let her get it done at the doctor's office, but the system is retarded.



they can not do that,  

they tried with me, I told them to bugger off.

I am a vet, but refuse to go to the VA because they make you wait for everything.
humanna got pissey when they found out.
and tried to force me to quit.


----------



## zannej

frodo said:


> they can not do that,
> 
> they tried with me, I told them to bugger off.
> 
> I am a vet, but refuse to go to the VA because they make you wait for everything.
> humanna got pissey when they found out.
> and tried to force me to quit.


I do not blame you one bit on the VA. I used to drive my elderly veteran friends to the VA for appointments. They would be told to be there at 8am or earlier and they wouldn't be seen for hours. I had to say something to one of the clerks once because my diabetic friend was getting low blood sugar (since he had to fast for bloodwork) to get them to see him. And the wheelchairs never had foot supports. The treatment was abysmal as well. All of the veterans I know have complained about how they don't get proper treatment. And don't get me started on the facilities-- nearest one to me has all sorts of fancy woodwork and plaques congratulating themselves displayed in the entryways but none of the wheelchairs have foot rests. 

I wish my mother had actually stood up to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and told them that she would not accept reduced coverage because they wanted her to spend more money to get Medicaid. And to add insult to it, they raised her premiums and are charging her the rate of having a family plan even though she's the only one on it. BC used to pay for her sleep apnea equipment, her diabetic supplies, blood tests etc.. but now they refuse and she has to get that stuff through Medicare. When she got Medicare, the sleep center told her they didn't accept it and she would have to start getting her supplies elsewhere. She hasn't found another supplier yet and she needs new CPAP masks. And unlike BC, Medicare makes pharmacies jump through hoops and have all sorts of paperwork to get glucose test strips approved. It took over a month for her to get the strips because Medicare kept rejecting the paperwork faxed by the doctor. I finally had to have the pharmacy staff fill out the paperwork and mark where the doctor needed to sign, drive to the doctor's office, got the doctor to sign it, then drove back to the pharmacy and hand delivered the paperwork to make sure they got it. I get they don't want people taking advantage of Medicare and getting really expensive stuff, but then they waste money with the hospital visits.
I think single payer would be much simpler because then you wouldn't run in to the problem of the insurance companies arguing over who should pay what and having both refuse saying the other is responsible (which is what happened to my uncle).


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> I think single payer would be much simpler because then you wouldn't run in to the problem of the insurance companies arguing over who should pay what and having both refuse saying the other is responsible



You are right about single payer being simpler. What they will tell you is we dont cover that and thats it. You wont have a better plan to look for or turn to, you will get what you get and they will pay for what they will pay for. What you are talking about is socialized medical for all run by the same folks that run the VA. The VA is a great example actually of a government run program is like. 

Health care as sad and hard as this sounds is not a right in this country it is a commodity just like owning a home or a car. No one is entitled to it and if you want it you must figure out a way to get it. The people selling it are free to offer their version of the product at a price they can make a profit at and also one the market can bear. Rich people can buy nicer and safer cars or nicer and safer homes. It is their reward for being rich no matter how they came about becoming rich. Maybe they won the lotto or worked hard or had rich parents. We are individuals that are all born with the same freedom to do as little or as much with our lives as we can. There is a price for that kind of freedom and it is people that have more or do more to have more are rewarded with the better car or home or healthcare. 

As mentioned above people should be compassionate for their fellow man and help the less privileged. This is the concept of the individual or the group. Our country is founded on the idea of the individual and others formed their governments around the group. We have a republic that understands or did understand the government should take the smallest possible influence over the individual. We have laws and we pull together for some common goods. 

Right now the debate is healthcare and is it something for the common good to be run by the government like the roads and the army, or is it something that should be left to the people to do on their own as free enterprise. All the things mentioned about how bad the system is now lead you to think it would have to be better as a government run single payer system. We dont know the bad in that yet as the only thing we have close to compare it to is the VA and Medicare.


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> You are right about single payer being simpler. What they will tell you is we dont cover that and thats it. You wont have a better plan to look for or turn to, you will get what you get and they will pay for what they will pay for. What you are talking about is socialized medical for all run by the same folks that run the VA. The VA is a great example actually of a government run program is like.
> 
> Health care as sad and hard as this sounds is not a right in this country it is a commodity just like owning a home or a car. No one is entitled to it and if you want it you must figure out a way to get it. The people selling it are free to offer their version of the product at a price they can make a profit at and also one the market can bear. Rich people can buy nicer and safer cars or nicer and safer homes. It is their reward for being rich no matter how they came about becoming rich. Maybe they won the lotto or worked hard or had rich parents. We are individuals that are all born with the same freedom to do as little or as much with our lives as we can. There is a price for that kind of freedom and it is people that have more or do more to have more are rewarded with the better car or home or healthcare.
> 
> As mentioned above people should be compassionate for their fellow man and help the less privileged. This is the concept of the individual or the group. Our country is founded on the idea of the individual and others formed their governments around the group. We have a republic that understands or did understand the government should take the smallest possible influence over the individual. We have laws and we pull together for some common goods.
> 
> Right now the debate is healthcare and is it something for the common good to be run by the government like the roads and the army, or is it something that should be left to the people to do on their own as free enterprise. All the things mentioned about how bad the system is now lead you to think it would have to be better as a government run single payer system. We dont know the bad in that yet as the only thing we have close to compare it to is the VA and Medicare.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is a difference between the VA and medicare/medicaid. Isn't the VA operated by the government like a truly socialized medical system in that the government owns the hospitals, facilities and the staffs and doctors actually work for the government?  While medicare/medicaid are operated like a single payer system where the hospitals, facilities and personnel and doctors are privately employed and the government just pays the bills. I understand there are complexities to the system but I don't think you hear the issues of poor care and facilities with medicare/medicaid because it uses the same ones as the current private system. I would not support a socialized medical system but I could get behind single payer simply because it utilizes the maximum group size, everyone. I think my biggest concern with single payer would be dealing with fraud, not like the private system is just as full of it.


----------



## frodo

68bucks said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is a difference between the VA and medicare/medicaid. Isn't the VA operated by the government like a truly socialized medical system in that the government owns the hospitals, facilities and the staffs and doctors actually work for the government?  While medicare/medicaid are operated like a single payer system where the hospitals, facilities and personnel and doctors are privately employed and the government just pays the bills. I understand there are complexities to the system but I don't think you hear the issues of poor care and facilities with medicare/medicaid because it uses the same ones as the current private system. I would not support a socialized medical system but I could get behind single payer simply because it utilizes the maximum group size, everyone. I think my biggest concern with single payer would be dealing with fraud, not like the private system is just as full of it.



It is still government run, yes the people are civilians, but, the gubment
makes them follow their rules, they can not treat you like they want
I have medicare, medicare refuses meds  my dr wants me to take
and they do stupid sh stuff like request a x ray when the dr wants an mri
exray shows bones not soft tissue


----------



## bud16415

68bucks said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is a difference between the VA and medicare/medicaid. Isn't the VA operated by the government like a truly socialized medical system in that the government owns the hospitals, facilities and the staffs and doctors actually work for the government?  While medicare/medicaid are operated like a single payer system where the hospitals, facilities and personnel and doctors are privately employed and the government just pays the bills. I understand there are complexities to the system but I don't think you hear the issues of poor care and facilities with medicare/medicaid because it uses the same ones as the current private system. I would not support a socialized medical system but I could get behind single payer simply because it utilizes the maximum group size, everyone. I think my biggest concern with single payer would be dealing with fraud, not like the private system is just as full of it.



You are correct and the goal of ACA and all progressive programs is in the progressive ideal. The goal was not the ACA it was that was one step in the direction they want to move the ball. The next step was single payer and the next socialized medical. 

They prefer the name Progressives to Liberal for that reason as that is the ideology. 


The best way to prevent fraud and keep prices in line is free markets and competition is what I believe. It works in every other industry why shouldnt it work in healthcare. We are upside down in many of our industries now a days. It is mostly laws and regulations that overpower the idea of free markets and competition and yes greed. We stack the deck against free enterprise in this country in favor doing things someplace else with laws and regulations. It is already in the works in health care and it will be no time at all until the doctors here will stabilize you and you will be shipped off halfway around the world to have your procedure done. Who reads your MRI or Xray now? Those same people will be doing your triple bypass before long.


----------



## 68bucks

frodo said:


> It is still government run, yes the people are civilians, but, the gubment
> makes them follow their rules, they can not treat you like they want
> I have medicare, medicare refuses meds  my dr wants me to take
> and they do stupid sh stuff like request a x ray when the dr wants an mri
> exray shows bones not soft tissue


I have private insurance through my employer and I have the same problems with them. Doctor ordered a test for me back in February and the insurance company said no. Took a month to get it straitened out. Back a few years Doc says I need a shoulder MRI, he can do it in his office, insurance says no. I have to go somewhere else, the cost was 80% higher. Of course I have a high deductible policy so they don't even pay for it anyhow. So do even try and tell me your experience is anything unique to medicare. Not even close. You can talk long wait times, fraud, billing problems, too many tests, denial of services, whatever, its the same with the private system without except it comes with unaffordable premiums.


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> You are correct and the goal of ACA and all progressive programs is in the progressive ideal. The goal was not the ACA it was that was one step in the direction they want to move the ball. The next step was single payer and the next socialized medical.
> 
> They prefer the name Progressives to Liberal for that reason as that is the ideology.
> 
> 
> The best way to prevent fraud and keep prices in line is free markets and competition is what I believe. It works in every other industry why shouldnt it work in healthcare. We are upside down in many of our industries now a days. It is mostly laws and regulations that overpower the idea of free markets and competition and yes greed. We stack the deck against free enterprise in this country in favor doing things someplace else with laws and regulations. It is already in the works in health care and it will be no time at all until the doctors here will stabilize you and you will be shipped off halfway around the world to have your procedure done. Who reads your MRI or Xray now? Those same people will be doing your triple bypass before long.


Well for one thing there hasn't been a free market the United States for a couple hundred years I bet. From the first tariff, tax, rule, or regulation we have been manipulating the market. A completely free and unregulated market that some folks clamor for is how kings are made, exactly what this country was founded against. 

I also don't buy into the whole "slippery slope" deal either. Its a non sequitur premise. There have been many calls for a single payer system in the US or medicare for all, but I have never heard anyone say we should have or work toward socialized medicine. I know I would not support that idea nor I bet, would there be a flicker of a chance that enough people in the country would to ever make it happen. I'm not sure you could even get enough people to support single payer. I just know that insurance companies are making billions off our backs, we pay most of the bills out of pocket, they can decline to cover treatment any time they want, the outcomes of the insurance/healthcare industry here are no better than anywhere else, some may argue they are not even as good and we pay way more for it. I don't have the answer but its obvious what we've been doing doesn't work.


----------



## bud16415

68bucks said:


> Well for one thing there hasn't been a free market the United States for a couple hundred years I bet. From the first tariff, tax, rule, or regulation we have been manipulating the market. A completely free and unregulated market that some folks clamor for is how kings are made, exactly what this country was founded against.
> 
> I also don't buy into the whole "slippery slope" deal either. Its a non sequitur premise. There have been many calls for a single payer system in the US or medicare for all, but I have never heard anyone say we should have or work toward socialized medicine. I know I would not support that idea nor I bet, would there be a flicker of a chance that enough people in the country would to ever make it happen. I'm not sure you could even get enough people to support single payer. I just know that insurance companies are making billions off our backs, we pay most of the bills out of pocket, they can decline to cover treatment any time they want, the outcomes of the insurance/healthcare industry here are no better than anywhere else, some may argue they are not even as good and we pay way more for it. I don't have the answer but its obvious what we've been doing doesn't work.



What will change with a single payer compared to a 1000 payers. There will be no competition is one thing and if you dont like the way they work there is nowhere to turn. Im assuming the single payer you would like to see would be the federal government. Do we all pay the same premium and do we all get the same level of plan. Or do we just pay nothing and let the government pay for it all. They can raise taxes or print money to cover the cost in both cases the person making more money will pay for more than their fair share. 

If it is good for healthcare it should be good for all insurance. Right now if a poor guy and a rich guy buy the same $20,0000 car both the same age and the same risk will pay the same premium for auto insurance. We should have a government run single payer auto insurance where the coverage is taken from the tax base. The guy that pays no tax gets his car insurance for free the rich guy pays more because he can. Sounds good to me. lets do the same thing with home insurance. 

Im assuming these billions the insurance companies are now making will go someplace as the government is not going to be a profit center. They will just try and break even. They will dictate what they will pay for what and what they will pay for at all. In effect, they will control the medical system thru the purse strings without taking hands on control. That is what socialism is all about. Given a finite amount of money to take care of everyones needs and being fair that everyone gets the same level of care decisions will have to be made just like they are now. When you grab the short end of the stick and are denied coverage based around whatever the rule is at that time it is not fair to you. If you can afford more it is not fair for you to expect more or better coverage. As long as we are at it controlling costs lets get the lawyers out of the picture there is quite a few more billion and limit what we pay these doctors. Might as well take it a step more and tell GE they are charging way too much for these lifesaving scanners they build they make billions off our backs also selling this stuff. Healthcare was actually a lot cheaper before we had all this technology people just died and we didnt know what they had or a method of treating them. All this diagnostic and treatment stuff was another downfall of capitalism. Without capitalism we wouldnt have all these cures and healthcare costs would go down.


----------



## nealtw

It's easy enough study all the countries that have a successful free market system to see how well it works and why.

BTW, there are non.


----------



## zannej

Ok. I'll admit my ignorance here. I didn't research this (I probably should) and I thought that single payer just meant that you wouldn't need to have backup insurance plans. Is it something different then? (I know I can google it, but I'd like to hear how you guys explain what single payer is).

I do agree that it is problematic if they refuse to pay for things. The x-ray instead of MRI thing must be very common. Even without insurance when I last went to the ER they did an x-ray when they should have done an MRI.


----------



## nealtw

zannej said:


> Ok. I'll admit my ignorance here. I didn't research this (I probably should) and I thought that single payer just meant that you wouldn't need to have backup insurance plans. Is it something different then? (I know I can google it, but I'd like to hear how you guys explain what single payer is).
> 
> I do agree that it is problematic if they refuse to pay for things. The x-ray instead of MRI thing must be very common. Even without insurance when I last went to the ER they did an x-ray when they should have done an MRI.



I can explain a little about ours. (Single payer) government run.

Ours has you covered for everything but not drugs or dentist eye tests and glasses. Not sure about hearing.

Ours is run by the province and helped by the feds.

You go to the doctor of choice although some limit their load so a new doctor may be hard to find sometimes.
We have clinics to go to if you don't have a doctor or when you doctors office is closed, that keeps people out of the ER for band aids.

The rates that doctors can charge for a procedure or visit is negotiated with a group that represents the doctors, no co pays, except for bone crackers and some other a few other things but any of the co pays I have heard about are like $20 or something, same for everyone.

Most hospitals are gov. owned but are run like a business with a budget and all that and they complain a lot.

For test like MRIs there are waiting lists and sometimes that get bad but still those people have a doctor and will get the test.

They always seem to squeeze people in if there is an emergency.

Some of our hospitals are specialty as well as all the regular stuff.
Just down the road we have a new cancer center. In the city we have children's unit, and some are where you go for heart problems.

The cost to me is set by how much I earned last year. $75 a month right now
That changes depending on if the gov. is left or right but never un reasonable.
Private companies do the bio med testing ordered by doctors but they are monitored so they don't get more tests than needed.
A couple times my doctor has ordered tests for me that the gov. thinks would be overlapping so I would have to pay for one of them. $10 I think.


----------



## bud16415

Based on Neal&#8217;s $75 / month and the cost of a heart bypass at about $120,000 that means 1600 people have to pay for a month for 1 person to get a bypass that month. That&#8217;s if the system breaks even and there are no administration costs. Now if another person needs a valve replacement that would take about 2000 people paying in. 

I have no facts but when you think about it the program has to have additional funding from the normal tax base also. So most likely your real cost of healthcare is something higher.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> Based on Neals $75 / month and the cost of a heart bypass at about $120,000 that means 1600 people have to pay for a month for 1 person to get a bypass that month. Thats if the system breaks even and there are no administration costs. Now if another person needs a valve replacement that would take about 2000 people paying in.
> 
> I have no facts but when you think about it the program has to have additional funding from the normal tax base also. So most likely your real cost of healthcare is something higher.



But you guys complain about your tax rate is higher than every one else.

Perhaps the healthcare from childhood means less of those bypasses.

Just a little story. Some years ago there was some smuggling across the border back east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Regis_Mohawk_Reservation

The feds and Ontario decided to lower the tax on cigarettes to take the profit
out of it.
The fed asked BC to do the same. The Premiere of BC at the time said.  " that would cost more than we pay into BC Med."


----------



## slownsteady

*Socialized medicine*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the term "Socialized medicine" as it is used in U.S. politics. For national health care systems generally, see Universal health care.

Socialized medicine is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.[1] Because of historically negative associations with socialism in American culture, the term is sometimes used pejoratively in American political discourse.[2][3][4][5][6] The term was first widely used in the United States by advocates of the American Medical Association in opposition to President Harry S. Truman's 1947 health-care initiative.[7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

*Single-payer healthcare*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Single-payer health care)

Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the residents pay the state &#8211; via taxes in amounts determined by the state &#8211; to cover healthcare costs, rather than individuals buying from private insurers competing for their business.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).

The term "single-payer" thus describes the funding mechanism, referring to healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work.

The actual funding of a "single-payer" system comes from all or a portion of the covered population via taxes. In contrast multipayer healthcare uses a mixed public-private system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare


----------



## slownsteady

Chris said:


> I agree to a certain extent. The problem I see locally is people with insurance go to the doctor for every little thing, a cough, a sniffle, a pain in their toe. Every time I sit in the waiting room which is maybe 1 time a year it is full of people there for reasons I wouldn't bother leaving my house for. I wonder how much waste there is with people going for not any good reason?



Hey Chris, since I'm pretty confident that you didn't diagnose these folks yourself, how do you know what they're there for? Did they all tell you? Did the doctor tell you?

My point is that casual observation from a single point of view (each of you) is not justified in a discussion as wide-reaching as this.


----------



## slownsteady

So if the free market is the ultimate system for all our ills, then why are we f*ckin' around with the insurance companies? They are the middleman, and they are making decisions that affect the health (and perhaps the life or death) of all of their customers. Yet they take no blame and make these decisions without any medical training. Why aren't we just bypassing these scavengers?


----------



## Chris

These are just my examples from speaking with people in the waiting room since we are usually there more than an hour and also just knowing people in my day to day life that are always going to the doctor for every little thing. I could be dead wrong and the 100 people every day in the one little office in a city with 100 offices is there for a major health issue.  But if they were I would be more worried about why thousands of people a day in my area were becoming very ill.


----------



## Chris

You guys from out of the area really need to go spend some time in the LA area to truly see the corrupt side of things. If it were not for growing up seeing this day in and day out I would probably agree with you.

Put yourself in a position where you see someone ripping off every person they met everyday of their life and just being a bad person would you bend over backwards to support them and their ways?


----------



## nealtw

Growing up here our provincial government was dominated by one part for 30 years, except for 3 years in the 70s they ran everything. They were very right wing as they supported big business. They understood that big business brought good jobs but strangely I don't think they were all that uptight about unions, that might have been more about getting elected.

In order to to help big business there was things we needed that private companies could not or would not build.
Some they built and some they bought because they thought  they could do a better job. And they did. They built the place.
So at one time we owned and some we still own. BC Hydro and the cables , BC gas and the pipes, BC Ferries, BC rail, and Insurance Company of BC (Auto insurance) and BC med.
 But with that they built hwys all over the province and supplied gas and electric to all the big mills and mines as well as the ferry system all up and down the coast and over to the islands. They made the place pop.

But you know when you give stuff away you do run out after awhile. So we don't have as many mines or sawmills, but we do have ski hills and wine.


----------



## frodo

single pay has a network of doctors that are members,
my dentist, who is in my network is 90 miles away, while there are dentists in the area who are not in my network.
my lung doctor is 50 miles in  Vidalia Louisiana 
we have a lung doctor 20 miles from me, not in the network
we have a hospital  in town that is not in my network, 
but the hospital in Natchez 40 miles is


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> single pay has a network of doctors that are members,
> my dentist, who is in my network is 90 miles away, while there are dentists in the area who are not in my network.
> my lung doctor is 50 miles in  Vidalia Louisiana
> we have a lung doctor 20 miles from me, not in the network
> we have a hospital  in town that is not in my network,
> but the hospital in Natchez 40 miles is



Yeah I can see why that doesn't work and I guess we need an index of word meanings or a translator.

Some times we do have to travel for a specialist, big city 60 miles and we have a big area some have to fly in and we all belong to the same group.


----------



## zannej

bud16415 said:


> Based on Neals $75 / month and the cost of a heart bypass at about $120,000 that means 1600 people have to pay for a month for 1 person to get a bypass that month. Thats if the system breaks even and there are no administration costs. Now if another person needs a valve replacement that would take about 2000 people paying in.
> 
> I have no facts but when you think about it the program has to have additional funding from the normal tax base also. So most likely your real cost of healthcare is something higher.


Except, we don't necessarily know how much it costs for bypass surgery there. It maybe $120k here, but it might be a lot cheaper there. 
A test that costs about $10k in the US can cost only $50 or $80 in other countries. The inflated prices are one of the biggest problems in our healthcare system right now.



slownsteady said:


> *Socialized medicine*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This article is about the term "Socialized medicine" as it is used in U.S. politics. For national health care systems generally, see Universal health care.
> 
> Socialized medicine is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.[1] Because of historically negative associations with socialism in American culture, the term is sometimes used pejoratively in American political discourse.[2][3][4][5][6] The term was first widely used in the United States by advocates of the American Medical Association in opposition to President Harry S. Truman's 1947 health-care initiative.[7][8][9]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
> 
> *Single-payer healthcare*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (Redirected from Single-payer health care)
> 
> Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the residents pay the state  via taxes in amounts determined by the state  to cover healthcare costs, rather than individuals buying from private insurers competing for their business.[1] Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the United Kingdom).
> 
> The term "single-payer" thus describes the funding mechanism, referring to healthcare financed by a single public body from a single fund, not the type of delivery or for whom physicians work.
> 
> The actual funding of a "single-payer" system comes from all or a portion of the covered population via taxes. In contrast multipayer healthcare uses a mixed public-private system.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare


Thanks. Ok. So single payer was definitely not what I was thinking. I was thinking that we should have a choice for insurance company and we could choose ones from out of state-- and we would have more options and that insurance company would cover things without expecting us or requiring us to have a secondary insurance to cover things they won't cover. 



frodo said:


> single pay has a network of doctors that are members,
> my dentist, who is in my network is 90 miles away, while there are dentists in the area who are not in my network.
> my lung doctor is 50 miles in  Vidalia Louisiana
> we have a lung doctor 20 miles from me, not in the network
> we have a hospital  in town that is not in my network,
> but the hospital in Natchez 40 miles is


Ugh. That is annoying as hell. And it's something that I see happening a lot. The whole thing of "preferred doctors" or ones in the network is absurd. I can get that they might not want to include doctors or clinics with very bad ratings or reputations or something-- like known hacks-- but making it so you have to go 90 miles for dental work is just wrong. They need to improve the system so people don't have those kinds of problems.


----------



## frodo

''Thanks. Ok. So single payer was definitely not what I was thinking. I was thinking that we should have a choice for insurance company and we could choose ones from out of state-- and we would have more options and that insurance company would cover things without expecting us or requiring us to have a secondary insurance to cover things they won't cover.'' 

my medicare is suplemented by humana 
they pick up what medicare doest not cover


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> What will change with a single payer compared to a 1000 payers. There will be no competition is one thing and if you dont like the way they work there is nowhere to turn. Im assuming the single payer you would like to see would be the federal government. Do we all pay the same premium and do we all get the same level of plan. Or do we just pay nothing and let the government pay for it all. They can raise taxes or print money to cover the cost in both cases the person making more money will pay for more than their fair share.
> 
> If it is good for healthcare it should be good for all insurance. Right now if a poor guy and a rich guy buy the same $20,0000 car both the same age and the same risk will pay the same premium for auto insurance. We should have a government run single payer auto insurance where the coverage is taken from the tax base. The guy that pays no tax gets his car insurance for free the rich guy pays more because he can. Sounds good to me. lets do the same thing with home insurance.
> 
> Im assuming these billions the insurance companies are now making will go someplace as the government is not going to be a profit center. They will just try and break even. They will dictate what they will pay for what and what they will pay for at all. In effect, they will control the medical system thru the purse strings without taking hands on control. That is what socialism is all about. Given a finite amount of money to take care of everyones needs and being fair that everyone gets the same level of care decisions will have to be made just like they are now. When you grab the short end of the stick and are denied coverage based around whatever the rule is at that time it is not fair to you. If you can afford more it is not fair for you to expect more or better coverage. As long as we are at it controlling costs lets get the lawyers out of the picture there is quite a few more billion and limit what we pay these doctors. Might as well take it a step more and tell GE they are charging way too much for these lifesaving scanners they build they make billions off our backs also selling this stuff. Healthcare was actually a lot cheaper before we had all this technology people just died and we didnt know what they had or a method of treating them. All this diagnostic and treatment stuff was another downfall of capitalism. Without capitalism we wouldnt have all these cures and healthcare costs would go down.


What's different with 2000 payers vs 1? Well the pool size of course. In insurance the larger the pool the lower the cost for the members. The larger pool has greater ability to negotiate too. 

Well if you think with the current or past systems you have any say about what treatment you get or don't get you're delusional. There is somebody at your insurance company right now that decides that. You can switch companies sure (once a year only during open enrollment) but that doesn't change that aspect at all it's not up to you. Your option is to pay out of your pocket and that would remain the same. I believe in Canada you can buy supplemental policies from private companies to enhance your benefits and employers often offer these as a perk. So if you have the money you have that option.

Another comment, if a free market system would be the better way to go why are we even having this discussion? We had a free market system before the ACA and we know for fact that didn't work, we already tried it.

The comments on why not do this for car insurance etc. are just hyperbole. Nobody has mad any such suggestion. Plus you don't have to own a car or a house, those are choices you make. Every single person in the country will need health care sometime in their life unless you make maybe a religious choice or something like that.


----------



## bud16415

slownsteady said:


> So if the free market is the ultimate system for all our ills, then why are we f*ckin' around with the insurance companies? They are the middleman, and they are making decisions that affect the health (and perhaps the life or death) of all of their customers. Yet they take no blame and make these decisions without any medical training. Why aren't we just bypassing these scavengers?



You can bypass the middle man in whole or in part. The company I worked for many years was self insured and it was wonderful insurance. It takes a very large company to do that. As an individual you can say I have saved up 20k in the bank and that is my personal health savings. I will pay into that monthly and pay all my smaller medical expenses out of that. I will also buy a catastrophic plan that only covers major things and the premiums will be much lower. You also have the right to say I dont want insurance. Many people do that when they go to get treated they should be told you didnt want to try and help yourself in any way and get turned away. It doesnt work that way though. We take them in and give them the same treatment anyone else would get. We can ask for payment and attach wages or property, set up payments etc. But in most cases the system has to eat the cost and pass it on to the cost of operation. That then becomes part of the high cost of health care.


----------



## bud16415

68bucks said:


> What's different with 2000 payers vs 1? Well the pool size of course. In insurance the larger the pool the lower the cost for the members. The larger pool has greater ability to negotiate too.
> 
> Well if you think with the current or past systems you have any say about what treatment you get or don't get you're delusional. There is somebody at your insurance company right now that decides that. You can switch companies sure (once a year only during open enrollment) but that doesn't change that aspect at all it's not up to you. Your option is to pay out of your pocket and that would remain the same. I believe in Canada you can buy supplemental policies from private companies to enhance your benefits and employers often offer these as a perk. So if you have the money you have that option.
> 
> Another comment, if a free market system would be the better way to go why are we even having this discussion? We had a free market system before the ACA and we know for fact that didn't work, we already tried it.
> 
> The comments on why not do this for car insurance etc. are just hyperbole. Nobody has mad any such suggestion. Plus you don't have to own a car or a house, those are choices you make. Every single person in the country will need health care sometime in their life unless you make maybe a religious choice or something like that.



First off the question of expanding the pool size to one pool over 2000 pools. If you ever studied statistics you will understand that at some number a pool becomes statistically relevant. The same is true for insurance pools. Once your pool size has reached a relevant size adding a million more or hundred million more people doesnt significantly change its impact. What is does is limit the players and diminish the competition. That is apparent in states where all but one or two of the insurance companies have given up as there is no profit in being there. Profit is incentive in all business. 



As to your second comment yes you are true in the old system as in the single payer system there is someone deciding how the limited moneys are to be spent. A single payer system wont have unlimited budget anymore than multiplayer. If the single payer is the government they will be able to tax you higher to cover the costs or take the money from other areas of government to give you better health care than you are paying for. Private insurance companies cant cut police or education or defense to supplement you getting better treatment. 


Item 3. Free market system of insurance did work and worked very well for many years in this country. Maybe we should look at what has changed to all of a sudden say it no longer works. 


Item 4. You view healthcare as a right. Thats fine and many countries feel the same. I might ask Neal why is not dental health not a right in his country. Did someone figure out a tooth is less important than a toe.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> First off the question of expanding the pool size to one pool over 2000 pools. If you ever studied statistics you will understand that at some number a pool becomes statistically relevant. The same is true for insurance pools. Once your pool size has reached a relevant size adding a million more or hundred million more people doesnt significantly change its impact. What is does is limit the players and diminish the competition. That is apparent in states where all but one or two of the insurance companies have given up as there is no profit in being there. Profit is incentive in all business.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your second comment yes you are true in the old system as in the single payer system there is someone deciding how the limited moneys are to be spent. A single payer system wont have unlimited budget anymore than multiplayer. If the single payer is the government they will be able to tax you higher to cover the costs or take the money from other areas of government to give you better health care than you are paying for. Private insurance companies cant cut police or education or defense to supplement you getting better treatment.
> 
> 
> Item 3. Free market system of insurance did work and worked very well for many years in this country. Maybe we should look at what has changed to all of a sudden say it no longer works.
> 
> 
> Item 4. You view healthcare as a right. Thats fine and many countries feel the same. I might ask Neal why is not dental health not a right in his country. Did someone figure out a tooth is less important than a toe.



if health insurance is a ''right''  and obama phones are a ''right''
then my care insurance should be a ''right''
then next is my home insurance, then life insurance

hell why Should i pay for anything/
i think the government should pay for everything


----------



## bud16415

frodo said:


> if health insurance is a ''right''  and obama phones are a ''right''
> then my care insurance should be a ''right''
> then next is my home insurance, then life insurance
> 
> hell why Should i pay for anything/
> i think the government should pay for everything



Frodo

I know you are being sarcastic but you are also correct. There are government models that do exactly what you suggest. They step in and take care of your needs in return tell you how to live your life. It is called communism and China is a great example of that up until a short time ago. Last I checked anyone that would want to leave this country could go to any number of communist countries and they will take you right in. They will give you a job and how many hours to work and a place to live and provide for your needs. I dont see a lot of people leaving though. 

My personal belief is this country was founded in a very unique way with lots of personal freedoms. More was accomplished here in 200 years that the rest mankinds time on the planet. Our government was an experiment and intended to change and evolve. 

Is it time to evolve into socialize medical country? I dont know is my answer. I am fully convinced they should leave ACA 100% intact. It was put into play by the progressives party and they should let the experiment run its course. It could be wonderful thing for all. And if it isnt people will want to try something different.


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> First off the question of expanding the pool size to one pool over 2000 pools. If you ever studied statistics you will understand that at some number a pool becomes statistically relevant. The same is true for insurance pools. Once your pool size has reached a relevant size adding a million more or hundred million more people doesnt significantly change its impact. What is does is limit the players and diminish the competition. That is apparent in states where all but one or two of the insurance companies have given up as there is no profit in being there. Profit is incentive in all business.
> 
> 
> 
> As to your second comment yes you are true in the old system as in the single payer system there is someone deciding how the limited moneys are to be spent. A single payer system wont have unlimited budget anymore than multiplayer. If the single payer is the government they will be able to tax you higher to cover the costs or take the money from other areas of government to give you better health care than you are paying for. Private insurance companies cant cut police or education or defense to supplement you getting better treatment.
> 
> 
> Item 3. Free market system of insurance did work and worked very well for many years in this country. Maybe we should look at what has changed to all of a sudden say it no longer works.
> 
> 
> Item 4. You view healthcare as a right. Thats fine and many countries feel the same. I might ask Neal why is not dental health not a right in his country. Did someone figure out a tooth is less important than a toe.


Bud,

I agree with you that there will always be a situation in any system for some authority to allow or disallow a particular procedure or expense. There really isn't any alternative due to limited funding. My main point in my remarks was to highlight the point that those opposed to single payer always play the "death panel" card claiming the government will decide who lives and who dies based on what they allow. I simply want to point out that that situation exists now and has from the beginning. The main difference in the two systems being that the private insurance system makes those decisions with profit as an underlying influence. I think that is what I object to about the current system of private for profit insurance. 

I also completely disagree that the old private insurance system worked. Perhaps back in the 50's or 60's it may have but its been well documented that healthcare and insurance costs have been rising at a far greater pace than inflation ever has. I mean if it was working, as I said, we wouldn't be having the debate, we'd all be happy and healthy. Of course as its been pointed out by several the technology that has developed since the 50's and 60's has really added to the cost but also to the number of treatable diseases. The greater amount of litigation fits in there somewhere too. But I will say that there are numerous studies that show litigation only adds incrementally to the cost, its not a huge deal. The right tends to want to take away our right to hold parties accountable when they screw up by saying that adds a bunch to the cost of healthcare. States that have passed tort laws prove that. They have not significantly lower cost.

If you look back at my posts I never said or implied that insurance is a right. Now if we develop a system that we pay into over our working days like medicare then it becomes a right because you paid for it. I have often wondered if we had a VAT for healthcare how much would that tax have to be. That way everyone would be contributing to it, no free riders. Or maybe we partially fund it that way, I don't know. I just can't get past he notion that the wealthiest country in the world by far cannot figure out a way to pool our resources and get everyone health care. We could use the current private insurers to pay the bills maybe that's what they do now. They would just become operated as a non-profit with heavy government oversight and all their silly rules and stipulations would go away and simplify the system, make it uniform. Maybe they could earn bonuses for preventing fraud to help with that because its a big problem with the system we have now and likely wouldn't be better in a single payer system. With dental or vision care the cost are usually affordable for most. Heck most dental policies pay for preventative care but you pay a high percentage of the cost for fillings, crowns, etc. Plus there aren't really any dental situations that you might run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost for a problem ending up with yourself in bankruptcy. 

By the way I have studied statistics and I understand diminishing returns regarding pool size but the make up of the pool is just as important as the size. A pool of 5 million healthy people and a pool of unhealthy people have vastly different healthcare costs. 

One last thing that bothers me about our system is the bond with employers. With this system you often become obliged to a job you hate simply because of the benefits. It also places a competitive disadvantage on US companies that most of their foreign competitors don't have.


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> Frodo
> 
> I know you are being sarcastic but you are also correct. There are government models that do exactly what you suggest. They step in and take care of your needs in return tell you how to live your life. It is called communism and China is a great example of that up until a short time ago. Last I checked anyone that would want to leave this country could go to any number of communist countries and they will take you right in. They will give you a job and how many hours to work and a place to live and provide for your needs. I dont see a lot of people leaving though.
> 
> My personal belief is this country was founded in a very unique way with lots of personal freedoms. More was accomplished here in 200 years that the rest mankinds time on the planet. Our government was an experiment and intended to change and evolve.
> 
> Is it time to evolve into socialize medical country? I dont know is my answer. I am fully convinced they should leave ACA 100% intact. It was put into play by the progressives party and they should let the experiment run its course. It could be wonderful thing for all. And if it isnt people will want to try something different.



It is finished,  Aetna is pulling out,  It did not work and it was never supposed to work. it was a stepping stone to socialized medicine
something I am dead set against
they need to go back to the old private insurance we had
and let people buy insurance across state lines,  that will keep the price in check.
as far as the poor goes.    Medicaid below a certain income


----------



## bud16415

68bucks said:


> Bud,
> 
> I agree with you that there will always be a situation in any system for some authority to allow or disallow a particular procedure or expense. There really isn't any alternative due to limited funding. My main point in my remarks was to highlight the point that those opposed to single payer always play the "death panel" card claiming the government will decide who lives and who dies based on what they allow. I simply want to point out that that situation exists now and has from the beginning. The main difference in the two systems being that the private insurance system makes those decisions with profit as an underlying influence. I think that is what I object to about the current system of private for profit insurance.
> 
> I also completely disagree that the old private insurance system worked. Perhaps back in the 50's or 60's it may have but its been well documented that healthcare and insurance costs have been rising at a far greater pace than inflation ever has. I mean if it was working, as I said, we wouldn't be having the debate, we'd all be happy and healthy. Of course as its been pointed out by several the technology that has developed since the 50's and 60's has really added to the cost but also to the number of treatable diseases. The greater amount of litigation fits in there somewhere too. But I will say that there are numerous studies that show litigation only adds incrementally to the cost, its not a huge deal. The right tends to want to take away our right to hold parties accountable when they screw up by saying that adds a bunch to the cost of healthcare. States that have passed tort laws prove that. They have not significantly lower cost.
> 
> If you look back at my posts I never said or implied that insurance is a right. Now if we develop a system that we pay into over our working days like medicare then it becomes a right because you paid for it. I have often wondered if we had a VAT for healthcare how much would that tax have to be. That way everyone would be contributing to it, no free riders. Or maybe we partially fund it that way, I don't know. I just can't get past he notion that the wealthiest country in the world by far cannot figure out a way to pool our resources and get everyone health care. We could use the current private insurers to pay the bills maybe that's what they do now. They would just become operated as a non-profit with heavy government oversight and all their silly rules and stipulations would go away and simplify the system, make it uniform. Maybe they could earn bonuses for preventing fraud to help with that because its a big problem with the system we have now and likely wouldn't be better in a single payer system. With dental or vision care the cost are usually affordable for most. Heck most dental policies pay for preventative care but you pay a high percentage of the cost for fillings, crowns, etc. Plus there aren't really any dental situations that you might run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost for a problem ending up with yourself in bankruptcy.
> 
> By the way I have studied statistics and I understand diminishing returns regarding pool size but the make up of the pool is just as important as the size. A pool of 5 million healthy people and a pool of unhealthy people have vastly different healthcare costs.
> 
> One last thing that bothers me about our system is the bond with employers. With this system you often become obliged to a job you hate simply because of the benefits. It also places a competitive disadvantage on US companies that most of their foreign competitors don't have.



I dont have the trust you have in the government running large industries I guess. No doubt they can do it they run the armed forces, the postal system, social security, VA and Medicare. They could all benefit from some private sector approaches IMO. 

I dont think you will see death panels at least called death panels in any system we take on, but there are degrees and elements to all insurance systems and it is commonly heard talk of end of life strategies. If you agree or dont with the concept of quality of life and medical treatments, there will always be some amount of it in the treatment process. 

As to the insurance companies profits they are somewhat mild in the total cost of healthcare. The biggest drivers are still in the industry of healthcare itself, drugs and medical treatments and salaries for all the above. 

I grew up with health care as a kid thru my fathers plan that was paid for as a work benefit and my whole working life I did the same thru my workplace. I never felt like I was held hostage by my benefits. I always viewed it as great place to work offering a great overall benefit package and just one more reason to want to stay and work for them. I can attest in the 50s thru 80s IMO the system worked well.   

I think the legal aspect of the cost is very hard to pinpoint and measure as a lot is a hidden cost. Beyond the litigation and cost of another insurance called malpractice. I took my sister to our old trusted family doctor / surgeon a few years ago when she was quite sick. He poked in her belly for about 10 seconds and said you need your gallbladder out and we will do the surgery at 8:00 tomorrow morning. He said until then you will be busy getting a days worth of tests and scans to confirm he was correct and to please the worried legal people that didnt think he knows what he is talking about. He had the OR scheduled first thing and of course the tests proved out she needed it out. 
I also know a young ER doc and he tells me the same thing that the vast amount of the tests he orders are required as CYA. 

We do agree that healthcare must be paid for by someone and it is an industry. 

Here is a good read in Forbes. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peteru...ive-ruining-american-healthcare/#7162e63637b9


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> We do agree that healthcare must be paid for by someone and it is an industry.


 ^^^  truth spoken here

:rofl:


----------



## frodo

bud16415 said:


> Frodo
> 
> I know you are being sarcastic but you are also correct. There are government models that do exactly what you suggest. They step in and take care of your needs in return tell you how to live your life. It is called communism and China is a great example of that up until a short time ago. Last I checked anyone that would want to leave this country could go to any number of communist countries and they will take you right in. They will give you a job and how many hours to work and a place to live and provide for your needs. I dont see a lot of people leaving though.
> 
> My personal belief is this country was founded in a very unique way with lots of personal freedoms. More was accomplished here in 200 years that the rest mankinds time on the planet. Our government was an experiment and intended to change and evolve.
> 
> Is it time to evolve into socialize medical country? I dont know is my answer. I am fully convinced they should leave ACA 100% intact. It was put into play by the progressives party and they should let the experiment run its course. It could be wonderful thing for all. And if it isnt people will want to try something different.



Forced  to buy something you do not want goes against my grain


----------



## 68bucks

frodo said:


> Forced  to buy something you do not want goes against my grain


I don't like the prospect that the government requires you to purchase something you don't want either. Problem is I don't know what you do about people that say they don't want health insurance and pocket or spend that money. Then low and behold they get sick of injured and end up in the hospital and run up a $100,000 bill, an easy thing to do. They can't pay the bill so the hospital eats it which we know they really don't do they roll it into their already high cost plus they probably write it off their taxes. So then we end up paying the bill and making up the difference in lost tax revenue. Meanwhile the person ends up filing bankruptcy and we have to foot the bill for the courts too. And why? Because that person decided they didn't want to be a responsible person and buy insurance. I mean you know they will need it sooner or later. On the other hand if they were paying their insurance through a payroll deduction or with a VAT or something they would have insurance , avoid bankruptcy, and not burden everyone else. There are a lot of people that fit into that category. 

I find one irony in your statement though. You were forced to pay for Medicare and have elected to use that system. It's socialized medicine more or less depending on your definition of socialized medicine. So are you glad that was the situation or would you rather you were on your own to find and pay for private insurance at this point in your life? Not being facetious just curious how someone on Medicare feels about that.


----------



## 68bucks

bud16415 said:


> I dont have the trust you have in the government running large industries I guess. No doubt they can do it they run the armed forces, the postal system, social security, VA and Medicare. They could all benefit from some private sector approaches IMO.
> 
> I dont think you will see death panels at least called death panels in any system we take on, but there are degrees and elements to all insurance systems and it is commonly heard talk of end of life strategies. If you agree or dont with the concept of quality of life and medical treatments, there will always be some amount of it in the treatment process.
> 
> As to the insurance companies profits they are somewhat mild in the total cost of healthcare. The biggest drivers are still in the industry of healthcare itself, drugs and medical treatments and salaries for all the above.
> 
> I grew up with health care as a kid thru my fathers plan that was paid for as a work benefit and my whole working life I did the same thru my workplace. I never felt like I was held hostage by my benefits. I always viewed it as great place to work offering a great overall benefit package and just one more reason to want to stay and work for them. I can attest in the 50s thru 80s IMO the system worked well.
> 
> I think the legal aspect of the cost is very hard to pinpoint and measure as a lot is a hidden cost. Beyond the litigation and cost of another insurance called malpractice. I took my sister to our old trusted family doctor / surgeon a few years ago when she was quite sick. He poked in her belly for about 10 seconds and said you need your gallbladder out and we will do the surgery at 8:00 tomorrow morning. He said until then you will be busy getting a days worth of tests and scans to confirm he was correct and to please the worried legal people that didnt think he knows what he is talking about. He had the OR scheduled first thing and of course the tests proved out she needed it out.
> I also know a young ER doc and he tells me the same thing that the vast amount of the tests he orders are required as CYA.
> 
> We do agree that healthcare must be paid for by someone and it is an industry.
> 
> Here is a good read in Forbes.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/peteru...ive-ruining-american-healthcare/#7162e63637b9


Bud,

Don't get me wrong I have serious doubts about the government's ability to manage a large healthcare system well. Though I have read that Medicare does operate more efficiently in terms of administrative cost than private insurance but I think there are definitely things that could be gained by private sector influence. That's why I have thought the current private system could be utilized in some way for a single payer system. 

I use the term death panel just because that was a popular right wing term that gets thrown out when single payer system talks start. and you're right that the root of the problem is not insurance profits its the high cost of the care. If that isn't addressed it doesn't matter. The CYA healthcare or defensive medicine fits in there too but at the end of the day if you're going to cut me open for anything and we can verify your suspicions with a $500 test, I'll pay it. But if I show up in the ER and need to get my finger stitched up don't tell me I need an xray, 3 blood test, and an MRI. Just sew me up and maybe give me an antibiotic and I'll be on my way thank you.


----------



## bud16415

The ER doc I know is a no-nonsense kind of doc and if you came in with a cut finger he would rinse it out give you a pain pill stitch it up and give you a couple days of pain pills and antibiotics and tell you if you have any troubles go to your family doctor and don&#8217;t come back to the ER for this. His coworkers drive him crazy because there is a one in a million chance something else bad might happen to you from the cut you got. They will request the tests you mentioned and it won&#8217;t cost 500 more like 5k and then they will admit you at least for overnight as that gets them off the hook if you happen to have a heart attack that same day. 

I asked him what his normal day is like? He said by far most of his cases are drug related. Many ODs where you give them a reversing drug and they leave and use again and are back in a few hours. The other half are meds seekers wanting pain meds. He said he gives them an aspirin and sends them out. They have people needing pain meds so bad they will jump in front of a car and get hit just to come in with pain bad enough to get the good stuff.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> The ER doc I know is a no-nonsense kind of doc and if you came in with a cut finger he would rinse it out give you a pain pill stitch it up and give you a couple days of pain pills and antibiotics and tell you if you have any troubles go to your family doctor and dont come back to the ER for this. His coworkers drive him crazy because there is a one in a million chance something else bad might happen to you from the cut you got. They will request the tests you mentioned and it wont cost 500 more like 5k and then they will admit you at least for overnight as that gets them off the hook if you happen to have a heart attack that same day.
> 
> I asked him what his normal day is like? He said by far most of his cases are drug related. Many ODs where you give them a reversing drug and they leave and use again and are back in a few hours. The other half are meds seekers wanting pain meds. He said he gives them an aspirin and sends them out. They have people needing pain meds so bad they will jump in front of a car and get hit just to come in with pain bad enough to get the good stuff.



The drug problem right now is enough to kill any health system, A while ago our cancer hospital had an overflow in ER 50 people in the beds in the hallways.


----------



## frodo

68bucks said:


> I don't like the prospect that the government requires you to purchase something you don't want either. Problem is I don't know what you do about people that say they don't want health insurance and pocket or spend that money. Then low and behold they get sick of injured and end up in the hospital and run up a $100,000 bill, an easy thing to do. They can't pay the bill so the hospital eats it which we know they really don't do they roll it into their already high cost plus they probably write it off their taxes. So then we end up paying the bill and making up the difference in lost tax revenue. Meanwhile the person ends up filing bankruptcy and we have to foot the bill for the courts too. And why? Because that person decided they didn't want to be a responsible person and buy insurance. I mean you know they will need it sooner or later. On the other hand if they were paying their insurance through a payroll deduction or with a VAT or something they would have insurance , avoid bankruptcy, and not burden everyone else. There are a lot of people that fit into that category.
> 
> I find one irony in your statement though. You were forced to pay for Medicare and have elected to use that system. It's socialized medicine more or less depending on your definition of socialized medicine. So are you glad that was the situation or would you rather you were on your own to find and pay for private insurance at this point in your life? Not being facetious just curious how someone on Medicare feels about that.



I pay humana for enhanced plan.    Humana Gold ppo 
because medicare does not address my issue
so actually I have both

   you are incorrect in assuming I do not pay for my insurance


----------



## zannej

68bucks said:


> I don't like the prospect that the government requires you to purchase something you don't want either. Problem is I don't know what you do about people that say they don't want health insurance and pocket or spend that money. Then low and behold they get sick of injured and end up in the hospital and run up a $100,000 bill, an easy thing to do. They can't pay the bill so the hospital eats it which we know they really don't do they roll it into their already high cost plus they probably write it off their taxes. So then we end up paying the bill and making up the difference in lost tax revenue. Meanwhile the person ends up filing bankruptcy and we have to foot the bill for the courts too. And why?* Because that person decided they didn't want to be a responsible person and buy insurance.* I mean you know they will need it sooner or later. On the other hand if they were paying their insurance through a payroll deduction or with a VAT or something they would have insurance , avoid bankruptcy, and not burden everyone else. There are a lot of people that fit into that category.
> 
> I find one irony in your statement though. You were forced to pay for Medicare and have elected to use that system. It's socialized medicine more or less depending on your definition of socialized medicine. So are you glad that was the situation or would you rather you were on your own to find and pay for private insurance at this point in your life? Not being facetious just curious how someone on Medicare feels about that.



The problem is not always that a person is irresponsible and not willing to pay for health insurance. Sometimes a person flat out can't afford it. A friend of mine wanted to get medical insurance for himself and his daughter but the monthly premiums were more than 50% of his monthly income and his job didn't provide medical insurance. 

A lot of people in this area are in the same boat. The local businesses only hire part time and/or use loopholes to avoid paying for any employee benefits. I know people who work 2 to 3 jobs and still can't afford health insurance and barely get enough hours to pay the bills. (Part of this is low wages but also inflated costs-- 11% sales tax, utility costs recently tripled, and the slum lords overcharge for rent).

Insurance rates in this state (Louisiana) are some of the highest in the country. And the hospitals do write off the losses. They get money from the state (from taxpayer dollars obviously) for people not paying AND they sell the debts to collection agencies. If the prices for treatment/medicine were reasonable, a lot of people would be able to pay out of pocket even if they didn't have insurance. If they couldn't pay it all at once, they could make payment plans. But the hospitals here charge absurd prices for things. 

If the legislators would stop worrying about themselves and actually give a damn about the future of the country  (putting aside the whole "us vs them" crap where they reject  ideas/plans just because it came from the other side without actually  evaluating the merit) and consideration for the citizens, they could do something to prevent medical companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies from major price-gouging. I'm not saying there should be zero profits, but at least make it so they can't charge insane prices for things that most people can't afford. And maybe they should establish standards to set/cap prices for specific things so prices won't be so arbitrary. I also think they should have hospitals publicly post the itemized prices of procedures, medicines, etc (including how much it costs to have a nurse hand you a pill) so that patients can compare prices with other facilities. 

Of course, that won't solve the problem of people who don't work and have no income, or of illegal aliens or con artists who give stolen SS#s and then don't pay.


----------



## bud16415

zannej said:


> The problem is not always that a person is irresponsible and not willing to pay for health insurance. Sometimes a person flat out can't afford it. A friend of mine wanted to get medical insurance for himself and his daughter but the monthly premiums were more than 50% of his monthly income and his job didn't provide medical insurance.
> 
> A lot of people in this area are in the same boat. The local businesses only hire part time and/or use loopholes to avoid paying for any employee benefits. I know people who work 2 to 3 jobs and still can't afford health insurance and barely get enough hours to pay the bills. (Part of this is low wages but also inflated costs-- 11% sales tax, utility costs recently tripled, and the slum lords overcharge for rent).
> 
> Insurance rates in this state (Louisiana) are some of the highest in the country. And the hospitals do write off the losses. They get money from the state (from taxpayer dollars obviously) for people not paying AND they sell the debts to collection agencies. If the prices for treatment/medicine were reasonable, a lot of people would be able to pay out of pocket even if they didn't have insurance. If they couldn't pay it all at once, they could make payment plans. But the hospitals here charge absurd prices for things.
> 
> If the legislators would stop worrying about themselves and actually give a damn about the future of the country  (putting aside the whole "us vs them" crap where they reject  ideas/plans just because it came from the other side without actually  evaluating the merit) and consideration for the citizens, they could do something to prevent medical companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies from major price-gouging. I'm not saying there should be zero profits, but at least make it so they can't charge insane prices for things that most people can't afford. And maybe they should establish standards to set/cap prices for specific things so prices won't be so arbitrary. I also think they should have hospitals publicly post the itemized prices of procedures, medicines, etc (including how much it costs to have a nurse hand you a pill) so that patients can compare prices with other facilities.
> 
> Of course, that won't solve the problem of people who don't work and have no income, or of illegal aliens or con artists who give stolen SS#s and then don't pay.



All the problems you mentioned are real problems in our country and not only prohibit people from buying health insurance, they hold them back from buying homes and cars and clothes and going on vacations and educating their children etc.  etc. 

Those problems are what we as a country should be looking at and it is what has changed from the 50s thru 80s. The insurance issue is just one of many things a country that has ran out of speed will suffer from. We remember the good old days and we apply the good old days model to some parts of today when there is something we dont like and say see how things have changed. Why do all these people have to work 3 or 4 part time jobs to still lose ground is the big question. I go to Walmart and people are buying flat panel TV sets like they are giving them away. As a kid every family also wanted a TV in their home and every single TV you could buy was made in the USA and every part inside the TV was made in the USA. Every car you went to buy the TV in was made in the USA right down to the tires. Everyone that wanted a good job and was willing to work had one and most got health insurance as part of that job. 

It is hard to not see there was a winning formula for this country once upon a time. 

The question is what happened and why? 

Going back to the first post in this thread here is Chris a guy we all know wanting to recapture that winning formula for himself and his family and his then workers. 

The question is what happened then to now and why? He correctly sees the deck stacked against his efforts in a lot of ways. Take that one guy times a million guys like him with the drive to put in play the winning formula would make big changes and allow things to start snowballing in the right direction. 

Everyone in business and working under the principals of free enterprise are not greedy people. Sure he wants his piece of the pie. Thats the thing about the way this country was before all this everyone could have as much pie as they wanted. It wasnt one pie to be sectioned up for everyone as we now think it was a growing pie where the bigger the slice you earned the pie got bigger for everyone else.


----------



## frodo

I do not subscribe to the belief the government ''owes' you health care


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


> All the problems you mentioned are real problems in our country and not only prohibit people from buying health insurance, they hold them back from buying homes and cars and clothes and going on vacations and educating their children etc.  etc.
> 
> Those problems are what we as a country should be looking at and it is what has changed from the 50s thru 80s. The insurance issue is just one of many things a country that has ran out of speed will suffer from. We remember the good old days and we apply the good old days model to some parts of today when there is something we dont like and say see how things have changed. Why do all these people have to work 3 or 4 part time jobs to still lose ground is the big question. I go to Walmart and people are buying flat panel TV sets like they are giving them away. As a kid every family also wanted a TV in their home and every single TV you could buy was made in the USA and every part inside the TV was made in the USA. Every car you went to buy the TV in was made in the USA right down to the tires. Everyone that wanted a good job and was willing to work had one and most got health insurance as part of that job.
> 
> It is hard to not see there was a winning formula for this country once upon a time.
> 
> The question is what happened and why?
> 
> Going back to the first post in this thread here is Chris a guy we all know wanting to recapture that winning formula for himself and his family and his then workers.
> 
> The question is what happened then to now and why? He correctly sees the deck stacked against his efforts in a lot of ways. Take that one guy times a million guys like him with the drive to put in play the winning formula would make big changes and allow things to start snowballing in the right direction.
> 
> Everyone in business and working under the principals of free enterprise are not greedy people. Sure he wants his piece of the pie. Thats the thing about the way this country was before all this everyone could have as much pie as they wanted. It wasnt one pie to be sectioned up for everyone as we now think it was a growing pie where the bigger the slice you earned the pie got bigger for everyone else.



Healthcare insurance was non profit back then.


----------



## Chris

bud16415 said:


> All the problems you mentioned are real problems in our country and not only prohibit people from buying health insurance, they hold them back from buying homes and cars and clothes and going on vacations and educating their children etc.  etc.
> 
> Those problems are what we as a country should be looking at and it is what has changed from the 50s thru 80s. The insurance issue is just one of many things a country that has ran out of speed will suffer from. We remember the good old days and we apply the good old days model to some parts of today when there is something we dont like and say see how things have changed. Why do all these people have to work 3 or 4 part time jobs to still lose ground is the big question. I go to Walmart and people are buying flat panel TV sets like they are giving them away. As a kid every family also wanted a TV in their home and every single TV you could buy was made in the USA and every part inside the TV was made in the USA. Every car you went to buy the TV in was made in the USA right down to the tires. Everyone that wanted a good job and was willing to work had one and most got health insurance as part of that job.
> 
> It is hard to not see there was a winning formula for this country once upon a time.
> 
> The question is what happened and why?
> 
> Going back to the first post in this thread here is Chris a guy we all know wanting to recapture that winning formula for himself and his family and his then workers.
> 
> The question is what happened then to now and why? He correctly sees the deck stacked against his efforts in a lot of ways. Take that one guy times a million guys like him with the drive to put in play the winning formula would make big changes and allow things to start snowballing in the right direction.
> 
> Everyone in business and working under the principals of free enterprise are not greedy people. Sure he wants his piece of the pie. Thats the thing about the way this country was before all this everyone could have as much pie as they wanted. It wasnt one pie to be sectioned up for everyone as we now think it was a growing pie where the bigger the slice you earned the pie got bigger for everyone else.




I think you are correct, it is not just healthcare but everything has changed. We are now raised to live in a throw away society where all the things you used to work hard for in the 50's should be given to us or at least discounted and the ones in charge of them are evil or crooks and then all the throw away crap that everyone buys then re buys and buys again and again over and over because it is either junk made in foreign countries or the the lemmings are following the new fashion or trying to keep up with their neighbors is what has become priority.

I listen to stories my grandfather tells me. He came to america after the second world war, he had to join the Swedish army then apply for citizenship then had to join the American army in order to apply for citizenship. He came here and worked like a slave to get ahead. He did several odd jobs the landed at Firestone making tires and later jumped over to Aerojet until he retired. He would tell me how they only had one car for the whole family and they kept them for 20-30 years. He still has and drives his 1971 Chevy station wagon with 350,000 miles on it but in great condition. They had one TV and one radio. They used their credit card for larger purchases and paid it off before buying anything else on it. They saved up and paid cash for everything as to not pay interest charges. When things needed fixed they learned how to do it themselves and as a last resort hired someone to come in. Maintained everything they owned in top not conditions and in return it lasted them for years and years. It was a simple idea he says, buy quality and take care of it and it will last you a lifetime. None of this is taught to todays youth and we don't see it hardly anywhere. just think of it, how many TV's have you bought over the last 20 years? how many different cars have you owned over the last 10 or 20 years? People say its just a different time now but I see that as being the problem. We buy trash and then bury it a year later. No wonder China is number one.

I find myself over the last few years in buying older quality made tools that are rebuildable because a 40 year old tool can easily be better than any brand new one. We still make quality on America if you can find it.


----------



## bud16415

nealtw said:


> Healthcare insurance was non profit back then.


----------



## nealtw

bud16415 said:


>



Blue Cross and Blue Shield developed separately, with Blue Cross plans providing coverage for hospital services and Blue Shield covering physicians' services.[3]

Blue Cross is a name used by an association of health insurance plans throughout the United States. Its predecessor was developed by Justin Ford Kimball in 1929, while he was vice president of Baylor University's health care facilities in Dallas, Texas.[4] The first plan guaranteed teachers 21 days of hospital care for $6 a year, was later extended to other employee groups in Dallas, and then nationally.[4] The American Hospital Association (AHA) adopted the Blue Cross symbol in 1939 as the emblem for plans meeting certain standards. In 1960, the AHA commission was superseded by the Blue Cross Association. Blue Cross severed its ties with the AHA in 1972.

Blue Shield was developed by employers in lumber and mining camps of the Pacific Northwest to provide medical care by paying monthly fees to medical service bureaus composed of groups of physicians.[5][6] In 1939, the first official Blue Shield plan was founded in California. In 1948, the symbol was informally adopted by nine plans called the Associated Medical Care Plan, and was later renamed the National Association of Blue Shield Plans.

In the 1960s the US government chose to partner with Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies to administer Medicare.[6]

In 1982, Blue Shield merged with The Blue Cross Association to form the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBS).[7]

Prior to 1986, organizations administering BCBS were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked the exemption, because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation, but entitled to "special tax benefits"[8] under IRC 833.[9]

In 1994, BCBS changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations.[3] During 2010, Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company of BCBS in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana and Illinois, nearly doubled its income to $1.09 billion in 2010, and began four years of billion-dollar profits.[10] In the final spending bill for FY 2015 after much lobbying since 2010, nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans continue to have special tax breaks that were understood to be threatened by the Affordable C


----------



## bud16415

Sounds like it worked pretty well until the government got involved.


----------



## oldognewtrick

bud16415 said:


> Sounds like it worked pretty well until the government got involved.



Most things are.


----------



## nealtw

This one was 2001. I couldn't find when BCBS went public.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/30/ipo/ipo/


----------



## 68bucks

Chris said:


> I think you are correct, it is not just healthcare but everything has changed. We are now raised to live in a throw away society where all the things you used to work hard for in the 50's should be given to us or at least discounted and the ones in charge of them are evil or crooks and then all the throw away crap that everyone buys then re buys and buys again and again over and over because it is either junk made in foreign countries or the the lemmings are following the new fashion or trying to keep up with their neighbors is what has become priority.
> 
> I listen to stories my grandfather tells me. He came to america after the second world war, he had to join the Swedish army then apply for citizenship then had to join the American army in order to apply for citizenship. He came here and worked like a slave to get ahead. He did several odd jobs the landed at Firestone making tires and later jumped over to Aerojet until he retired. He would tell me how they only had one car for the whole family and they kept them for 20-30 years. He still has and drives his 1971 Chevy station wagon with 350,000 miles on it but in great condition. They had one TV and one radio. They used their credit card for larger purchases and paid it off before buying anything else on it. They saved up and paid cash for everything as to not pay interest charges. When things needed fixed they learned how to do it themselves and as a last resort hired someone to come in. Maintained everything they owned in top not conditions and in return it lasted them for years and years. It was a simple idea he says, buy quality and take care of it and it will last you a lifetime. None of this is taught to todays youth and we don't see it hardly anywhere. just think of it, how many TV's have you bought over the last 20 years? how many different cars have you owned over the last 10 or 20 years? People say its just a different time now but I see that as being the problem. We buy trash and then bury it a year later. No wonder China is number one.
> 
> I find myself over the last few years in buying older quality made tools that are rebuildable because a 40 year old tool can easily be better than any brand new one. We still make quality on America if you can find it.


A lot of the problems you describe came through competition, some of it foreign but not all of it. Say company A makes washers. They build a high quality product that last for 30 years. I only remember my mother owning one washer the whole time I was growing up. So company B, they cut a few corners and make a cheaper washer but it still lasts 20 years, pretty good still. Well company A loses sales to company B's cheaper washer. Well what are they going to do? Usually make it even cheaper. Then they realize that not only will more people buy their cheaper washer but if they can make them only last 10 years you will have to buy one sooner and they sell even more of them driving up profits. Once they have wrung out all the profit they can by lowering the cost (quality) through design and material changes the next logical step is to go after labor cost. Best way to do that used to be to try and get the union out of the equation so they move to states that help them do that. I'd be willing to bet that Firestone was a union plant, probably Aerojet too. Thus begins the downward spiral of labor. Employees are forced to take less pay, they hire mainly part time to avoid benefit costs, they automate. From there the next step is to go off shore and close the US facilities. You get dirt cheap labor and no regulation. They are free to pay whatever they want, they don't have to worry about dumping their waste into the local river or burying it in the ground. They can eliminate any emission controls and just discharge right to the air. That is the inherent cycle of the free capitalist market, its just the nature of the beast to constantly try to increase profit. Sort of the good with the bad. There are some instances where quality will win out. High end luxury and sports cars. There are some high end appliances available. Sub-Zero and Viking make really nice high quality appliances. They are expensive but they are made in the US which is why I own both. So people that want an item will generally shop price first and that usually means foreign made and now people rarely even consider where it was made. When I shop I start by looking for US made products first. It usually isn't the cheapest option but I'm willing to pay more to buy American but some people just can't afford to and too many just don't care and at the same time wonder where all the jobs went.

I will say I think cars have actually improved in life expectancy. When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's a car with 100,000 was a lot. Now cars run over 100,000 miles all the time. Most people that buy a new or nearly new car never wear them out they just get tired of them and want something newer. Of course it almost impossible for the average person to repair a car yourself any more outside brakes or changing oil.


----------



## bud16415

68bucks said:


> A lot of the problems you describe came through competition, some of it foreign but not all of it. Say company A makes washers. They build a high quality product that last for 30 years. I only remember my mother owning one washer the whole time I was growing up. So company B, they cut a few corners and make a cheaper washer but it still lasts 20 years, pretty good still. Well company A loses sales to company B's cheaper washer. Well what are they going to do? Usually make it even cheaper. Then they realize that not only will more people buy their cheaper washer but if they can make them only last 10 years you will have to buy one sooner and they sell even more of them driving up profits. Once they have wrung out all the profit they can by lowering the cost (quality) through design and material changes the next logical step is to go after labor cost. Best way to do that used to be to try and get the union out of the equation so they move to states that help them do that. I'd be willing to bet that Firestone was a union plant, probably Aerojet too. Thus begins the downward spiral of labor. Employees are forced to take less pay, they hire mainly part time to avoid benefit costs, they automate. From there the next step is to go off shore and close the US facilities. You get dirt cheap labor and no regulation. They are free to pay whatever they want, they don't have to worry about dumping their waste into the local river or burying it in the ground. They can eliminate any emission controls and just discharge right to the air. That is the inherent cycle of the free capitalist market, its just the nature of the beast to constantly try to increase profit. Sort of the good with the bad. There are some instances where quality will win out. High end luxury and sports cars. There are some high end appliances available. Sub-Zero and Viking make really nice high quality appliances. They are expensive but they are made in the US which is why I own both. So people that want an item will generally shop price first and that usually means foreign made and now people rarely even consider where it was made. When I shop I start by looking for US made products first. It usually isn't the cheapest option but I'm willing to pay more to buy American but some people just can't afford to and too many just don't care and at the same time wonder where all the jobs went.
> 
> I will say I think cars have actually improved in life expectancy. When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's a car with 100,000 was a lot. Now cars run over 100,000 miles all the time. Most people that buy a new or nearly new car never wear them out they just get tired of them and want something newer. Of course it almost impossible for the average person to repair a car yourself any more outside brakes or changing oil.



Your analysis is interesting but I dont think it is too accurate. 

We invented the automobile and the clothes washer in this country and from the day of Henry Ford till today the name of the game was automation. In fact automation brought cost down and quality up and is credited for making all the jobs. These were new jobs that never existed before Ford started mass producing autos. Sure there were buggy whip makers that lost their jobs but for every whip maker that lost his job there were a 100 factory jobs made. At the hay day of all this the unions formed and the workers prospered as did the owners. The reason being the pie kept getting larger and everyone could get a bigger slice. The result of all these jobs would be more people buying washers and autos. Because wages were up and costs were down.

Fast forward to today and look at the products that are in demand. iPhones and computers and electronics of all kinds. These things are about as highly automated as you can get. Trust me you couldnt afford a hand built iPhone and you wouldnt want one as it would never work. 

You are right about regulations and dumping stuff. 

There is nothing wrong with a business wanting to increase profits. I never saw a business yet that wanted to just hang on. Thats what Chris had hopes of doing out in Ca until they drove him out and spoiled his vision of what success should look like. Most modern business dont want to pollute and kill the people that work for them or look bad to their consumers they are willing to be regulated to a sane degree. 

No there are other forces in play as to what is going on here.


----------



## Chris

68bucks said:


> A lot of the problems you describe came through competition, some of it foreign but not all of it. Say company A makes washers. They build a high quality product that last for 30 years. I only remember my mother owning one washer the whole time I was growing up. So company B, they cut a few corners and make a cheaper washer but it still lasts 20 years, pretty good still. Well company A loses sales to company B's cheaper washer. Well what are they going to do? Usually make it even cheaper. Then they realize that not only will more people buy their cheaper washer but if they can make them only last 10 years you will have to buy one sooner and they sell even more of them driving up profits. Once they have wrung out all the profit they can by lowering the cost (quality) through design and material changes the next logical step is to go after labor cost. Best way to do that used to be to try and get the union out of the equation so they move to states that help them do that. I'd be willing to bet that Firestone was a union plant, probably Aerojet too. Thus begins the downward spiral of labor. Employees are forced to take less pay, they hire mainly part time to avoid benefit costs, they automate. From there the next step is to go off shore and close the US facilities. You get dirt cheap labor and no regulation. They are free to pay whatever they want, they don't have to worry about dumping their waste into the local river or burying it in the ground. They can eliminate any emission controls and just discharge right to the air. That is the inherent cycle of the free capitalist market, its just the nature of the beast to constantly try to increase profit. Sort of the good with the bad. There are some instances where quality will win out. High end luxury and sports cars. There are some high end appliances available. Sub-Zero and Viking make really nice high quality appliances. They are expensive but they are made in the US which is why I own both. So people that want an item will generally shop price first and that usually means foreign made and now people rarely even consider where it was made. When I shop I start by looking for US made products first. It usually isn't the cheapest option but I'm willing to pay more to buy American but some people just can't afford to and too many just don't care and at the same time wonder where all the jobs went.
> 
> I will say I think cars have actually improved in life expectancy. When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's a car with 100,000 was a lot. Now cars run over 100,000 miles all the time. Most people that buy a new or nearly new car never wear them out they just get tired of them and want something newer. Of course it almost impossible for the average person to repair a car yourself any more outside brakes or changing oil.



This is when it comes down to us to keep things quality made in America. If we as a nation pushed for it we would get it, If we wanted once in a lifetime items they would make them.

 just got off the phone with my grandfather, He said the unions were a big part of why he left Sweden. When he worked for Firestone and Aerojet they were not union at his plants, he said Aerojet went out because of the unions. He was telling how nothing ever got accomplished at the union factories. He was just telling a story about one of the testing facilities he would visit to test whatever he was working on, he would need to tighten a couple screws, they would have to call for the proper union person to come and tighten those two screws because he was not allowed to use a screwdriver. He said it would take up to a few hours to get a screw turned a half a turn. It would take a team of people and ten times longer than it should with just one trained person.  I try and listen to alot of what he has to say because he grew up when everything in our world was changing, he saw it all first hand from the depression to damn near flying cars. Just a week or two ago he was telling me about kids toys and how my kids have so much stuff. He said when he was a kid his bedroom was maybe 6 x 10 and it didn't feel small, he said everything was smaller back then. He was saying how he had maybe two or three toys at a time and he used his imagination with them. For him growing up was an outdoor thing, those couple toys were for when the weather was bad. He probably put more miles on a bicycle than any youth today.

I guess the moral of the story is that people were more content and humbled in the past, they had what they needed and were happy with that.


----------



## nealtw

Place the deck chairs close to the railing so when the ship sinks it will be easier to climb over and jump ship.


----------



## Chris

nealtw said:


> Place the deck chairs close to the railing so when the ship sinks it will be easier to climb over and jump ship.



Who gives direction on where to swim to?


----------



## frodo

Trump needs your support, call him and tell him you have his back


----------



## frodo

Chris said:


> Who gives direction on where to swim to?



The guy in the little boat


----------



## nealtw

The swamp captain.
25th
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3]


----------



## frodo

That is all neato and a really good fairy tail wish list you have in that post'

but the truth of the matter is while President Trump is under investigation by a special counsel

He can NOT be impeached,  

Impeachment proceedings can not be filed till AFTER the investigation has determined guilt.


From what I have seen this Investigation is going to last a minimum of a year

President Trump is not going anywhere,


----------



## bud16415

frodo said:


> The guy in the little boat



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zZWBJoRFJc[/ame]


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> That is all neato and a really good fairy tail wish list you have in that post'
> 
> but the truth of the matter is while President Trump is under investigation by a special counsel
> 
> He can NOT be impeached,
> 
> Impeachment proceedings can not be filed till AFTER the investigation has determined guilt.
> 
> 
> From what I have seen this Investigation is going to last a minimum of a year
> 
> President Trump is not going anywhere,



Where did you find that gem.
the 25th is not impeachment but the investigator could take his evidence to congress. 

He is shaking it up.:thbup:


----------



## zannej

Whether you agree with the guy or not, I like the guy's voice. He could do radio stuff. He was fairly entertaining. I think he was trying to mimic Liam Neeson at some points.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFh9e8pbPQk[/ame]


----------



## frodo

nealtw said:


> Where did you find that gem.
> the 25th is not impeachment but the investigator could take his evidence to congress.
> 
> He is shaking it up.:thbup:



Yes, you are correct, The investigator can take his evidence to congress
AFTER the investigation is complete.


----------



## nealtw

frodo said:


> Yes, you are correct, The investigator can take his evidence to congress
> AFTER the investigation is complete.



I think that is wrong, but I have been wrong more than once.:trophy:


----------



## 68bucks

Chris said:


> This is when it comes down to us to keep things quality made in America. If we as a nation pushed for it we would get it, If we wanted once in a lifetime items they would make them.
> 
> just got off the phone with my grandfather, He said the unions were a big part of why he left Sweden. When he worked for Firestone and Aerojet they were not union at his plants, he said Aerojet went out because of the unions. He was telling how nothing ever got accomplished at the union factories. He was just telling a story about one of the testing facilities he would visit to test whatever he was working on, he would need to tighten a couple screws, they would have to call for the proper union person to come and tighten those two screws because he was not allowed to use a screwdriver. He said it would take up to a few hours to get a screw turned a half a turn. It would take a team of people and ten times longer than it should with just one trained person.  I try and listen to alot of what he has to say because he grew up when everything in our world was changing, he saw it all first hand from the depression to damn near flying cars. Just a week or two ago he was telling me about kids toys and how my kids have so much stuff. He said when he was a kid his bedroom was maybe 6 x 10 and it didn't feel small, he said everything was smaller back then. He was saying how he had maybe two or three toys at a time and he used his imagination with them. For him growing up was an outdoor thing, those couple toys were for when the weather was bad. He probably put more miles on a bicycle than any youth today.
> 
> I guess the moral of the story is that people were more content and humbled in the past, they had what they needed and were happy with that.


Wow Chris I'm really surprised that Firestone especially wasn't union back then. You're grandfather is right about how much "stuff" people have now. Of course there are a lot more things to have. You don't even need to go that far back really. I'm 56 and when I was a kid we played outside because there wasn't anything to do inside really. We played in the woods, went fishing, rode our bikes a lot. I bet I put more miles on my bike in one summer than my son did in his whole life. Of course there were no personal computers back then. Heck my high school didn't have a single computer in it when I graduated including the administration offices. Times change.

I'm sort of neutral on the whole union thing really. I worked for a couple when I was young but the last 35 years I have worked for a great non-union company. However my father and uncle were both union presidents at one point so I have been drilled on unions forever and I understand and appreciate their contribution to all American workers. The issue with extreme specialization like the guy with the screwdriver is what has given unions a bad rap and deservedly so. Its also interesting how your grandfather left  Europe to get away from unions. I had a long talk with a guy from Germany once about business and unions in particular. I guess there most everybody is in a union but he unions work closely in partnership with the companies. They sit on boards and they work together to make the business better for everyone. Not the adversarial situation we have here. He was in management and not in the union but had only good to say about them for the most part. 
Out of curiosity I looked up Aerojet. Sounds like a lot of their problems came from pollution at some of their plant sites. A couple of them are superfund sites. Corporations love to close the doors or merge when they have problems like that to get out from under the problems. They merged with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne in 2013. They were owned before that by General Tire. I guess their main customer was the government and military. That helped them grow really fast in the early 40's due to the war I suppose.


----------



## Chris

68bucks said:


> Wow Chris I'm really surprised that Firestone especially wasn't union back then. You're grandfather is right about how much "stuff" people have now. Of course there are a lot more things to have. You don't even need to go that far back really. I'm 56 and when I was a kid we played outside because there wasn't anything to do inside really. We played in the woods, went fishing, rode our bikes a lot. I bet I put more miles on my bike in one summer than my son did in his whole life. Of course there were no personal computers back then. Heck my high school didn't have a single computer in it when I graduated including the administration offices. Times change.
> 
> I'm sort of neutral on the whole union thing really. I worked for a couple when I was young but the last 35 years I have worked for a great non-union company. However my father and uncle were both union presidents at one point so I have been drilled on unions forever and I understand and appreciate their contribution to all American workers. The issue with extreme specialization like the guy with the screwdriver is what has given unions a bad rap and deservedly so. Its also interesting how your grandfather left  Europe to get away from unions. I had a long talk with a guy from Germany once about business and unions in particular. I guess there most everybody is in a union but he unions work closely in partnership with the companies. They sit on boards and they work together to make the business better for everyone. Not the adversarial situation we have here. He was in management and not in the union but had only good to say about them for the most part.
> Out of curiosity I looked up Aerojet. Sounds like a lot of their problems came from pollution at some of their plant sites. A couple of them are superfund sites. Corporations love to close the doors or merge when they have problems like that to get out from under the problems. They merged with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne in 2013. They were owned before that by General Tire. I guess their main customer was the government and military. That helped them grow really fast in the early 40's due to the war I suppose.



I am 37 and I grew up the same way. I didn't have TV in my house until I was about 15. Computers where just starting out when I was a kid, my brother was all into them and I just never had any interest. When the sun was up I was outside riding my bike around town, I bet I spent more miles and time just seeing if a friend was home then actually playing with my friends. I had my own fishing boat at age 12 so I spent a lot of time on the lake.

As for Aerojet I don't know all that much about it, I know most of his work was for military, his team developed ammunition for a lot of years and he worked with the A-10 a lot. His team also helped redevelop the air bag in the early 70's. I will see him next week and pick his brain more on why he felt the unions were a big part of leaving Sweden. He said he hates the unions so I am curious to why. I think alot of it is that he is a very efficient person, everything must be thought out, done once and done right. I think it must have been that screwdriver mentality that ruined him of it but I will find out. His father ran a sawmill in Sweden that he eventually bought and I have heard stories about that and the union so maybe that is where it comes from.

As for me I think the unions had their time and place but nowadays they seem to push business overseas with requests that are just not doable for some companies.


----------

