(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Nothing government ever does works as advertised.

Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

My eight year contract n the Naval Reserve ends next year. I wasn't going to stay in the Reserves, but at $200 per month and with a $300 deductible for my family with TRS, I'm staying put. Because of Obummercare, it would have to take death or an act of congress to force me out of the reserves. I'll do 30 years before this stupid law can destroy my family.

(01-04-2015 04:26 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  My eight year contract n the Naval Reserve ends next year. I wasn't going to stay in the Reserves, but at $200 per month and with a $300 deductible for my family with TRS, I'm staying put. Because of Obummercare, it would have to take death or an act of congress to force me out of the reserves. I'll do 30 years before this stupid law can destroy my family.

Don't blame you a bit. You bring up something though that bothers me and my next comment is not directed to your situation..but..government employees in general. Why is it that government HC insurance is so good for its employees and so fcking bad for the rest of us?

(01-04-2015 09:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:26 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  My eight year contract n the Naval Reserve ends next year. I wasn't going to stay in the Reserves, but at $200 per month and with a $300 deductible for my family with TRS, I'm staying put. Because of Obummercare, it would have to take death or an act of congress to force me out of the reserves. I'll do 30 years before this stupid law can destroy my family.

Don't blame you a bit. You bring up something though that bothers me and my next comment is not directed to your situation..but..government employees in general. Why is it that government HC insurance is so good for its employees and so fcking bad for the rest of us?

What government HC? Federal? State? Local? I don't know about federal employees but in my state coverage that 30 years ago was one of the reasons people went to work for the state has deteriorated to the point that it is about average for a group plan. It is no longer an incentive to go to work for less money than the private sector is offering or to stay with the state for the long term.

(01-04-2015 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Nothing government ever does works as advertised.

Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

Most if not everyone I know on SS and/or Medicare are happy that they are participating in those programs. Considering that they keep countless numbers of people out of poverty in their latter years I can't see how the programs could possibly be considered failures!

(01-06-2015 01:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Nothing government ever does works as advertised.

Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

Most if not everyone I know on SS and/or Medicare are happy that they are participating in those programs. Considering that they keep countless numbers of people out of poverty in their latter years I can't see how the programs could possibly be considered failures!

Just imagine how much better they could be they were run effeciently. Still wish I could opt out and do my own thing with SS but realize that would bring down the pyramid scheme so will never be allowed.

(01-03-2015 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As I said before. It's going to take years before newly enrolled people get the health habits of those who have always been insured.

This statement Is so stupid it hurts.

(01-06-2015 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

Most if not everyone I know on SS and/or Medicare are happy that they are participating in those programs. Considering that they keep countless numbers of people out of poverty in their latter years I can't see how the programs could possibly be considered failures!

Just imagine how much better they could be they were run effeciently. Still wish I could opt out and do my own thing with SS but realize that would bring down the pyramid scheme so will never be allowed.

The sad thing is that if the payments into the system wouldn't have been squandered by those in Washington for a couple of generations, it might not be a pyramid scheme. Dirty ba$tard politicians couldn't keep their hands out of that pie of money.

(01-06-2015 01:14 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  As I said before. It's going to take years before newly enrolled people get the health habits of those who have always been insured.

This statement Is so stupid it hurts.

On so many levels. Not sure if Fit even believes it himself. Pure utopian bull crap.

(01-06-2015 01:10 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

Most if not everyone I know on SS and/or Medicare are happy that they are participating in those programs. Considering that they keep countless numbers of people out of poverty in their latter years I can't see how the programs could possibly be considered failures!

Just imagine how much better they could be they were run effeciently. Still wish I could opt out and do my own thing with SS but realize that would bring down the pyramid scheme so will never be allowed.

Exactly. These "happy" people are happy to be getting anything, most well beyond their years and amounts they may have paid in to the system. So of course they are "happy".

If, on the other hand, it was used as was intended- Supplemental Security Income, key word supplemental, and NOT as the primary resource for their retirements, it would be a far stronger program and the total value since inception would be exponentially larger. Have it as the safety net it was intended, but allow those a little less risk adverse to manage their own funds. Or do so with the guidance of federal agents, or professional services or whomever. If we could get back to that point, where we relied on ourselves (yes, shocking, I know) or Friends, family or Church and used SSI as Supplemental income to help out and not be a hammock for 20+ years, the entire Country would be far better off.

But no, as you said it's a pyramid scheme and to allow that would do two major things. One, pull back the curtain on the farce and fraud that SS has become and 2, even more egregiously, would rob our benevolent leaders in our ruling class in Dee Cee the very mothers milk that allows them to dole out a little here and a little there to keep the masses "happy".

For the $$$ amounts "invested" in SS and the fact that it cannot, by definition, survive without being majorly overhauled, I don't know how anyone could call it anything but a colossal failure. Another government run boondoggle put up by the Utopians with their never ending faith and reverence for the power of Government. Like zerOcare, these programs make us ALL worse off over time, except our overlords running them.

Look around the DC/Metro region and tell me who benefits the most from Big Government.

Adding another mandatory expense to the folks' bottom line is hurting them?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

(01-06-2015 01:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Nothing government ever does works as advertised.

Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Do either of those work as advertised given the massive fraud and raiding of the trust fund?

No. They are apex examples of the failure of governmental programs.

Most if not everyone I know on SS and/or Medicare are happy that they are participating in those programs. Considering that they keep countless numbers of people out of poverty in their latter years I can't see how the programs could possibly be considered failures!

What has that got to do with how well the programs have been run? You do understand how SS works...right? You do understand that there is no SS trust fund and that basically as a working person you pay directly into a retirees pocket...right? You do understand that the system is essentially going broke...right? While I am sure people are grateful for the small pittance that SS provides monthly. The fact remains that it a horribly run government system. The overwhelming success of the separate systems that Railroad workers and the City of Galveston TX have are examples of how wonderful a well run system could be.

(01-03-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:19 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Sadly, I'm in this boat. My wife, kid, and myself all have serious medical problems and Obamacare's rules on company insurance plans might bankrupt me.

Yesterday I was at the hospital for a pre-op check and I asked everyone I could if Obamacare was helping people and to a man and woman they said no. They said the people it was designed to help don't use it or don't have the money to pay the out of pocket costs. Their joke was to invest in insurance companies because they're getting premiums paid to them to take care of poor but they never have to shell out anything because the poor still don't see doctors unless they're dying. Those premiums become pure profit.

In the last year and a half I have not had one medical professional tell me that Obamacare is good for patients, doctors, or the medical industry as a whole - NOT ONE!

Quote:It's a deep and common concern across the USA, where employer plans cover 60% of working-age Americans, or about 150 million people. Coverage long considered the gold standard of health insurance now often requires workers to pay so much out-of-pocket that many feel they must skip doctor visits, put off medical procedures, avoid filling prescriptions and ration pills — much as the uninsured have done.



http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/na.../19841235/

If you honestly read that USA Today article you might notice that higher deductibles aren't suddenly occurring as a result of the ACA but in fact the % has been steadily rising both in amount and in the % of corporate plans going to them over the last decade or so.

The experts quoted seem to indicate the difficulties we are all experiencing have a lot to do with the recession leading to a lot of companies cutting costs by going to high deductible and high out of pocket policies to help their bottom line and the fact that wages for the middle class have been stagnant for years. The ACA tax on high end policies has also led to some companies scaling back as well.

The point is that the ACA is an easy scapegoat for all things medical, even when something occurred prior to the ACA, but the truth is it is a lot more complicated than that!

The ACA is no scapegoat. It is the cause of some of the increases…
Harvard, brain trust that helped write the ACA, has explained directly to their faculty in their health insurance information booklet that the ACA and its mandates is responsible for the increases that they are seeing in 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/0...are-hikes/

(01-06-2015 10:46 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 11:19 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Sadly, I'm in this boat. My wife, kid, and myself all have serious medical problems and Obamacare's rules on company insurance plans might bankrupt me.

Yesterday I was at the hospital for a pre-op check and I asked everyone I could if Obamacare was helping people and to a man and woman they said no. They said the people it was designed to help don't use it or don't have the money to pay the out of pocket costs. Their joke was to invest in insurance companies because they're getting premiums paid to them to take care of poor but they never have to shell out anything because the poor still don't see doctors unless they're dying. Those premiums become pure profit.

In the last year and a half I have not had one medical professional tell me that Obamacare is good for patients, doctors, or the medical industry as a whole - NOT ONE!

Quote:It's a deep and common concern across the USA, where employer plans cover 60% of working-age Americans, or about 150 million people. Coverage long considered the gold standard of health insurance now often requires workers to pay so much out-of-pocket that many feel they must skip doctor visits, put off medical procedures, avoid filling prescriptions and ration pills — much as the uninsured have done.



http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/na.../19841235/

If you honestly read that USA Today article you might notice that higher deductibles aren't suddenly occurring as a result of the ACA but in fact the % has been steadily rising both in amount and in the % of corporate plans going to them over the last decade or so.

The experts quoted seem to indicate the difficulties we are all experiencing have a lot to do with the recession leading to a lot of companies cutting costs by going to high deductible and high out of pocket policies to help their bottom line and the fact that wages for the middle class have been stagnant for years. The ACA tax on high end policies has also led to some companies scaling back as well.

The point is that the ACA is an easy scapegoat for all things medical, even when something occurred prior to the ACA, but the truth is it is a lot more complicated than that!

The ACA is no scapegoat. It is the cause of some of the increases…
Harvard, brain trust that helped write the ACA, has explained directly to their faculty in their health insurance information booklet that the ACA and its mandates is responsible for the increases that they are seeing in 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/0...are-hikes/

A fox opinion piece? Sorry but I don't trust anything they say or write.

Don't like the Fox Story?
OK. How about:

NY Times
Harvard Ideas on Health Care Hit Home, Hard
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/hea....html?_r=0

"…The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.…"

Examiner
Harvard faculty complain about rising healthcare costs due to Obamacare
http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-...-obamacare

Washington Post
Harvard professors are angry that their amazing health insurance is getting slightly less generous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...-generous/

"The university is requiring faculty to pay more out of their own pockets for health care, following the trend in employer-sponsored insurance over the past few years. The university cites rising costs from the Affordable Care Act as part of that reason.…"

National Review
Harvard Faculty Revolts Over Obamacare Cost Increases
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395...n-bordelon

(01-07-2015 12:20 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Don't like the Fox Story?
OK. How about:

NY Times
Harvard Ideas on Health Care Hit Home, Hard
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/hea....html?_r=0

"…The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.…"

Examiner
Harvard faculty complain about rising healthcare costs due to Obamacare
http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-...-obamacare

Washington Post
Harvard professors are angry that their amazing health insurance is getting slightly less generous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...-generous/

"The university is requiring faculty to pay more out of their own pockets for health care, following the trend in employer-sponsored insurance over the past few years. The university cites rising costs from the Affordable Care Act as part of that reason.…"

National Review
Harvard Faculty Revolts Over Obamacare Cost Increases
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395...n-bordelon

Thanks, I read the NY Times article.

1. They attribute SOME of the changes to parts of the ACA. I never said the ACA played no part in any increases but that much of the increases had nothing to do with the ACA. The Cadillac Plan tax in 2018 will most likely hit Harvard because they have one heck of a generous health care insurance group plan.

2. Their premiums are actually going down slightly.

3. They are up in arms because they will have to do more cost sharing. That as has been pointed out before, has been the trend long before the ACA went into affect.

4. Their health care costs are next to nothing. See below.

Quote:The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.

Reading all the teeth-gnashing about Obamacare only reinforces my decision to just forgo any health coverage at all, save some money to pay as I go, stock up on chicken soup, hot tea with lemon and honey, zinc, B-12, ibuprofin and children's tylenol, and keep the jogging shoes and dumbells out with my p90 and yoga videos, limiting added sugars, HFCS and keeping processed foods to a bare minimum, eating whole oat oatmeal every morning, still never using or owning a microwave oven, not drinking any sodas or eating any fast food.

Investing in the knowledge and effort in staying slim and healthy keeps us from needing any medications other than for the occasional cold once or twice per year. Paying cash direct for any doctor visits, and negotiating upfront with the doctor saving them and their staff from useless paperwork and forms also greatly reduces medical costs, plus the doctors appreciate being paid for their services, same as my car mechanic does. Keeping my spine aligned with a chiro visit once in a while same as aligning my vehicle reduces fatigue and avoids back issues for this middle-aged person.

As I am grateful to be living in a state smart enough not to have expanded Medicaid, we can claim the hardship exemption. Either way, paying the $100 tax, I mean fine, I mean tax, no wait, penalty, whatever and $300 next year is far more intelligent than paying for any "insurance plan" that does not insure anyone in my family, but transfers our limited resources to wealthy insurance executives and useless government bureaucrats.

Should a catastrophic event present itself, we can always sign up then, as that would be the only case where it might be remotely worthwhile. Even then it will be a grossly inefficient and overly-regulated way to do what an individual and market-driven program would accomplish at 1/10 the cost of Obamacare. As my state government is not participating in this garbage, we have options that other states that set up exchanges and fully embraced this act do not, and I will act accordingly for me and my family.

Once people accept the fact that healthcare costs money and can never be "free" but is a service same as fixing your car, maybe then we'll be able to have prices posted and pay-as you go, with real insurance making a comeback to pay only for truly catastrophic events. Hospitals and doctors will then be forced to lower prices and be more competitive as the elective surgery markets have shown will happen. Prices for laser surgery, lipo, etc.. have been reduced, technology and outcomes have been increased, and the market has proven that without government or employer involvement, heathcare can be delivered best when there is a free and open market across state lines and with doctors who act like the businessmen they should be, instead of the pampered crybabies insulated from the real world and overwhelmed with useless paperwork they are today. Insurance companies would have a lot less money to waste sponsoring bowl games. Oh well.

(01-07-2015 03:17 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Reading all the teeth-gnashing about Obamacare only reinforces my decision to just forgo any health coverage at all, save some money to pay as I go, stock up on chicken soup, hot tea with lemon and honey, zinc, B-12, ibuprofin and children's tylenol, and keep the jogging shoes and dumbells out with my p90 and yoga videos, limiting added sugars, HFCS and keeping processed foods to a bare minimum, eating whole oat oatmeal every morning, still never using or owning a microwave oven, not drinking any sodas or eating any fast food.

Investing in the knowledge and effort in staying slim and healthy keeps us from needing any medications other than for the occasional cold once or twice per year. Paying cash direct for any doctor visits, and negotiating upfront with the doctor saving them and their staff from useless paperwork and forms also greatly reduces medical costs, plus the doctors appreciate being paid for their services, same as my car mechanic does. Keeping my spine aligned with a chiro visit once in a while same as aligning my vehicle reduces fatigue and avoids back issues for this middle-aged person.

As I am grateful to be living in a state smart enough not to have expanded Medicaid, we can claim the hardship exemption. Either way, paying the $100 tax, I mean fine, I mean tax, no wait, penalty, whatever and $300 next year is far more intelligent than paying for any "insurance plan" that does not insure anyone in my family, but transfers our limited resources to wealthy insurance executives and useless government bureaucrats.

Should a catastrophic event present itself, we can always sign up then, as that would be the only case where it might be remotely worthwhile. Even then it will be a grossly inefficient and overly-regulated way to do what an individual and market-driven program would accomplish at 1/10 the cost of Obamacare. As my state government is not participating in this garbage, we have options that other states that set up exchanges and fully embraced this act do not, and I will act accordingly for me and my family.

Once people accept the fact that healthcare costs money and can never be "free" but is a service same as fixing your car, maybe then we'll be able to have prices posted and pay-as you go, with real insurance making a comeback to pay only for truly catastrophic events. Hospitals and doctors will then be forced to lower prices and be more competitive as the elective surgery markets have shown will happen. Prices for laser surgery, lipo, etc.. have been reduced, technology and outcomes have been increased, and the market has proven that without government or employer involvement, heathcare can be delivered best when there is a free and open market across state lines and with doctors who act like the businessmen they should be, instead of the pampered crybabies insulated from the real world and overwhelmed with useless paperwork they are today. Insurance companies would have a lot less money to waste sponsoring bowl games. Oh well.

I just hope you don't get really sick while you aren't covered. You could easily run up bills in the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days and you can't back date an insurance application. In fact unless I am missing something you wouldn't be able to sign up after 2/15/15 until 11/15/15 and even then it wouldn't go into effect until 1/1/16. There are some exceptions to this but "I had a massive heart attack yesterday" isn't one of them.

Maybe I'm missing something and if so please explain, but the whole point of having an enrollment period was to prevent exactly what you suggest you would do should you face a medical emergency while being uncovered.

(01-07-2015 02:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:20 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Don't like the Fox Story?
OK. How about:

NY Times
Harvard Ideas on Health Care Hit Home, Hard
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/hea....html?_r=0

"…The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.…"

Examiner
Harvard faculty complain about rising healthcare costs due to Obamacare
http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-...-obamacare

Washington Post
Harvard professors are angry that their amazing health insurance is getting slightly less generous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...-generous/

"The university is requiring faculty to pay more out of their own pockets for health care, following the trend in employer-sponsored insurance over the past few years. The university cites rising costs from the Affordable Care Act as part of that reason.…"

National Review
Harvard Faculty Revolts Over Obamacare Cost Increases
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395...n-bordelon

Thanks, I read the NY Times article.

1. They attribute SOME of the changes to parts of the ACA. I never said the ACA played no part in any increases but that much of the increases had nothing to do with the ACA. The Cadillac Plan tax in 2018 will most likely hit Harvard because they have one heck of a generous health care insurance group plan.

2. Their premiums are actually going down slightly.

3. They are up in arms because they will have to do more cost sharing. That as has been pointed out before, has been the trend long before the ACA went into affect.

4. Their health care costs are next to nothing. See below.

Quote:The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.

Nice deflect. First you blame the messenger saying you won't believe a FoX article. Then because that Fox story is backed up by no fewer than 5 other stories from other reputable sources about the same topic you again deflect with the argument that it's not a big deal because the Harvard faculty didn't see big increases. (And obviously the increases are big enough that the faculty are up in arms about them.)

The articles were posted because they clearly demonstrate that the ACA is having an affect on health insurance costs. Harvard itself is blaming the ACA for increases in employee costs.

The ACA is not a scapegoat. It is causing costs to go up for everyone who isn't getting their insurance as a freebie or isn't heavily subsidized. The costs for carrying those people is being passed on to everyone else.

(01-04-2015 01:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Nothing government ever does works as advertised.

Really? People seem pretty happy with social security and Medicare.

Seriously?