This discussion highlights one of the major problems with our health care system. The rules and regulations are way, way too damn complicated. That's fine if your objective is to ensure full employment for bureaucrats--both government and corporate. That's not fine if the objective is better health care for more people.

Bismarck is very simple. You get a basic policy that does A, B, and C, and doesn't cover D, E, or F. You can buy supplemental insurance to cover D, E, and F. Your employer can provide supplemental insurance to cover D, E, and F. Such supplemental insurance is dirt cheap, because it doesn't cover A, B, and C. If you don't want to pay for supplemental insurance, and your employer doesn't provide it, then you can pay out of pocket for D, E, and F, or take a number and get into the queue. The difference between Bismarck and other universal approaches is the ready ability to contract privately for D, E, and F, instead of having no alternative but to take a number and queue up for those services.

The elephant in the room is that Bismarck or any other form of universal health care takes tax dollars. That's what everybody is trying to dance around, and the bottom line is that you can't. Obamacare tries to dodge reality by insisting on the concepts that 1) young healthy individuals will voluntarily overpay for health insurance that they don't need, in order to subsidize the rest of us, and 2) we can lower the cost of health care by screwing docs on what we pay them to provide health care, without reducing the costs those docs incur in providing that care, and neither quantity nor quality of docs and other providers will suffer. Obviously, both of those are absolutely nuts.

I favor universal care. It costs money, specifically tax dollars, to make it happen. So get the money from a consumption tax that apportions the burden widely. And instead of single-payer or single-provider, get that universal care from a system that provides realistic alternatives when the bureaucrats stick you in a queue and tell you to take a number.

(04-17-2017 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 12:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I guess we will have to take it that Tom has waved the white flag of surrender on this one.

Again dude. I DON'T LIVE HERE 24x7. I have a job, a life and a family. I took Friday off work...spent Friday night at church. Saturday on a mission trip with my daughter's church youth group to Detroit to help some under privileged kids have a great Easter celebration with the Detroit police where they had a cool marshmallow drop from a helicopter and learned gun safety among other things. I spent Sunday at church and then visiting my mother and otherwise enjoying my family and celebrating the resurrection of my Savior.

So please, stop telling me what you think you're entitled to on a meaningless message board.

And PS: Honestly, I don't even know what question it is that you've been continually hounding me about!

And I'm certainly not going to answer any further questions until you tell us whether your insurance was employer provided before the ACA and whether it still is and whether they made any changes outside of the ACA as to what they pay for. Without that information, all your ranting and raving about your costs is meaningless. Trust me...if a totally blown out calf muscle only cost you $15 dollars, and every other health care visit only cost you $15, your employer WAS paying for everything...and now they're not. That would most likely not be totally on the ACA.

Good grief you are as dumb as a box of rocks on this subject. What the hell does my employer have to do with paying any of my medical bills? Zero. My employer paid zero of my medical bills prior to Obamacare, and they pay zero now.

Now, go learn what a deductible is. In the meantime, man up and answer the damned question.

We need a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to purchase free market healthcare.

Then you can have your optional government program.

To me, single payer means war.

(04-17-2017 07:51 PM)Claw Wrote:  We need a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to purchase free market healthcare.

Then you can have your optional government program.

To me, single payer means war.

This is not the kind of thing that requires an amendment. Owl#s just told you what we need.

(04-17-2017 09:51 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(04-17-2017 07:51 PM)Claw Wrote:  We need a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to purchase free market healthcare.
Then you can have your optional government program.
To me, single payer means war.

This is not the kind of thing that requires an amendment. Owl#s just told you what we need.

No, but I would not be opposed to such an amendment. That would actually codify the right to health care that I believe should exist. I should have the right to obtain whatever health care I want or need, but not the "right" to make somebody else pay for it.

(04-17-2017 07:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-17-2017 09:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 12:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I guess we will have to take it that Tom has waved the white flag of surrender on this one.

Again dude. I DON'T LIVE HERE 24x7. I have a job, a life and a family. I took Friday off work...spent Friday night at church. Saturday on a mission trip with my daughter's church youth group to Detroit to help some under privileged kids have a great Easter celebration with the Detroit police where they had a cool marshmallow drop from a helicopter and learned gun safety among other things. I spent Sunday at church and then visiting my mother and otherwise enjoying my family and celebrating the resurrection of my Savior.

So please, stop telling me what you think you're entitled to on a meaningless message board.

And PS: Honestly, I don't even know what question it is that you've been continually hounding me about!

And I'm certainly not going to answer any further questions until you tell us whether your insurance was employer provided before the ACA and whether it still is and whether they made any changes outside of the ACA as to what they pay for. Without that information, all your ranting and raving about your costs is meaningless. Trust me...if a totally blown out calf muscle only cost you $15 dollars, and every other health care visit only cost you $15, your employer WAS paying for everything...and now they're not. That would most likely not be totally on the ACA.

Good grief you are as dumb as a box of rocks on this subject. What the hell does my employer have to do with paying any of my medical bills? Zero. My employer paid zero of my medical bills prior to Obamacare, and they pay zero now.

Now, go learn what a deductible is. In the meantime, man up and answer the damned question.

WHAT QUESTION!

And yes, your employer was paying your medical bills if you were only paying a $15 co-pay for everything. They were paying the rest other than your monthly premium and your alleged $250/($100 ER) deductible. The doctor wasn't just magically charging you $15 for everything. The only way this would not be true would be if you were paying much more for your monthly premium compared to what you're paying now after the ACA. But you have not provided that information so I don't know.

In addition, the cost of medical services while going up annually, has not gone up that much since the start of the ACA.

Finally, your deductible cost is determined mostly by your employer, not the ACA. If you had a small deductible before but now now, it was because of your employer changing to a high deductible plan to cut costs. I would suggest looking at your W-2 before and after the ACA. The amount your employer pays toward your insurance should be detailed in Box 12 with Code DD.

And enough with the childish insults. Yes, I made a mistake on the deductibles on a prior post. I was trying to talk about the co-insurance. I already owned up to that mistake well over a week ago. Time to move on.