since insurance deals with risk...
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Well, Cheesy, unless health care costs $0.18 per day then somebody is sure as fuck going to pay for it. Not Buck, cause he only gets reimbursed costs and Oregon told him he doesn't owe Federal taxes, and not 47% of the US population because they don't pay any taxes.
I read an article a couple of days ago that said 500 individuals pay 15% of New York city local income taxes. The new mayor is on a tear to "tax the rich", of course. I wonder how many of those 500 will pack their bags and move to Connecticut?
Here maybe this will help you Flaming Pie
[h=2]Understanding the terms[/h] Deductibles, coinsurance and copays are all amounts you may have to pay for health care services. Heres how they work together.
[h=3]Deductible[/h]
These are some other words you may see.
[h=2]Understanding the terms[/h] Deductibles, coinsurance and copays are all amounts you may have to pay for health care services. Heres how they work together.
[h=3]Deductible[/h]
- A deductible is the amount you pay for health care services before your health insurance begins to pay.
These are some other words you may see.
- After deductible: This lets you know that we start sharing costs with you for a service after youve met your deductible.
- No deductible: You dont have to pay toward your deductible for this service. Youll still have to pay any copays.
- Before deductible: We cover this service before youve met your deductible. Youll still have to pay any copays.
- Coinsurance is your share of the costs of a health care service. Its usually figured as a percentage of the total charge for the service. You pay coinsurance plus any deductibles you still owe.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I have decent health insurance. My coinsurance is 20% for hospital care. My son had an appendectomy about a month and I am on the hook for about $10K when all the deductibles, and coinsurance are figured in. Still, that is better than having my son die of a ruptured appendix.
That's really not bad insurance.
Some of these Obamacare cheerleaders are in for a rude awaking when they figure in their deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance fees and that's on top of their annual premiums.
Only thing I can say is "time to pay up suckers"
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
The plans and prices are going to vary with everyone because of differing ages,gender, family size and so on.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I don't understand how they can justify calling a plan gold/platinum if they are charging you 20% after deductible.
Some of the plans look good on the surface because they have low deductibles but then you see that the have 20% or higher deductable.
I am personally looking for a plan that covers hospitilization with no pay after deductible.
Some of the plans look good on the surface because they have low deductibles but then you see that the have 20% or higher deductable.
I am personally looking for a plan that covers hospitilization with no pay after deductible.
I think it's very misleading to suggest that the individual mandate was supposed to appease Republicans. In reality, Obama and the Democratic party were absolutely terrified they wouldn't be able to get their own members to vote for single payer, which is why the administration allowed the congress to write the healthcare law.
One problem with the Obama wave in 2008 was that it flipped a lot of Republican house and senate seats into Democratic hands; that seems great for Obama and company, but those winners were moderates who won by being moderate, and they were generally not "big government" people. Consequently, with their electoral survival in mind, a significant portion of the post-2008 congress would have been totally unwilling to embrace single payer.
The proof is in the fact that Obamacare barely made it through the congress. Single payer never would have.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Look at the number maximum out of pocket
You are giving Flaming Pie bogus advice Chezzy.
Out of pocket does not take under consideration the co-pays or the coinsurance fees.
Depending on the policy you pick, you could be out of pocket for 50% of all medical services.
No wonder you thought you got such a great deal, show your policy to your mom or dad, maybe they can explain it to you.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
An interesting theory.
Please, tell me more...can you give me some specific cases?
And were there Republicans in favour of single-payer?
Where did you hear that Republicans pushed hard for the individual mandate?
This is news to me,
Do you have reliable proof of this? .
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I only have the inadequately contested words of Van Jones and a fuzzy memory of a draft for ObamaCare in 2009 or 10 as "proof".
While this Republicare debacle is a hot topic for Americans, it is not on my highest priority list.
So, I rely on what you and others have to say on the matter, for the most part.
Now, tokeprep has offered me another hypothesis of action which I would like to explore more, if he has extra info.
If you have something to offer in contrast to Van Jones' commentary, please feel free to submit it.
However, if the Red Team didn't "push hard", what did they do?
Pull-hard? Stand still in a Dr. No B-boy pose??
Were any of them for single-payer?
I was just interested as to your source of proof, obviously Van Jones, doesn't fit that bill. I believe Van Jones is an admitted communist, correct?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I don't know. Is he? I thought he was a Democrat strategist with a familiarity of Social-Democratic perspectives.
What is your version of communism? Where is the line drawn in your eyes?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
perception based political ideals...perfect
You need only look to Max Baucus, who wasn't even a part of the moderate class of 2008. Baucus, a Democrat from a very red state who would be especially vulnerable, didn't even let advocates of single payer into the initial healthcare reform meetings he chaired. He was adamantly against even putting single payer on the table for discussion. Another example, again outside the class of 2008: Joe Lieberman. With a razor thin supermajority in the senate and public opposition from vital Democrat members, single payer never would have been acceptable.
Romneycare as a model made substantial political sense given that it was a compromise between a Republican governor and an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature. How can you call it a crazy leftist scheme when Mitt Romney, who had vied to face Obama in 2008, signed it into law and said it was great?
I don't know of a single Republican in favor of single payer. You might find some, but given the opposition from moderate Democrats, the math still wouldn't have worked out. As a general rule, American legislators are far more interested in maintaining their own power than they are in trying to enact meaningful policy change.
That's why you should be suspicious of what he's saying...
Saying that the individual mandate was a Republican idea is misleading. The individual mandate proposed by Heritage and later embraced by some well-known conservatives in the 90s related solely to catastrophic coverage--it was limited. And Mitt Romney initially vetoed the healthcare bill in his state, with the overwhelmingly blue legislature overriding him and forcing it into law. The majority of Republicans have never embraced any kind of mandate; the Republicans that did embrace a mandate generally suggested a very limited one; and there has always been widespread opposition to any kind of mandate from the libertarian wing of the party.
But the individual mandate obviously had broad appeal to Democrats. They overwhelmingly voted it into law in Massachusetts--one of the bluest states in the union--despite their ability to walk all over Romney.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Interesting how quickly it derailed again.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;Ecpe48T3AMo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecpe48T3AMo[/video]