1969Larson Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 If you think you are being charitable because your Federal Government providing assistance to the poor you are sorely mistaken. CHINA is giving them assistance. You are merely paying the interest on this. ($16,000,000,000,000) remember?
SmallyWally Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 With all these interesting debates swimming around here, I would like to mention that I saw what a person's deductible would be on a lower classed premium. WHAT THE????? I have been blessed with good health in my life (knock on wood) and have had coverage and still do, but I have never seen deductibles in these ranges. I could see paying the $400-$600 a month for the coverage or tax if you like, but how the hell would most people be able to pay the deductible. So the question is what is really the difference from now and a year ago. I come into a hospital, have my new insurance/tax card, have a procedure, which is expensive. The insurance company pays what they said they will pay, and me, I cannot afford the deductible, so I don't pay and get sued or have my credit ruined or file for bankruptcy. So how much does the hospital have to swallow now as opposed to a year ago??? Let us hear some truthful and credible answers. Kindness is the language the blind can see and the deaf can hear.-- Mark Twain
Quillback Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 With all these interesting debates swimming around here, I would like to mention that I saw what a person's deductible would be on a lower classed premium. WHAT THE????? I have been blessed with good health in my life (knock on wood) and have had coverage and still do, but I have never seen deductibles in these ranges. I could see paying the $400-$600 a month for the coverage or tax if you like, but how the hell would most people be able to pay the deductible. So the question is what is really the difference from now and a year ago. I come into a hospital, have my new insurance/tax card, have a procedure, which is expensive. The insurance company pays what they said they will pay, and me, I cannot afford the deductible, so I don't pay and get sued or have my credit ruined or file for bankruptcy. So how much does the hospital have to swallow now as opposed to a year ago??? Let us hear some truthful and credible answers. You're pointing out one of the many flaws to the ACA. Also even if you meet the deductible, many of the plans still will only pay 60-80% of the bill. Folks using these plans can still face massive medical bills, and it's most iikely the poorer folks will select the cheaper plans with the high deductibles and low co-pay. Oh well, it's not going away, best thing we can do is to fix it and make sure it is adequately funded. I don't want to give the impression that I'm pro-Obama care, it's an unbelievably poorly written, flawed piece of legislation, but unfortunately we're stuck with it.
Justin Spencer Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 With all these interesting debates swimming around here, I would like to mention that I saw what a person's deductible would be on a lower classed premium. WHAT THE????? I have been blessed with good health in my life (knock on wood) and have had coverage and still do, but I have never seen deductibles in these ranges. I could see paying the $400-$600 a month for the coverage or tax if you like, but how the hell would most people be able to pay the deductible. So the question is what is really the difference from now and a year ago. I come into a hospital, have my new insurance/tax card, have a procedure, which is expensive. The insurance company pays what they said they will pay, and me, I cannot afford the deductible, so I don't pay and get sued or have my credit ruined or file for bankruptcy. So how much does the hospital have to swallow now as opposed to a year ago??? Let us hear some truthful and credible answers. Lets take a coronary bypass for example which AMA says average $117,000. Lets round down to $100,000 for ease of math. Lets just assume the insurance company pays 80 percent, and you are stuck with the remaining 20. Before you would just pay the hospital a few bucks a month to keep them off your back because you are "trying" to pay your bill. Now the hospital gets their 80 grand, and you have the remaining 20 grand left to pay which you still can't do. You still slug along and slowly pay down the bill (just like you would have before) big difference is that the hospital has gotten paid the majority of the bill for services rendered whereas before they only get your $50 bucks a month. Multiply this by all of the people that have taken advantage of the system for years not paying their bills, and all of the sudden the hospitals are at least getting 80% (where before they got basically nothing), hospitals bottom lines improve drastically, health costs go down, insurance rates go down because they are only allowed so much profit, Boehner marries Obama in a gay marriage ceremony, and the Cubs win the world series. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Flysmallie Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 health costs go down, insurance rates go down because they are only allowed so much profit, Boehner marries Obama in a gay marriage ceremony, and the Cubs win the world series. And this is where you drifted oven into fantasy land. My bet is on the gay marriage before any of the other things happen.
Feathers and Fins Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Mark you brought up religion, though I hate organized religion and try to avoid talking about it as it is typically a taboo subject this thread has remained so I will give my input. First as regarding healthcare and religion, I point you to Matthew 22:17-21 where when confronted on taxes Christ answered to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to god that which is gods. We are required by law to pay our taxes so until this law is repealed we must adhere to it as it is a tax as ruled by the Supreme Court. So the lord requires we do pay our taxes, this law has a tax of $95.00 roughly give or take for not participating in the program. But if you are in the program you pay nothing! So is it a “tax” or not as a tax by law is suppose to be uniform throughout. “ Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” This law is not uniform by any means as required by the Constitution and there are still many challenges pending to the law based on it just not being covered. Next I point you to 1 Timothy chapter 5 for your answers as to the Nation through this “tax” tend the people. It speaks of the widow and how family and church should tend to them but also puts requirements to the widow Many think Christ talked more about money than anything but that is not true, his favorite conversation arguably was on the kingdom of god and who will be there and how to get there and to that Charity and Wealthy as well as Character were often involved in the conversations. In Charity this was one that speaks to the heart of a person as it is a sacrifice those with more can aid toward those with less. It directly ties to the Wealthy as it is stated in Mathew 19;24. We should all be charitable as the most important thing to God is people but charity must be from the heart as the heart is where God resides in all people. Christ was no fool though and understood there are those who would abuse the charity and love of others so he spoke of those who would take advantage of charity and love. Going back to 1 Timothy chapter 5 again specifically verse 6 so long as a person lives outside their means “ in today’s society having the big flat screen the nice car the overpriced for their income house etc” they are not fulfilling the requirement of verse 5. They in fact can be likened to the parable of the workers in the field in Mathew 20. So do we owe it to those of less to aid them is the question? The answer is yes and there are numerous existing laws to provide for their care and there is numerous charitable organizations to provide and aid in this. Physicians even have their oath based around this. However the question before us is, is it our government’s job to force this upon us? To this I say the answer is resoundingly NO! I support several charitable organizations fulfilling my Christian obligations along with other things I do not openly discuss. This is because of my belief in Christ teaching about charity and prayer and humbleness Mathew 6. Government taxation is legal and is approved by Christ, However our Government is to not allow religion to come in to the making of law (I will say I disagree with this but that’s for another topic) I will do as required of my by that law until it is repealed or removed, I will continue to do my Christian obligations as commanded. But make no mistake I do not have to approve of a bad law and I do not have to approve of those taking advantage of the system and abusing it. I believe our government has taken Christ entitlements and the restriction of them to a level of the money changers in the temple. I DO NOT know the end game of these entitlement programs, but on the Christian answer helping those that refuse to help themselves is wrong and only breeds a society or members of society that will not pull their own weight yet want and believe everything should be given to them and that is clearly against gods will. Your example of the woman trying to get ahead with a child with medical conditions could have been argued at one time to be a good point but it has been used as I pointed out to the point most are numb to it. If that woman is truly in that situation there are numerous groups to aid her and programs to help her. There is the problem with entitlement programs, they actually benefit those doing nothing. The programs should have an endgame. If a person needs the help by all means let us help them but help by providing education and job placement services as the end game so they can better themselves and provide for themselves and family. Unfortunately and until that is a requirement of the programs they are actually a burden upon society as they drain the nation and those who do work hard, so I ask is it fair to drain those who do work hard and earn their way in life to provide for those who do not and will not? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Quillback Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Lets take a coronary bypass for example which AMA says average $117,000. Lets round down to $100,000 for ease of math. Lets just assume the insurance company pays 80 percent, and you are stuck with the remaining 20. Before you would just pay the hospital a few bucks a month to keep them off your back because you are "trying" to pay your bill. Now the hospital gets their 80 grand, and you have the remaining 20 grand left to pay which you still can't do. You still slug along and slowly pay down the bill (just like you would have before) big difference is that the hospital has gotten paid the majority of the bill for services rendered whereas before they only get your $50 bucks a month. Multiply this by all of the people that have taken advantage of the system for years not paying their bills, and all of the sudden the hospitals are at least getting 80% (where before they got basically nothing), hospitals bottom lines improve drastically, health costs go down, insurance rates go down because they are only allowed so much profit, Boehner marries Obama in a gay marriage ceremony, and the Cubs win the world series. How do insurance rates go down if they have to pay, in your example, $80,000 for this procedure, and in the past, as this person would not have been covered, they would have paid zero? And in the past, if you were not covered, you would not have gotten the bypass as the hospital can deny treatment. If anything the ACA will create more demand for medical services, thus driving up prices. Forget about the idea of the ACA lowering insurance rates or medical costs. What the ACA doesis use taxpayer money to subsidize insurance costs. You want to make sure that costs go up, no better way that to start throwing government money at it.
Justin Spencer Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Well put Scott, I think the main difference in the thinking about ACA is some think it will be a burden on the government, and some think it will save the government money in the long run and lower health care costs that we all agree are inflated. My thoughts on this are that it encourages personal responsibility (a conservative thought), unlike welfare and other govt. handouts that really don't have an endgame and which I think need to be adjusted to reward those that dig their way out. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Justin Spencer Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 How do insurance rates go down if they have to pay, in your example, $80,000 for this procedure, and in the past, as this person would not have been covered, they would have paid zero? And in the past, if you were not covered, you would not have gotten the bypass as the hospital can deny treatment. If anything the ACA will create more demand for medical services, thus driving up prices. Forget about the idea of the ACA lowering insurance rates or medical costs. What the ACA doesis use taxpayer money to subsidize insurance costs. You want to make sure that costs go up, no better way that to start throwing government money at it. The insurance companies are getting all this new business from younger people that would have taken their chances before, and most likely won't use the insurance until they age. The premiums from those that won't use the insurance until later in life will pay for the ones that have accidents or need attention earlier in life. The demand it creates (which will mostly be preventative) will all be paid for (small costs), and should lead to less costly procedures for those later in life. The costly procedures shouldn't change in the short term as those are mostly life saving ones that are now being done in some cases for free. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Flysmallie Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Justin you obviously need to study up on insurance companies a bit more. Did the cost of insurance go down when everyone was required to have auto insurance? I bet not. Did the cost of collision repair go down? I know the answer to that one and it's hell no, not even close. Besides, the insurance companies are paying a lot to politicians to implement this program so that's eating up a lot of profit that they need to recoup. No matter what the warm and fuzzy commercials tell you, Insurance companies don't give a dam about you. They do like your money though.
Recommended Posts