THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

No, it's a fact.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/better-off-before-obamacare/507650/

 

 

All that tells me is what I have been saying this whole time....some people benefited while others got hurt by it. 

I have seen it with close family and friends and beyond. Like I said my dad had better insurance at a cheaper cost before Obamacare. Yeah rates were already increasing, but he had a huge jump once he had to buy through the exchanges, and the rates kept increasing. And his doctors quit taking the new plans. 

 

This is one of the main reasons people are upset with Obamacare. 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

All that tells me is what I have been saying this whole time....some people benefited while others got hurt by it. 

I have seen it with close family and friends and beyond. Like I said my dad had better insurance at a cheaper cost before Obamacare. Yeah rates were already increasing, but he had a huge jump once he had to buy through the exchanges, and the rates kept increasing. And his doctors quit taking the new plans. 

 

This is one of the main reasons people are upset with Obamacare. 

 

My wife’s private insurance would’ve been nearly 1,000 a month and it still would’ve only covered 80% of the bill. It wasn’t all Obamacare though. Insurance companies knew how to gouge the system.

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

Both ownership of fire arms and Healthcare are rights. You have to buy both though. The issue here is affordable Healthcare, which I hope becomes a possibility in the near future.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The issue isn't that someone stepped up to make this happen.  The issue is that it's needed in the first place.

I'm sorry, but bemoaning the current health care system after a national tragedy such as this is nothing but cheap political theatrics.  Carry on with the outrage all you want that someone had to or wanted to organize a donation for the shooting victims' medical costs. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

My wife’s private insurance would’ve been nearly 1,000 a month and it still would’ve only covered 80% of the bill. It wasn’t all Obamacare though. Insurance companies knew how to gouge the system.

 

I am sure my dad's cost went up partly because the insurance companies knew how to gouge the system as well. They probably had a hand in crafting the system so that they could find ways to take advantage of it.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It currently isn't, but the question remains: Why shouldn't it be?  Is healthcare and whether or not it can be afforded something we really want the market to decide for people?  I damn sure don't.

Who should determine the cost Brad? You and BB42 make sense and living a life that I never faced at your age. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Who should determine the cost Brad? You and BB42 make sense and living a life that I never faced at your age. 

Well for the record, I'm a proponent of single-payer healthcare.  Personally, if we could replace Social Security taxes and put that money straight towards single-payer, I'd be all in.  Let me save my own cash for retirement.  As other's on here have mentioned, their experience with Medicare/Medicaid has been much simpler than with privatized insurance and we are the largest, most advanced country in the world without some kind of single-payer option.

My biggest issue is that when healthcare becomes all about the bottom line (which it is for insurance companies), then people suffer.  Here's a real life example: my wife needs a procedure right now that could help her condition.  We have paid the full out of pocket max for the year along with monthly premiums.  In the weeks after we maxed out our out of pocket, our health insurance stopped approving certain medications or procedures, like an MRI.  Instead they want to keep her trying opioids, which doesn't solve the problem and could have harmful effects later.

To afford all of the issues we've run into, we're thinking about selling our house.  We happen to live somewhere that will give us a nice return on our investment, but what happens if the bills pile up again?  I can't keep moving.  And again, I make a very healthy salary.  There's no reason for us to struggle this much, but I do because of our current healthcare system.  I have basically nothing in a savings account and we don't spend extravagantly, but the lack of savings is out of necessity.  I've easily spent over $30K in the last 4-5 years trying to get her answers.  And if she didn't have me, there's no way she could afford any of this and would potentially be dead right now (she had a pacemaker put in two years ago).  It's asinine.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well for the record, I'm a proponent of single-payer healthcare.  Personally, if we could replace Social Security taxes and put that money straight towards single-payer, I'd be all in.  Let me save my own cash for retirement.  As other's on here have mentioned, their experience with Medicare/Medicaid has been much simpler than with privatized insurance and we are the largest, most advanced country in the world without some kind of single-payer option.

My biggest issue is that when healthcare becomes all about the bottom line (which it is for insurance companies), then people suffer.  Here's a real life example: my wife needs a procedure right now that could help her condition.  We have paid the full out of pocket max for the year along with monthly premiums.  In the weeks after we maxed out our out of pocket, our health insurance stopped approving certain medications or procedures, like an MRI.  Instead they want to keep her trying opioids, which doesn't solve the problem and could have harmful effects later.

To afford all of the issues we've run into, we're thinking about selling our house.  We happen to live somewhere that will give us a nice return on our investment, but what happens if the bills pile up again?  I can't keep moving.  And again, I make a very healthy salary.  There's no reason for us to struggle this much, but I do because of our current healthcare system.  I have basically nothing in a savings account and we don't spend extravagantly, but the lack of savings is out of necessity.  I've easily spent over $30K in the last 4-5 years trying to get her answers.  And if she didn't have me, there's no way she could afford any of this and would potentially be dead right now (she had a pacemaker put in two years ago).  It's asinine.

Intention was not for you to give your personal situation. Agree with abandoning  SST and always have. I just want to understand who sets the price structure for health procedures if it is not the market.

Are you saying let the government take  the sst and distribute for HC?   What about the matching funds?    

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Intention was not for you to give your personal situation. Agree with abandoning  SST and always have. I just want to understand who sets the price structure for health procedures if it is not the market.

Are you saying let the government take  the sst and distribute for HC?   What about the matching funds?    

Know it wasn't your intention.  Just trying to give a live illustration of issues in our system because I don't think people fully understand how crazy it can be for folks.

Yeah, I think my rough idea is to take SS money and divert to HC.  Everyone pays into it that way.  We could model it after successful countries elsewhere and take ideas that would fit our structure.  Granted, my idea isn't well thought out as I'm spit-balling, but I think it's a place to start.  I'd much rather see my money go towards to people getting better heathcare than getting checks late in life that don't come close to matching what I put in.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Know it wasn't your intention.  Just trying to give a live illustration of issues in our system because I don't think people fully understand how crazy it can be for folks.

Yeah, I think my rough idea is to take SS money and divert to HC.  Everyone pays into it that way.  We could model it after successful countries elsewhere and take ideas that would fit our structure.  Granted, my idea isn't well thought out as I'm spit-balling, but I think it's a place to start.  I'd much rather see my money go towards to people getting better heathcare than getting checks late in life that don't come close to matching what I put in.

Would that not cut funding 50% eliminating employer matches. Never work dollar for dollar. One of my problems with to much government. Employers are in the HC business which was originally offered as nothing but a benefit for recruiting. You still have not told me who sets the rates for procedures vs. the market.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Would that not cut funding 50% eliminating employer matches. Never work dollar for dollar. One of my problems with to much government. Employers are in the HC business which was originally offered as nothing but a benefit for recruiting. You still have not told me who sets the rates for procedures vs. the market.

I haven't answered in full for two reasons here Salty:

1) I admittedly said this is a rough idea.

2) It's hard to answer specifically about rates without fully understanding how other developed countries have successfully integrated a single-payer system.  I'm not educated enough at this time to get into a deep discussion about it.

Now for employer match, it's literally only matching insurance premiums.  If we can pay doctors directly through government healthcare, then that would eliminate the need for any kind of employer match in the first place.  May also incentivize employers to give other benefits, like higher 401K matching, since they wouldn't be on the hook for healthcare anymore.

Really I just want a conversation sparked and have people thinking about different ways of fixing this thing.  I know a lot of folks are against single-payer, but they are also against SS.  So if we can reallocate that SS money that is already being taken out of checks, would there be as much push-back?  I don't know, but it's an idea that's never been floated by elected officials (probably because it would be political suicide).

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I haven't answered in full for two reasons here Salty:

1) I admittedly said this is a rough idea.

2) It's hard to answer specifically about rates without fully understanding how other developed countries have successfully integrated a single-payer system.  I'm not educated enough at this time to get into a deep discussion about it.

Now for employer match, it's literally only matching insurance premiums.  If we can pay doctors directly through government healthcare, then that would eliminate the need for any kind of employer match in the first place.  May also incentivize employers to give other benefits, like higher 401K matching, since they wouldn't be on the hook for healthcare anymore.

Really I just want a conversation sparked and have people thinking about different ways of fixing this thing.  I know a lot of folks are against single-payer, but they are also against SS.  So if we can reallocate that SS money that is already being taken out of checks, would there be as much push-back?  I don't know, but it's an idea that's never been floated by elected officials (probably because it would be political suicide).

Hard fix Brad. The employer has never purely matched anything, including the SST. Got a lot be concerned about, march on. thanks for sharing

[autigeremt 6,599]

I'd like to see a true free market system for those who can afford it and a subsidy based system for those who cannot. I don't want the government controlling 100% of the healthcare system. I do believe we need more clinics to provide greater access to those who need it but I cannot support total government control. 

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

I'd like to see a true free market system for those who can afford it and a subsidy based system for those who cannot. I don't want the government controlling 100% of the healthcare system. I do believe we need more clinics to provide greater access to those who need it but I cannot support total government control. 

You can't have a true market system for healthcare as long as insurance companies qualify customers.

[autigeremt 6,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You can't have a true market system for healthcare as long as insurance companies qualify customers.

The government does that now through Medicare and Medicaid. It shouldn't be in the business at all but we've crossed that bridge a long time ago. I simply do not support 100% government ran healthcare. Simple as that.

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

I pay for my own medical bills. The health care industry is a scheme. For example, my $30,000 hospital bill was $7000 cash. I asked that if I had insurance would it be $30,000. The answer was yes. It looks to me like the health care industry could be recouping their losses from those who won't pay, from those who have insurance and the insurance companies, thus making the premiums much higher.

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The government does that now through Medicare and Medicaid. It shouldn't be in the business at all but we've crossed that bridge a long time ago. I simply do not support 100% government ran healthcare. Simple as that.

How so?   Everyone who is eligible for Medicare and Medicaid are enrolled.

[caleb1633 1,418]

It makes me laugh when someone says what the OP said. Healthcare and money are both rights. You just have to pay for both. Nobody makes me go out and buy a gun and the government doesn't pay for it either.