Who else got an insurance rate hike?
gray asphalt
Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. I wouldn't
mind as much if I thought more sick
and injured people were really going
to get medical help.
BAR
says...
You should write a thank you note to Reid, Pelosi and Obama.
dene
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dwEun.305739$OX4....@newsfe25.iad...
I have a couple of hundred people to call about their rate increase. Some
of it has to do with BC/BS not wanting to have the shiniest apple when the
mandate requiring they cover all children without underwriting comes into
play.
But.....the root cause of rate increases are due to the insured paying the
medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
Until then...fun..fun..fun.
-Greg
Dinosaur_Sr
> "gray asphalt" <dontwr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In general, however, the root cause of the increase in health care
costs is the tremendous increase in both the quality and availability
of health care in the US. This happened in a more or less free market
because people want it. Specifically, people will pay more for better,
more available care, and IMHO, if polled, would not want to pay less
and get lower quality, less available care.
An absolute fact is that you cannot get anything other than lower
quality and lower availability if you pay less.
An absolute lie is the claim you can maintain the increase in quality
and availability that people want and are willing to pay for without
paying more for it....regardless of the impact it has on the govts
desire to provide entitlements.
gray asphalt
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:8219pn...@mid.individual.net...
I've still got one question ... what's to keep a bunch of
us from forming our own insurance company, sort of like
credit unions vs. banks?
gray asphalt
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:56e8de2f-3edc-4bbb...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
___________
You just lost me, Dinosaur Senior.
That is the most bs I've seen in a long
time. I couldn't finish reading your post.
No personal offense, but Dinosaur is
about as reliable as Tiger Wood's
press secretary.
gray asphalt
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2624e791f...@news.giganews.com...
I think I'll go with the AMA and AARP.
But there is a lot of bs in the bill. I'm live
Nevada. Between Reid and Ensign, I'll go
with Reid.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
So you don't think health care has increased in quality and
availability in the last 20-30 years or so? You must be totally out of
it then. Wasn't all that long ago the only cure for a blockage in a
cardiac artery was bypass surgery. Now we have stents and meds, which
makes a decent treatment available to far more people. Before statins,
what treatments did we have for high blood pressure? No antivirals.
One could go on and on. Chemo treatments are more varied and more
effective. We have treatments for diseases like Progeria, treatments
that did not exist even a few years ago.
Clinics have popped up all over the place. You can hardly drive a mile
without seeing some sort of primary health care facility.
All this is so because people want it. You want some Marcus Welby like
character to show up at your house with a medical bag and solve all
your medical problems. I suppose. Unfortunately reality just isn't
like that, and the Marcus Welby types couldn't do anywhere near what
modern MDs can do,
Dinosaur_Sr
> "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8219pn...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:dwEun.305739$OX4....@newsfe25.iad...
> >> $100/month higher starting in June,
> >> Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. I wouldn't
> >> mind as much if I thought more sick
> >> and injured people were really going
> >> to get medical help.
>
> > I have a couple of hundred people to call about their rate increase. Some
> > of it has to do with BC/BS not wanting to have the shiniest apple when the
> > mandate requiring they cover all children without underwriting comes into
> > play.
>
> > But.....the root cause of rate increases are due to the insured paying the
> > medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
> > years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
>
> > Until then...fun..fun..fun.
>
> > -Greg
>
> I've still got one question ... what's to keep a bunch of
> us from forming our own insurance company, sort of like
> credit unions vs. banks?
Go ahead, but you can't exclude the person who has cancer.
dene
Go for it. Contact Nevada insurance department and find out the minimum
millions you need in reserves to be viable.
-Greg
dene
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:56e8de2f-3edc-4bbb...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quality accounts for some of the increase but the cost shift of the unpaid,
uninusured medical bills is far more.
-Greg
John B.
This is preposterous. You just keep saying the same ridiculous shit
over and over and pay no attention to what others say. I give up.
BAR
says...
The problem is the "cost shift." We need to pursue those who don't pay
and make them pay for the services they receive. Stealing is stealing
regardless of the product or service.
Hor...@net.net
this crap:
>
>But.....the root cause of rate increases are due to the insured paying the
>medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
>years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
You have your head up your ass.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
BAR
says...
Nothing! Go for it.
We will take bets on how fast you go bankrupt.
BAR
says...
Why does the AMA only count less than 20% of doctors as members?
AARP is a lobbying and insurance company.
Kommienezuspadt
So you also would discredit Fox News -- the biased broadcasting company?
R&B
Wrong. As usual.
AARP isn't an insurance company. Their health insurance is through a
third party provider.
So is their life insurance. And dental. And auto.
Shit. Shinola. Learn the difference.
Randy
Moderate
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2010040700172637602-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
Most insurance that is sold is through a third party provider.
dene
Kommie can comment more authoratively on this matter than you or I can.
But....I suspect that if somebody walks in uninsured, the hospital will be
aggressive in collecting the debt, since insured patients will be the norm.
If the individual mandate works, we're talking 3 million uninsured vs. 30
million. That's a lot of bad debt off the books.
-Greg
-Greg
dene
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:j56nr5d1r96fohj2l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:41:02 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
> >
> >But.....the root cause of rate increases are due to the insured paying
the
> >medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
> >years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
>
>
> You have your head up your ass.
Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
-Greg
Hor...@net.net
this crap:
>> >medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
>> >years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
>>
>>
>> You have your head up your ass.
>
>Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
Kommienezuspadt
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:cbhor5d34chbnut8r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:00:43 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
>>> >medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
>>> >years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have your head up your ass.
>>
>>Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
>
> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>
>
Read this:
The charges stem from a part of the law that eliminates tax deductions for
Medicare prescription drug subsidies.
When the Medicare prescription drug program was passed in 2003, it included
a provision granting employers a subsidy of 28%, or up to $1,330, per
retiree for prescription drug costs.
Even though the federal subsidies were already tax free, employers could
still write them off on their income taxes, in addition to writing off their
own contribution. The new law maintains the subsidy as a tax-free incentive
to employers, but prohibits them from taking it as a deduction.
While the provision does not go into effect until 2013, the companies said
accounting standards require that the charges be recorded during the period
in which the law was signed.
===
Now companies can't write off the tax money we have already been giving
them! Or do you like handing out tax money & then letting the company write
it off?
Who posted this?
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=176850&type=topnews
Kommienezuspadt
BINGO!
@ 10% of our gross revenue in the last year was written off to bad debt or
charity care (charity care is bad debt with better paperwork)
If that # was 3% we could stop raising rates so aggressively.
BAR
>
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.26258892c...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <ajLun.37900$Ht4....@newsfe20.iad>, dont...@gmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.2624e791f...@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <dwEun.305739$OX4....@newsfe25.iad>, dont...@gmail.com
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> $100/month higher starting in June,
> >> >> Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. I wouldn't
> >> >> mind as much if I thought more sick
> >> >> and injured people were really going
> >> >> to get medical help.
> >> >
> >> > You should write a thank you note to Reid, Pelosi and Obama.
> >>
> >> I think I'll go with the AMA and AARP.
> >> But there is a lot of bs in the bill. I'm live
> >> Nevada. Between Reid and Ensign, I'll go
> >> with Reid.
> >
> > Why does the AMA only count less than 20% of doctors as members?
> >
> > AARP is a lobbying and insurance company.
>
> So you also would discredit Fox News -- the biased broadcasting company?
Nice stretch buddy. The AARP is not interested in representing its
membership anymore. It is involved in lobbying for its advertisers and
its own products.
Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks newscasts?
All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox News is the only
one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
BAR
none_of_yo...@all.com says...
How much did that third party pay AAPR to sell you that insurance? How
much of your insurance premium goes to AARP?
AARP Financial Inc. manages financial provider relationships and
performs quality control oversight for a wide-range of products that
carry the AARP name and are made available as AARP member benefits, by
independent providers. Neither AARP Financial nor AARP is the insurer.
AARP contracts with insurers to make coverage available to AARP members.
Insurers and providers pay a fee to AARP and its affiliate for use of
the AARP trademark and other services. Amounts paid are used for the
general purposes of AARP and its members.
AARP and its affiliate are not insurance agencies or carriers and do not
employ or endorse individual agents. AARP does not make insurance
recommendations for individuals. You are strongly encouraged to evaluate
your needs before choosing an insurance plan.
> So is their life insurance. And dental. And auto.
Describe it any way you want? AARP goes out and sells their membership
list to anyone with the right amount of money.
> Shit. Shinola. Learn the difference.
Why didn't you buy some of that good AARP sponsored health insusrance?
Was the kick-back to AARP too much for you?
Kommienezuspadt
===
so it's only bias if you don't like is it -- I get it.
Fox News is up - yet you whine about the main stream media.....
BAR
says...
> > >
> > > Quality accounts for some of the increase but the cost shift of the
> unpaid,
> > > uninusured medical bills is far more.
> >
> > The problem is the "cost shift." We need to pursue those who don't pay
> > and make them pay for the services they receive. Stealing is stealing
> > regardless of the product or service.
>
> Kommie can comment more authoratively on this matter than you or I can.
> But....I suspect that if somebody walks in uninsured, the hospital will be
> aggressive in collecting the debt, since insured patients will be the norm.
> If the individual mandate works, we're talking 3 million uninsured vs. 30
> million. That's a lot of bad debt off the books.
There is not economic driver to buy insurance ahead of time. We are
finding out the the IRS has not method of enforcement as long as you owe
them money, even $1 each year on your federal tax return.
And, even when someone is in court for failure to pay their penalty the
judge will look at them and see that they have a $10 an hour job and
that they can't afford the 2% penalty. Is the judge going to throw that
person in jail for 5 years. Then if someone of means is before the same
judge for the same failure to pay the penalty what will the judge do? If
both people are not treated in the same manner then the 14th amendment
kicks in.
This whole Health Care Reform thing has turned out to be the worst piece
of legislation cobbled together behind the locked doors of the Speakers
office and the Senate majority leaders office.
Life is hard, life isn't fair and sometimes the bear eats you.
Howard Brazee
>Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks newscasts?
>All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox News is the only
>one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
People prefer entertainment to news.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
BAR
I am not whining I am reveling in the news.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks newscasts?
> >All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox News is the only
> >one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
>
> People prefer entertainment to news.
Dan's document production shop at CBS.
NBC's explosion prior to the truck roll-over.
I can't remember what screw-ups ABC has done, I never watch ABC unless
golf is on or if the Super Bowl is on.
Kommienezuspadt
BUT -- that makes them the main stream media you hate.....
dene
>
> There is not economic driver to buy insurance ahead of time. We are
> finding out the the IRS has not method of enforcement as long as you owe
> them money, even $1 each year on your federal tax return.
>
> And, even when someone is in court for failure to pay their penalty the
> judge will look at them and see that they have a $10 an hour job and
> that they can't afford the 2% penalty. Is the judge going to throw that
> person in jail for 5 years. Then if someone of means is before the same
> judge for the same failure to pay the penalty what will the judge do? If
> both people are not treated in the same manner then the 14th amendment
> kicks in.
>
> This whole Health Care Reform thing has turned out to be the worst piece
> of legislation cobbled together behind the locked doors of the Speakers
> office and the Senate majority leaders office.
>
> Life is hard, life isn't fair and sometimes the bear eats you.
You're forgetting a couple of facts. Mr. $10/hr. will have most of his
insurance paid for. All he has to do is sign up and pay his share. Also,
the primary reason people buy insurance is still at play here. People buy
it to protect their assets and to insure they get quality care. If
hospitals become aggressive in seizing the assets of deadbeats, then there
is even more incentive to buy insurance.
Nonetheless, I fully agree that the penalty isn't particularily strong, in
of itself. People will have the right to be irresponsible, anti-social, and
stupid. However, the consequences for such decisions will be stiffer and
more apparent than before.
-Greg
dene
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:cbhor5d34chbnut8r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:00:43 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
> >> >medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a few
> >> >years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have your head up your ass.
> >
> >Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
>
> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a tax
penalty, dumbass?
Premiums are rising....as they have for the last 10 years. The distinction
is that the death spiral will come to an end. What's a death spiral,
dumbass? It's when claims outrun revenue, thus forcing the insurance
company to raise revenue, thus forcing healthy people off the books, leaving
an imbalanced insured pool and eventual default. That's where the industry
was headed, dumbass. Enrolling the healthy uninsured will end the spiral
and stabilize premiums.
-Greg
Kommienezuspadt
and he does not understand that the billion is for a loophole that was
closed -- one which allowed AT&T (& others) to collect subsidies for their
Medicare supplemental insurance -- & still get to write off the total bill
for it --- Horvath -- another low information opinion poster.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
>
> news:823usf...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Horv...@net.net> wrote in message
> >news:cbhor5d34chbnut8r...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:00:43 -0700, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents
billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in
the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed
purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the
benefit too will go.
My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the
Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program
saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug
money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than
having the govt directly subsidize the seniors.
This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses
and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits,
depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall.
Dinosaur_Sr
> In article <822l3eFj4...@mid.individual.net>, d...@remove.ipns.com
The thing of it is is that we will all spend a lot of health care
money. The idea that some large bulk of healthy people will pool
resources to pay for the rare catastrophe is a 100% invalid approach
to health care.
Health care has been a great growth industry for several decades now.
People are in fact consuming more and more health care, and there is
absolutely nothing wrong with this. What is wrong here is the notion
that health care is somehow free. It's not; you have to pay for it.
Right now, we pay through insurance companies; but this is, for any
situation other than the rare health catalepsy, an idiotic way to pay
for health care, although not as bad as paying through the government.
Sooner or later, one way or another people will have to realize they
need to pay for their own routine health care themselves. Doctor
visits, pills, whatever...broken bones, diabetes treatments, are all
well within an ordinary person's ability to pay, and over time for
most people will represent far less than they pay for housing...and
what is more important...quality of health or quality of housing?
Routine health care cannot be offered through insurance companies,
it's too expensive to do it that way..and as it is even more expensive
through government, that route too has to fail.
We can subsidize the poor, and buy health insurance for catastrophic
health issues and then pay for the rest ourselves; making our own
decisions on health care, and being responsible for the consequences.
You want a big house at the expense of health care? That's your
choice, and you, not society, should have to deal with the
consequences.
Kommienezuspadt
===
It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as
that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off as
an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type
dene
------------------------------------------------------------------
You're talking about self insuring and that trend is already happening. The
average insurance plan is $1000 deductible. Self insuring the routine
doesn't impact premiums that much. We're only talking about a $120 office
visit bill. It's the catastrophic hospital bill that hits home, especially
since a significant portion of it goes toward the uninsured's unpaid medical
bills. Eliminate that from the equation and the result will be stable
premiums, as you see with other types of insurance.
-Greg
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
That's true, absolutely. However, the revenue is in fact lost to those
companies and thus they must, by law, report the loss, and it will
affect the benefits and salaries they can offer, as it is in fact that
sort of revenue that is lost. In the end, the loopholes were offered
to maintain those benefits in particular. Without the loopholes, the
benefits will have to go as there is no revenue to pay for them. The
govt will then have to pick up the drug costs for those people.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
IMHO, we need to go to something like $5,000 and $10,000 deductibles.
No co-pays, nothing like that. It just seems to me that we need to get
to the point where people realize that health care is something you
have to pay for. There are no free Dr. visits! FWIW, the spell checker
is acting weird today!
Carbon
> Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks
> newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox
> News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance.
On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality.
Kommienezuspadt
===
so -- you are saying you support loopholes like this?
interesting --- that's far too loose with money for my taste.
dene
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
I don't see how you can count Fox as fluff. They interview both sides,
which is something you don't see with Rachel or MSNBC.
-Greg
dene
-------------------------------------------------------------------
People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best
choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's,
having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the
pre-natal and delivery?
-Greg
BAR
says...
> >> so it's only bias if you don't like is it -- I get it.
> >>
> >> Fox News is up - yet you whine about the main stream media.....
> >
> > I am not whining I am reveling in the news.
>
> BUT -- that makes them the main stream media you hate.....
Not yet, but soon.
BAR
says...
The penalty is useless.
Mr. $10 an hour will pay a penalty of $416.
Mr. $50K per year will pay a penalty of $1000.
Mr. $100K per year will pay a penalty of $2500.
Hor...@net.net
<NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote this crap:
>
>>>>
>>>> You have your head up your ass.
>>>
>>>Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
>>
>> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
>> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
>> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>>
>>
>
>Read this:
>The charges stem from a part of the law that eliminates tax deductions for
>Medicare prescription drug subsidies.
Real meaning: Doo wah diddy diddy dum diddy day.
>When the Medicare prescription drug program was passed in 2003, it included
>a provision granting employers a subsidy of 28%, or up to $1,330, per
>retiree for prescription drug costs.
Employers. not real people. Real people will find their costs going
up.
Bottom line. YOU WILL PAY MORE.
BAR
says...
> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents
> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in
> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed
> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the
> benefit too will go.
>
> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the
> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program
> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug
> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than
> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors.
>
> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses
> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits,
> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall.
>
>
> ===
> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as
> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off as
> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type
>
Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage
employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the
"worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help.
How many people were hired by the poor today?
Hor...@net.net
this crap:
>> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
>> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
>> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>
>So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a tax
>penalty, dumbass?
Probably. Why should they buy health insurance when it's cheaper to
do nothing? "Linda the hairdresser," who makes $7 an hour plus tips
is more worried about paying rent than health insurance.
Kommienezuspadt
so you are going to hate Fox News soon? good on ya!
Kommienezuspadt
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:fjspr5tg36md6snpp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:22:36 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote this crap:
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have your head up your ass.
>>>>
>>>>Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
>>>
>>> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
>>> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
>>> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Read this:
>>The charges stem from a part of the law that eliminates tax deductions for
>>Medicare prescription drug subsidies.
>
> Real meaning: Doo wah diddy diddy dum diddy day.
>
>>When the Medicare prescription drug program was passed in 2003, it
>>included
>>a provision granting employers a subsidy of 28%, or up to $1,330, per
>>retiree for prescription drug costs.
>
> Employers. not real people. Real people will find their costs going
> up.
>
> Bottom line. YOU WILL PAY MORE.
>
take your argument on what was written to these people:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=176850&type=topnews
They wrote it.
Kommienezuspadt
Let's give AT&T all of your money then.
Kommienezuspadt
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:i1tpr59j7be171dtt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:53:09 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
>>> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
>>> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
>>> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>>
>>So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a
>>tax
>>penalty, dumbass?
>
> Probably. Why should they buy health insurance when it's cheaper to
> do nothing? "Linda the hairdresser," who makes $7 an hour plus tips
> is more worried about paying rent than health insurance.
Since you have obviously studied this issue to so much depth -- how much
will your Linda be required to pay for her insurance?
dene
Agree...but again, the compelling reasons to buy insurance will still apply,
even more so, if Drs. and hospital become aggressive with the deadbeats.
-Greg
dene
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:i1tpr59j7be171dtt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:53:09 -0700, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> this crap:
>
> >> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
> >> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> >> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
> >
> >So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a
tax
> >penalty, dumbass?
>
> Probably. Why should they buy health insurance when it's cheaper to
> do nothing? "Linda the hairdresser," who makes $7 an hour plus tips
> is more worried about paying rent than health insurance.
You really need to bone up on the subsidy end of the law. If Linda's
premium is $200/mo. with 70% subsidized, then her end is $60. Will Linda
pay that? Likely....especially if she faces a tax penalty, aggressive debt
collection, and denial of service (e.g. specialist care) as the consequences
of not joining up.
-Greg
Kommienezuspadt
Our first step is asking for the deductible money upfront -- or getting an
agreement for a payment plan.
We hired a guy just for that job -- Rocky is actually his name!
John B.
It's taking after you.
BAR
says...
Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and
or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability
to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal
coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize
tax revenue.
BAR
says...
Do you believe the Democrats will fix the free Viagra for rapists and
other sex offenders problem in the Health Reform bill? The IRS has no
authority to impose or collect penalties. When do you think the Congress
will fix this problem and enable the IRS to chase down, harass and
arrest the $7 an hour wage earner to pay a $500 penalty or throw her in
jail.
William Clark
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Indeed, it's because Fox News is not a news channel, it's an
entertainment channel for the hard of thinking. Apples and oranges.
BAR
state.edu>, cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
So the election of Obama was a popularity contents and it is not a
measure of his quality.
John B.
> In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23...@newsfe19.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.2626db0be...@news.giganews.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
prayerful reverence.
John B.
> In article <824ljoFh4...@mid.individual.net>, d...@remove.ipns.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Horv...@net.net> wrote in message
> >news:i1tpr59j7be171dtt...@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:53:09 -0700, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> > > this crap:
>
> > > >> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
> > > >> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> > > >> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>
> > > >So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a
> > tax
> > > >penalty, dumbass?
>
> > > Probably. Why should they buy health insurance when it's cheaper to
> > > do nothing? "Linda the hairdresser," who makes $7 an hour plus tips
> > > is more worried about paying rent than health insurance.
>
> > You really need to bone up on the subsidy end of the law. If Linda's
> > premium is $200/mo. with 70% subsidized, then her end is $60. Will Linda
> > pay that? Likely....especially if she faces a tax penalty, aggressive debt
> > collection, and denial of service (e.g. specialist care) as the consequences
> > of not joining up.
>
> Do you believe the Democrats will fix the free Viagra for rapists and
> other sex offenders problem in the Health Reform bill? The IRS has no
> authority to impose or collect penalties. When do you think the Congress
> will fix this problem and enable the IRS to chase down, harass and
> arrest the $7 an hour wage earner to pay a $500 penalty or throw her in
>
> - Show quoted text -
The IRS has authority to collect penalties, but not impose them.
William Clark
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
A "popularity contents"?
Another crashing non sequitur from our resident expert in them.
Kommienezuspadt
How is it screwing them?
The crazy law (written by Repubs) gave them a 28% subsidy to buy insurance
AND let them write off the total cost of the insurance while keeping your
tax money.
So -- why not give them all of your money?
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
>prayerful reverence.
So you are self-employed, also?
gray asphalt
AARP is an insurance company and that is why
they support health insurance reform? ... while
all of the other companies were against it.
Makes sense to me, not. And I guess the AMA
supported the health insurance reform bill because
they are all lawyers.
BAR
says...
You haven't got a clue about health insurance.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4bbd01a7$0$4955$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31:11 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen the recent numbers for the three major networks
>>> newscasts? All of them are down double digits in viewer ship. Fox
>>> News is the only one increasing viewer ship, why is that?
>>
>> Unfortunately, spectacle will always win out over substance.
>>
>> On the other hand, popularity is a poor measure of quality.
>
> which is something you don't see with Rachel or MSNBC.
I wouldn't call screeching "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!" interviewing...
Carbon
Correct. Although he is superior to his predecessor in every measurable
way.
Kommienezuspadt
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:pnfsr5dmv4c1uii8j...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:05:07 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>
>>Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
>>prayerful reverence.
>
>
> So you are self-employed, also?
>
>
> Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
>
>
I own my own business & have employees --- maybe I should get all of BAR's
money so I can have more. (money)
John B.
>
>
>
> >Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
> >prayerful reverence.
>
> So you are self-employed, also?
>
> Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
>
>
> My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> ultimate power in the universe."
I'm not the one who brags about having a "mansion" and a "yacht."
Hor...@net.net
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>On Apr 8, 4:41�pm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:05:07 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
>> >prayerful reverence.
>>
>> So you are self-employed, also?
>>
>I'm not the one who brags about having a "mansion" and a "yacht."
It's not bragging. It's the facts.
And I'm golfing tomorrow.
Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
Hor...@Horvath.net
John B.
>
> >On Apr 8, 4:41 pm, Horv...@net.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:05:07 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> >> >Yes, I worship my employer every day. I kneel down before him in
> >> >prayerful reverence.
>
> >> So you are self-employed, also?
>
> >I'm not the one who brags about having a "mansion" and a "yacht."
>
> It's not bragging. It's the facts.
> And I'm golfing tomorrow.
>
> Vote for Palin-Brown in 2012. Repeal the nightmare.
>
>
> My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
> ultimate power in the universe."
Who fucking cares?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
>
>
> People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best
> choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's,
> having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the
> pre-natal and delivery?
>
> -Greg
People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided
by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to
suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company)
employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as
much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their
employers making those choices.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
>
> On Apr 7, 5:30 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Apr 7, 2:47 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
> > > "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:823usf...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > <Horv...@net.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:cbhor5d34chbnut8r...@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:00:43 -0700, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com>
> > > >> wrote
> > > >> this crap:
>
> > > >> >> >medical bills of the uninsured. Obamacare addresses this and in a
> > > >> >> >few
> > > >> >> >years, premiums will stabilize when the insured pool stabilizes.
>
> > > >> >> You have your head up your ass.
>
> > > >> >Cite where I'm wrong, dumbass.
>
> > > >> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> > > >> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>
> > > > So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay
> > > > a
> > > > tax
> > > > penalty, dumbass?
>
> > > > distinction
> > > > is that the death spiral will come to an end. What's a death spiral,
> > > > dumbass? It's when claims outrun revenue, thus forcing the insurance
> > > > company to raise revenue, thus forcing healthy people off the books,
> > > > leaving
> > > > an imbalanced insured pool and eventual default. That's where the
> > > > industry
> > > > was headed, dumbass. Enrolling the healthy uninsured will end the
> > > > spiral
> > > > and stabilize premiums.
>
> > > > -Greg
>
> > > and he does not understand that the billion is for a loophole that was
> > > closed -- one which allowed AT&T (& others) to collect subsidies for
> > > their
> > > Medicare supplemental insurance -- & still get to write off the total
> > > bill
> > > for it --- Horvath -- another low information opinion poster.
>
> > The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents
> > billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in
> > the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed
> > purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the
> > benefit too will go.
>
> > My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the
> > Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program
> > saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug
> > money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than
> > having the govt directly subsidize the seniors.
>
> > This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses
> > and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits,
> > depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall.
>
> > ===
> > It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as
> > that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off as
> > an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type
>
> companies and thus they must, by law, report the loss, and it will
> affect the benefits and salaries they can offer, as it is in fact that
> sort of revenue that is lost. In the end, the loopholes were offered
> to maintain those benefits in particular. Without the loopholes, the
> benefits will have to go as there is no revenue to pay for them. The
> govt will then have to pick up the drug costs for those people.
>
> ===
>
> so -- you are saying you support loopholes like this?
>
> interesting --- that's far too loose with money for my taste.
Very stupid policy, IMHO.
The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
get the money?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2626db0be...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
I can choose to purchase a product from ATT or not. I cannot choose my
health insurance though.
Dinosaur_Sr
> <Horv...@net.net> wrote in message
>
> news:i1tpr59j7be171dtt...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:53:09 -0700, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote
> > this crap:
>
> > >> Insurance premiums are already going up. AT&T has already said that
> > >> this bill will cost them a billion dollars. The uninsured will
> > >> continue to do nothing and costs will still go up, dumbass.
>
> > >So 30 million people are going to deny themselves a subsidy and/or pay a
> tax
> > >penalty, dumbass?
>
> > Probably. Why should they buy health insurance when it's cheaper to
> > do nothing? "Linda the hairdresser," who makes $7 an hour plus tips
> > is more worried about paying rent than health insurance.
>
> You really need to bone up on the subsidy end of the law. If Linda's
> premium is $200/mo. with 70% subsidized, then her end is $60. Will Linda
> pay that? Likely....especially if she faces a tax penalty, aggressive debt
> collection, and denial of service (e.g. specialist care) as the consequences
> of not joining up.
>
> -Greg
Who is going to pay the subsidy?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.26277c7c8...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > says...
>
> >> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.2626db0be...@news.giganews.com...
It was either that or have the govt pay for the services the companies
were and are paying for now. FWIW, I don't think the companies or the
govt should pay for those services.
Dinosaur_Sr
AARP stands to make at least hundreds of millions of dollars off this
thing.
dene
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce...@y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best
> choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's,
> having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the
> pre-natal and delivery?
>
> -Greg
People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided
by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to
suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company)
employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as
much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their
employers making those choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they
ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or
acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in
your scenario. They have choices.
-Greg
Kommienezuspadt
Very stupid policy, IMHO.
===
except -- it is not free... facts -- darned liberal facts.
Kommienezuspadt
===
you'll have to prove to me that it was an either or scenario like you claim.
Kommienezuspadt
===
true -- but YOU said they were being screwed by them not being able to write
off a huge gift to them -- I'm still shaking my head on how you can think
that is a good idea - but you'll howl about paying for insurance with tax
money.
Kommienezuspadt
==
You are arguing the government should give a subsidy to big companies to
help pay for insurance -- (and let them write-off the gift!) -- yet you
gripe about a subsidy for buying insurance -- amazing....
dene
Very stupid policy, IMHO.
The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
get the money?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grandma on SS and a small pension paying $300/mo. for medication, just to
stay alive. "Why is that so bad?"
-Greg
dene
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are various revenue sources in the bill. All of them are reasonable.
You should bone up on the bill.
-Greg
BAR
says...
> >
> > so -- you are saying you support loopholes like this?
> >
> > interesting --- that's far too loose with money for my taste.
>
> Very stupid policy, IMHO.
>
> The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is
> typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be
> made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like
> say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to
> pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to
> get the money?
>
>
> ===
> except -- it is not free... facts -- darned liberal facts.
What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary?
Kommienezuspadt
That depends on factors --- you should look it up -- but Medicare Part D has
a deductible --
read this for a start -- or in your case -- have someone read it for you.
then run along
Beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, etc.)
The MMA establishes a standard drug benefit that Part D plans may offer.[6]
The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not in
terms of the drugs that must be covered. In 2008, this standard benefit
requires payment of a $275 deductible. The beneficiary then pays 25% of the
cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage limit
of $2,510. The defined standard benefit is not the most common benefit
offered by Part D plans. Only 10 percent of plans for 2008 offer the defined
standard benefit. Most eliminate the deductible and use tiered drug
co-payments rather than coinsurance.[7]
Once the initial coverage limit is reached, the beneficiary is subject to
another deductible, known officially as the Coverage Gap but referred to
more commonly as the "Donut Hole," in which they must pay the full cost of
medicine. When total out-of-pocket expenses on formulary drugs for the year,
including the deductible and initial coinsurance, reach $4050 (now $4350 in
2009[8]), the beneficiary then reaches catastrophic coverage, in which he or
she pays $2.25 for a generic or preferred drug and $5.65 for other drugs, or
5% coinsurance, whichever is greater. The $4050 amount is calculated on a
yearly basis, and a beneficiary who amasses $4050 in out-of-pocket costs by
December 31 of one year will start his or her deductible anew on January 1.
Most low-income subsidy patients are exempt from all or part of the donut
hole and the deductible.
The only out-of-pocket costs that count toward getting out of the coverage
gap or into catastrophic coverage are True Out-Of-Pocket (TrOOP)
expenditures. TrOOP expenditures accrue only when drugs on the enrolled-in
plan's formulary are purchased in accordance with the restrictions on those
drugs. Any other purchases do not count toward either the coverage gap or
catastrophic coverage. Monthly premium payments do not count towards TrOOP.
BAR
says...
You miss the whole point. If you use it you should pay for it.
The whole Medicare part D plan was the stupidest thing ever implemented.
Kommienezuspadt
If you had a point I may grab my chest --- you asked -- quoting you here:
What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary?
Now go away --- you are not worth any more effort
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5015 (20100410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You
want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on
health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the
employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own
decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have
the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance
program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the
govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to
the employee and far more expensive.
Dinosaur_Sr
Exactly! So who pays for it? Why not the user?
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
It's a gimmick to have the companies continue to pick up drug costs
fore retirees put in place at a time when the govt enacted legislation
requiring taxpayers to pick up the cost of drugs for seniors. I draw
my conclusions, you draw yours. The rhetorical reality is that no one
can prove anything to anyone, and such a Challenger is to me an
admission of the validity of my argument.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
I never said the companies were being screwed, just that the
elimination of the policy will cost them money, and it will, and that
it is salary money that they will loose. These are simple facts, and
it is not too difficult to extrapolate the consequences.
I agree with you that it is and was a dumb policy.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
I have not argues that the govt should give the subsidy. For at least
the 4th time, it is a dumb policy. It should be clear to you that my
position is that the users of health services are the ones who should
pay for them; and if not them, then who pays has to be addressed
directly and simply. One thing for sure, the working taxpayers do not
have the wealth to cover the costs.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
Fine, so you can pick up the costs then?
The aspect of this that some, like Gray Asphalt for example, don't
seem to get is that health care has expanded and improved dramatically
over the last few decades, and that is great. Driven a lot of economic
activity and given people access to better health care.
For example, in the 1970's, how many people were on blood thinners and
statins? Today? In the 1970's how many people had angioplasty and
stents? Today? These kinds of things cost money, and that fact has to
be accounted for. The people talking about this today seem to me to be
using 1970's based logic on the costs of health care.
The fact is that *EVERYONE* is going to have use of, in some sense or
another, expensive, modern health care. So my question remains: who
pays for it? IMHO, the fairest solution is for the user to pay for it.
If the taxpayer pays you wind up, at best, having working people
working solely to pay for health care.
Everyone can't have everything, the best, whatever. That applies to
housing, food, transportation, health care, clothing,
education...whatever aspect of society you want to look at.
So who is the decider? The govt. giving one size fits all to everyone,
like in the UK, so John Bs mom couldn't spend her 2 million being as
comfortable as possible with her ALS, but gets the one size fits all
daily visits from some nurse, like in the UK? Or how about you get
what you can earn...and the govt helps out people in legitimate
need...but no universality to any entitlement.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
Name one that doesn't, one way or another, come from working
taxpayers? How much of people's income should be applied to paying for
other people's health...give me a limit that you think is OK!
Dinosaur_Sr
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.26299218c...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
...and isn't it *TERRIBLE* that these poor people have to pay for some
of the drugs they consume...so how do you pay for even this when
everyone is consuming drugs?