2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Inspector on November 03, 2019, 11:43:20 AM
-
My wife qualifies for Medicare now. I have been trying to take it all in and understand it all. It is not easy. While I know most of you here are not for Medicare for all because of the $52T price tag, I have a little different take due to having to deal with the Feds and private insurance.
The idea behind Medicare for all is to eliminate private insurance and put everyone on Medicare run by the government. I know most of you who work also get your private insurance through your employer. So if you get yours through your employer you will lose it. Most decent private insurance plans pays 90% of most costs and has around $15 copays plus dental, eyecare and prescriptions. Better private plans will pay 100% and $5-$10 copays plus all the rest. But did you know you have to PAY for Medicare? With few exceptions the price is $135.50/month. Plus Medicare only covers 60%-80% of your doctor and hospital costs. Plus there is no prescriptions, eye or dental. All of that is extra. In order to get Medicare up to private insurance quality one must obtain an Advantage plan or a Supplement plan. Advantage plans cost little to nothing but also don’t add a whole lot to Medicare. Supplement plans cost. The plan I picked out for my wife is the “F” plan that I pay an additional $141/month for. That’s almost $3,600/year for complete Medicare. But this still doesn’t cover anything else. Prescriptions are another story. My wife takes 10 different prescriptions. As it turns out 4 or 5 of them are terribly expensive. Most prescription plans I found covered her prescriptions only for $11k-$12k per year and as much as $16K/year. After some research the best plan I could find covers her at $4,211/year just for copays. Just for prescriptions. Add that does not include the $72.70/month plan fee. So add another almost $900 for plan fees. That comes out to around $8,700 a year and that still does not include dental and eyecare. If your employer chooses to be cheap and not pay for your medical after Medicare for all kicks in, this is an example of what you could pay. Most people don’t have a lot of expensive prescriptions. So your costs could be around $50-$100 for prescriptions.
So this is an example of what you may encounter if we ever get Medicare for all. Just my personal experience.
-
My mother in law is diabetic, she has medicare, however, she cannot retire even though she has the age and time to do so, because medicare will not cover the cost of the insulin she needs to live. Which is ludicrously expensive, even generic brands. She has to continue working so that the private insurance can cover the cost of insulin.
Medicare for all would kill her, and bankrupt her, all at the same time.
F*ck government run anything.
-
My mother in law is diabetic, she has medicare, however, she cannot retire even though she has the age and time to do so, because medicare will not cover the cost of the insulin she needs to live. Which is ludicrously expensive, even generic brands. She has to continue working so that the private insurance can cover the cost of insulin.
Medicare for all would kill her, and bankrupt her, all at the same time.
F*ck government run anything.
My wife has to inject 3 different types of insulin which as you stated is quite expensive. It costs me more to have her on Medicare than it does to have her on my company insurance. The problem is you have only about a 6 week period to sign up and get started on Medicare or wait a year before you can sign up again. So I have to take her off my company insurance to get her on Medicare now or I have to work for another year before I can get her on Medicare. So I have to pay more now for her if I want to retire the beginning of next year. After I retire I have to pay for private insurance for myself until Medicare kicks in, in 3 years. And AZ is a Obamacare state. Only one company provides insurance thru Obamacare. And AZ was one of those states where costs on Obamacare rose 100% or more last year. For the Bronze Plan it is about $900/month, Silver Plan is $1,200/month for me. They recommend the Silver plan as it comes close to company provided medical insurance. So for me, since I don’t inject insulin yet, my prescriptions are fairly inexpensive. Medicare for me would be cheaper than Obamacare but still far more than what I have now which my company pays for.
I have a backup plan that involves going back to work. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
-
I have Medicare because the government forces you to take it at age 65 unless you have private insurance from your employer.
I am retired and Medicare hardly covers anything. The only good thing is I currently am in good health and do not have to take any medication.
I did buy a supplement plan for which I pay $94 a month just in case I got sick or in a bad accident. Medicare sucks.
-
My mother suffered a stroke in February quite a few years ago while working. After that, she was unable to work. It took over a year for her to get Social Security disability payments approved.
About 6-7 years later, she experienced another series of strokes, which landed her in a nursing home. She was unable to speak, was paralyzed on her left side, and required a feeding tube.
The Medicare reps said they would pay the first 3 months of care in a nursing facility -- or for costs of caring for her at home. Then, if she remained in the home/on home care due to the same health event, she'd have to pay herself. Once her assets dwindled to $2,000 (basically, they look back 5 years and count any assets you owned, even if you sold them, to keep people from transferring their assets to friends or family in order to not spend them on healthcare), they would pick up the tab again under Medicaid.
Medicare said BEFORE SHE WAS CHECKED INTO THE NURSING FACILITY that the place was approved for Medicare reimbursement. When it came time for the facility to bill Medicare, they changed their mind. Medicare claimed the facility was classified a "Professional Nursing Care Facility." Appeals did nothing, and they let everyone know that pre-approval in no way guarantees approval for reimbursement. :wtf: What's puzzling is, she can't be the first person in that facility that tried use Medicare. Something fishy if she was denied and no one before her was. I have a feeling it's one of those "Medicare changed the rules" and she was caught up in the transition" situations.
So, Medicare wound up paying zero of the over $21,000 nursing home cost between February and June when she finally passed.
So, yeah. If you have ANYTHING the gov't can take, they'll take it. Gotta pay your fair share. Ain't nothing from the government "free".
This is what Medicare for all will look like. No matter what they promised, what rules were in place, or what others have received in benefits, it won't take long before the economy, tax revenues or higher costs force them to pull the rug out from under everyone who was counting on it.
https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid/spend-down.html
-
SSA also takes back any payments you received in the month you die, even if it is on the last day of the month.
The best time to die as far as SSA is concerned is the first week of a new month.
-
Thank you for everyone's stories and perspectives. This is the real issue here. Unintended consequences. This is where the politicians are not serving us. The unintended consequences of laws that our politicians don't care how they effect us. They gave us Medicare, we should kiss their feet. I PAID for Medicare and I have no recourse to go somewhere else.
My wife is forced to accept and pay for Medicare since she is no longer working. I don't understand how people think anything from the government comes free and without any hassles. I literally spent numerous hours across numerous days to try and understand Medicare and my wife's particular situation. If it were not for the AMAC people I would not have the understanding that I do. I honestly do not wish this on anyone. I was so frustrated at one time I even considered just buying a private insurance policy for my wife despite violating the rules of Medicare. :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
From what I've noticed, every time the government gets involved 100%, it won't last long before major problems happen. Money eventually runs out.
I got some buddies who always complain about the VA. Granted the VA does take care of most of it's people, but the stereotype has to come from somewhere about poor treatment and long wait times. My friend broke his arm. I asked him why does he have duct tape on his cast? He said the nurse set his cast to tight. So they cut it and used duct tape to redo it. Instead of re-casting his arm.
Taiwan as an example, going to the doctor for old people is like renewing your drivers license without an appointment. You have to go there in the early morning and wait your turn. They get to you when they get to you.
-
When healthcare is no longer insurance/individual responsibility, more and more of the "uninsured of today" will avail themselves of wellness and routine healthcare visits.
That'll put much more demand on the system than the existing system. Part of the reason for co-pay is reducing demand. It's to make people who can take care of minor issues themselves or with phone advise from a nurse to do it without becoming a clinic visitor. Rather than paying $25 to have the doctor tell you to buy some cough syrup, stay in bed, and drink lots of liquids, you spend that money on cough syrup and maybe call the advise nurse to make sure you're okay to self-treat.
Another issue is the number of doctors and nurses. When the workload becomes crushing, and the compensation is based on government scale, professionals who are tops in their fields will find better employment outside of the system. That'll further put a strain on the gov't system being able to meet ever-increasing demand from the public.
I wonder how many of the politicians in Congress will be happy with their healthcare? Who wants to bet they won't have an option the rest of us will not have -- and at tax payer expense?
-
Another issue is the number of doctors and nurses. When the workload becomes crushing, and the compensation is based on government scale, professionals who are tops in their fields will find better employment outside of the system. That'll further put a strain on the gov't system being able to meet ever-increasing demand from the public.
I saw Sicko. Moore interviewed a doctor in England or somewhere around there. He only has 1 home and 1 Audi. Mentioned that's the norm for doctors there. Compared to doctors in the US who have multiple homes and cars. I do know that Moore's movies can be 1 sided. But IDK any doctors in the UK to confirm what the norm is. They have free health care.
I have heard from multiple people who live in the UK and have free health care and they don't like it. Takes 6 months to see your doctor, surgeries being cancelled or a waiting list of just as long, sometimes longer. Last guy was the guy I met in Vegas from England. Unless he was faking his accent.
-
I saw Sicko. Moore interviewed a doctor in England or somewhere around there. He only has 1 home and 1 Audi. Mentioned that's the norm for doctors there. Compared to doctors in the US who have multiple homes and cars. I do know that Moore's movies can be 1 sided. But IDK any doctors in the UK to confirm what the norm is. They have free health care.
I have heard from multiple people who live in the UK and have free health care and they don't like it. Takes 6 months to see your doctor, surgeries being cancelled or a waiting list of just as long, sometimes longer. Last guy was the guy I met in Vegas from England. Unless he was faking his accent.
I have friends in the UK and Canada. None of them like the free healthcare they have in their country. Yet my Canadian friends keep telling me it is better than our healthcare system. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Read 2 years ago the UK system was completely overwhelmed by a massive flu outbreak. When there are huge increases in those kinds of cases, all other cases (cancer, kidney failure, heart surgeries, etc.) take a hit as well. People are prioritized based on how long they "can wait" versus the ones who "can't wait". So, if you're not bad enough to warrant a hospital bed this month, maybe in another 3 months when you get much worse, you will be. In the meantime, that bed will be used for people who already waited to get worse.
Yeah, that's a much better system than we have here. :wacko:
-
Read 2 years ago the UK system was completely overwhelmed by a massive flu outbreak. When there are huge increases in those kinds of cases, all other cases (cancer, kidney failure, heart surgeries, etc.) take a hit as well. People are prioritized based on how long they "can wait" versus the ones who "can't wait". So, if you're not bad enough to warrant a hospital bed this month, maybe in another 3 months when you get much worse, you will be. In the meantime, that bed will be used for people who already waited to get worse.
Yeah, that's a much better system than we have here. :wacko:
I believe I read something similar some time back. I have also read that the conditions in the hospitals in Canada are abhorrent.
I do know that when the labor market is in the way it currently is, that some employers I have worked for in the past for have paid for better insurance plans, added insurance plans like an HMO to an already existing PPO. One had choices between United, HMSA and Kaiser. I have, in the past, decided on an employer based on the benefits over the pay.
I don't believe our healthcare system is perfect. Far from it. I just don't know what I would do to make it better? All I know is that throwing money we don't have at it to give mediocre Medicare to those who already qualify for Medicaid is not the solution.
-
Let's also not forget how Norwegian is also used as an example of free health care. But they tax their people 51%.
-
Let's also not forget how Norwegian is also used as an example of free health care. But they tax their people 51%.
And they aren't giving free care to millions of illegal immigrants.
The Scandinavian countries being held up as models for Socialism have a mostly homogenous population with little ethnic diversity.
That makes for a workforce that holds similar values, went through similar education institutions, speak the same language and have a unity formed by growing up around people sharing a border, language and culture.
They aren't spending their days trying to accommodate every race, made-up gender and culturally diverse belief the way the US is pushing us to do.
Most of the socialized medicine countries flaunted as successful have a very capitalistic economy.
Socialist programs can't survive without the WEALTH generated by well-run capitalism. Look at Venezuela. Richest in terms if natural resources, poorest due to the mismanagement of Socialists.
-
And they aren't giving free care to millions of illegal immigrants.
The Scandinavian countries being held up as models for Socialism have a mostly homogenous population with little ethnic diversity.
That makes for a workforce that holds similar values, went through similar education institutions, speak the same language and have a unity formed by growing up around people sharing a border, language and culture.
They aren't spending their days trying to accommodate every race, made-up gender and culturally diverse belief the way the US is pushing us to do.
Most of the socialized medicine countries flaunted as successful have a very capitalistic economy.
Socialist programs can't survive without the WEALTH generated by well-run capitalism. Look at Venezuela. Richest in terms if natural resources, poorest due to the mismanagement of Socialists.
Well said. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Ben Shapiro philosophy says you can only get 2 out of 3:
1. Availability
2. Affordability
3. Quality
Right now we have the best quality medical care in the world, for those that have insurance or can afford it. People in other countries come to the US for treatment. If you have cancer, you want to be in the US. We have pretty good availability with private coverage and Medicare/Medicaid. We don't have affordability.
Medicare for all has availability and affordability (for the poor), but quality will go down due to more people getting treatments and low reimbursement rates. We have a doctor shortage now, and this would make it even worse with doctors getting paid less. Also reduces r&d for drug and medical equipment businesses to create better treatments
-
Ben Shapiro philosophy says you can only get 2 out of 3:
1. Availability
2. Affordability
3. Quality
Right now we have the best quality medical care in the world, for those that have insurance or can afford it. People in other countries come to the US for treatment. If you have cancer, you want to be in the US. We have pretty good availability with private coverage and Medicare/Medicaid. We don't have affordability.
Medicare for all has availability and affordability (for the poor), but quality will go down due to more people getting treatments and low reimbursement rates. We have a doctor shortage now, and this would make it even worse with doctors getting paid less. Also reduces r&d for drug and medical equipment businesses to create better treatments
That's similar to what I tell people when it comes to IT programs.
1. Fast
2. Cheap
3. Right
Pick any two.
-
I'll get burned bad for this but I'd stay with the status quo,
if we can't get government out of the health care business.
I presently pay for my wife's Kaiser individual coverage,
we all pay for the Obama subsidy she gets.
When she goes on Medicare in 1.5 years I will purchase
Medicare part "C" for her from Kaiser. It is better coverage than we have now
for roughly the same amount of my out of pocket money as the
BS Obama care coverage and there will be no more subsidy.
Everybody has a unique situation.
Full disclosure; I get my medical from the VA
and I will enroll in Medicare. I will stay with VA,
I doubt I will ever use Medicare. even though I paid into it for
37 years or so.
-
I'll get burned bad for this but I'd stay with the status quo,
if we can't get government out of the health care business.
I presently pay for my wife's Kaiser individual coverage,
we all pay for the Obama subsidy she gets.
When she goes on Medicare in 1.5 years I will purchase
Medicare part "C" for her from Kaiser. It is better coverage than we have now
for roughly the same amount of my out of pocket money as the
BS Obama care coverage and there will be no more subsidy.
Everybody has a unique situation.
Full disclosure; I get my medical from the VA
and I will enroll in Medicare. I will stay with VA,
I doubt I will ever use Medicare. even though I paid into it for
37 years or so.
I wish AZ has Kaiser. I am in generally good health and I would use Kaiser until Medicare kicks in. But they are not there. Only one provider (Blue Shield) on Obamacare and they are the only one available to purchase privately. So their price is high. I don't think I qualify for the subsidy next year but the following year I might. So next year I pay dearly but then after that the taxpayer gets to subsidize my medical insurance. I'd rather have multiple providers and pick from competing plans than to have taxpayers subsidize my ass.
-
Just on the Fox News website.
Amid ‘Medicare-for-all’ debate in US, Britain sounds alarm over historic waiting lists
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amid-medicare-for-all-debate-in-us-britain-sounds-alarm-over-historic-waitlist
-
Sorry to hear 'spec.
I am VERY ignorant of all this stuff. I've had private medical insurance all my life. And up until recently, I had never been in a hospital for more than an ER visit.
I had THOUGHT Medicare was decent, but that is in the context of my dad's healthcare. But he also had excellent coverage from working 30+ years in the city. If I recall correctly, his dual coverage generally meant he didn't pay much, even for his many prescriptions. Thankfully, his health was generally "ok" until maybe 3-4 years ago. But when my sister and I started helping more, it opened our eyes to the "bunch of BS" that folks have to jump through. Even for someone who is relatively well covered like my dad. In his case, I believe Medicare was primary coverage and HMSA typically picked up everything else. That said, there are some pretty stupid rules you come across like what is covered for in-patient and what isn't. He's been admitted for surgery, so how can that NOT be in-patient? Well, it can and it does happen otherwise. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
When my dad had a fall and was in the hospital and then rehab, we got the bills many weeks later. Opened one of them and it was for rehab. The list of services was long, totaling in the tens of thousands. His payment required? Around $3. I was like :wtf: Looked at the detailed breakdown and it was for a box of Kleenex that he asked the nurse for one night. I remember because I was there.
Overall, my view of the "healthcare industry" is very jaded. Another aspect of America that has gotten twisted and the focus is on folks making $$$ as opposed to caring for those who need it.
Anyways, I digress. :(
Hope things work out well for you!
-
Sorry to hear 'spec.
I am VERY ignorant of all this stuff. I've had private medical insurance all my life. And up until recently, I had never been in a hospital for more than an ER visit.
I had THOUGHT Medicare was decent, but that is in the context of my dad's healthcare. But he also had excellent coverage from working 30+ years in the city. If I recall correctly, his dual coverage generally meant he didn't pay much, even for his many prescriptions. Thankfully, his health was generally "ok" until maybe 3-4 years ago. But when my sister and I started helping more, it opened our eyes to the "bunch of BS" that folks have to jump through. Even for someone who is relatively well covered like my dad. In his case, I believe Medicare was primary coverage and HMSA typically picked up everything else. That said, there are some pretty stupid rules you come across like what is covered for in-patient and what isn't. He's been admitted for surgery, so how can that NOT be in-patient? Well, it can and it does happen otherwise. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
When my dad had a fall and was in the hospital and then rehab, we got the bills many weeks later. Opened one of them and it was for rehab. The list of services was long, totaling in the tens of thousands. His payment required? Around $3. I was like :wtf: Looked at the detailed breakdown and it was for a box of Kleenex that he asked the nurse for one night. I remember because I was there.
Overall, my view of the "healthcare industry" is very jaded. Another aspect of America that has gotten twisted and the focus is on folks making $$$ as opposed to caring for those who need it.
Anyways, I digress. :(
Hope things work out well for you!
I appreciate your well wishes. I started this topic not for anyone to feel sorry for me but to expose another side to having Medicare for all. Just so the rest of you are not surprised when you transition from private insurance to Medicare. And to point out the unintended consequences of this stupid proposition.
I am sorry about your Dad. I have a similar story when my second wife was in the hospital for surgery. Her BFF came in one day and grabbed one of the rubber gloves from the box on the wall. She blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie and drew a face on it. My wife loved it and brought it home with her. Guess what was on the bill when I finally received it? Of course the insurance company caught it and made me pay for it.
-
I appreciate your well wishes. I started this topic not for anyone to feel sorry for me but to expose another side to having Medicare for all. Just so the rest of you are not surprised when you transition from private insurance to Medicare. And to point out the unintended consequences of this stupid proposition.
I am sorry about your Dad. I have a similar story when my second wife was in the hospital for surgery. Her BFF came in one day and grabbed one of the rubber gloves from the box on the wall. She blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie and drew a face on it. My wife loved it and brought it home with her. Guess what was on the bill when I finally received it? Of course the insurance company caught it and made me pay for it.
Oh believe me, I'm not. . . ;D
:rofl:
You're about to retire! Definitely not feeling sorry for ya. Haha. But seriously, I hear ya and that sort of experience is what I generally expected. Maybe I'll be moving to Japan or elsewhere by the time that comes. Maybe a nice paradise like Russia :-X
-
So the lesson is don't get caught using stuff inside the room (tissue, 1 glove, etc...)
-
So the lesson is don't get caught using stuff inside the room (tissue, 1 glove, etc...)
No glove, no love. . .
-
So the lesson is don't get caught using stuff inside the room (tissue, 1 glove, etc...)
The lesson is: nothing is "free". Don't take it unless you can pay for it. Expecting others to pay for it is childish and ignorant.
Everything costs somebody something. The entitled crowd believe they are the ones who deserve everything, and everything must be paid for by someone else.
That slap you felt on your cheek when you realized you owed for the stuff you (or your visitor) took is reality giving you a "Wake the fuck up!".
-
I'd rather have multiple providers and pick from competing plans than to have taxpayers subsidize my ass.
All insurance in general is subsidizing those that actually need to use the services. You've paid for Medicare through taxes in the past, and likely paid more than your share for other people.
The problem with Medicare is that you are forced to pay the taxes for it instead of it being voluntary like private insurance. And for many, you've paid all the taxes for it, and for other people if you're higher income, but may never use the services if you have private insurance for all of your life
-
No glove, no love. . .
heads
-
All insurance in general is subsidizing those that actually need to use the services. You've paid for Medicare through taxes in the past, and likely paid more than your share for other people.
The problem with Medicare is that you are forced to pay the taxes for it instead of it being voluntary like private insurance. And for many, you've paid all the taxes for it, and for other people if you're higher income, but may never use the services if you have private insurance for all of your life
The difference is, private insurers use revenue collected to INVEST. They invest in safe instruments like bonds as well as riskier things like medical and drug R&D programs. Their goal is to take the premiums and generate multiples of that in order to have the resources needed to pay for benefits when needed by the insured.
If the insurance companies have a good year, that excess is rolled over to make even more. They make big money for themselves by making big money for stockholders and beneficiaries.
My car insurance company gives back some of the excess they have each year if they had more revenue/return on investment than they had to pay out. I usually get a direct deposit into my checking account of around $400-$900 at the end of each year. It's basically a refund of being overcharged for premiums they didn't need to use.
I doubt any health insurance company will adopt that model, but it goes to show how the premiums they take in are not the only thing they depend on to pay claims and to operate the business.
Anyone think the gov't will be using anything other than HIGHER TAXES along with HIGHER PREMIUMS, CO-PAYS & DEDUCTIBLES to offset a shortfall in premiums?
Medicare is a perfect example. People paying into the system TODAY are subsidizing care for beneficiaries TODAY. There is no guarantee it'll be there for you later if too many are taking & not enough are paying. It's one way politicians can see shoring up the system -- force us all into it.
-
The difference is, private insurers use revenue collected to INVEST. They invest in safe instruments like bonds as well as riskier things like medical and drug R&D programs. Their goal is to take the premiums and generate multiples of that in order to have the resources needed to pay for benefits when needed by the insured.
If the insurance companies have a good year, that excess is rolled over to make even more. They make big money for themselves by making big money for stockholders and beneficiaries.
My car insurance company gives back some of the excess they have each year if they had more revenue/return on investment than they had to pay out. I usually get a direct deposit into my checking account of around $400-$900 at the end of each year. It's basically a refund of being overcharged for premiums they didn't need to use.
I doubt any health insurance company will adopt that model, but it goes to show how the premiums they take in are not the only thing they depend on to pay claims and to operate the business.
Anyone think the gov't will be using anything other than HIGHER TAXES along with HIGHER PREMIUMS, CO-PAYS & DEDUCTIBLES to offset a shortfall in premiums?
Medicare is a perfect example. People paying into the system TODAY are subsidizing care for beneficiaries TODAY. There is no guarantee it'll be there for you later if too many are taking & not enough are paying. It's one way politicians can see shoring up the system -- force us all into it.
"My car insurance company gives back some of the excess they have each year if they had more revenue/return on investment than they had to pay out. I usually get a direct deposit into my checking account of around $400-$900 at the end of each year. It's basically a refund of being overcharged for premiums they didn't need to use."
I'd sure like the name of your car insurance company!
ThankX!
-
USAA does this, although I’ve never gotten near that much back.
-
USAA does this, although I’ve never gotten near that much back.
USAA is who I was talking about.
I had 5 @ 4-wheel vehicles and a motorcycle insured with them at one point, with more than the bare minimum coverage plus a $500 deductible.
Also, I've been with USAA since 1984. :thumbsup:
I'm down to one vehicle now. Last year's distribution was $289.86 (Dec 6, 2018).
My expectation of what's "usual" needs adjusting now that I'm not paying for 4 drivers.
-
Switzerland bars anyone who has lived off of welfare in the last 3 years to pay it back before they can be approved for citizenship.
Brilliant!
https://youtu.be/ahhx7Sjg_IM
-
Tell'um your a homeless illegal alien and you get it all for free ! >:D
-
Switzerland bars anyone who has lived off of welfare in the last 3 years to pay it back before they can be approved for citizenship.
Brilliant!
https://youtu.be/ahhx7Sjg_IM
Austria has fallen to illegals. Switz are smarter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Tell'um your a homeless illegal alien and you get it all for free paid for by hard working, tax-paying citizens and legal residents! >:D
More accurately ....
-
Some points about some reasons why insurance and healthcare costs so much.
https://youtu.be/3WnS96NVlMIp
-
Any step towards fixing the health care crisis is going to have to include both expanding coverage for more people as well as reducing the actual cost of health care, not just the cost of health insurance.
Personally health care has become one of the areas that I started to lean left on after considering many of the factors. I think we should have a form of subsidized health care for all but the cost of the health care absolutely has to be addressed. Procedures at one hospital can cost $2,000 and at another cost $10,000. Drugs such as insulin in Canada cost $10 a month at or so but people here without insurance pay hundreds despite no real reason to justify the expensive price tag. The free market is great but the profit incentive is also doing crazy things to our health care costs. I don't think the profit incentive is completely to blame but I wonder how much it increase the price tag and how to balance the fact that a profit incentive also spurs advancements.
Medicare part A you don't have to pay for though. So the price quoted is for part B or C I am assuming?
-
Ben Shapiro philosophy says you can only get 2 out of 3:
1. Availability
2. Affordability
3. Quality
Right now we have the best quality medical care in the world, for those that have insurance or can afford it. People in other countries come to the US for treatment. If you have cancer, you want to be in the US. We have pretty good availability with private coverage and Medicare/Medicaid. We don't have affordability.
Medicare for all has availability and affordability (for the poor), but quality will go down due to more people getting treatments and low reimbursement rates. We have a doctor shortage now, and this would make it even worse with doctors getting paid less. Also reduces r&d for drug and medical equipment businesses to create better treatments
I was talking with a doctor recently about some of this and it seems that insurance is partly to blame for lower doctor pay. He used to have his own practice but the increased requirements from insurance companies kept getting so great that he ended up closing and working for someone else's practice and cramming in so many patients per day. Insurance companies want to make a profit and they will do it from patients, from providers, or from both.
The insurance companies bring their own set of problems just as do medical product companies (including drug companies) and socialized medicine. There really are so many double edged swords here being swung around.
-
I was talking with a doctor recently about some of this and it seems that insurance is partly to blame for lower doctor pay. He used to have his own practice but the increased requirements from insurance companies kept getting so great that he ended up closing and working for someone else's practice and cramming in so many patients per day. Insurance companies want to make a profit and they will do it from patients, from providers, or from both.
The insurance companies bring their own set of problems just as do medical product companies (including drug companies) and socialized medicine. There really are so many double edged swords here being swung around.
As opposed to gov;t run healthcare which must use taxes, premiums and national debt to pay for buildings, services, supplies, companies, etc.
No one is going to provide state-of-the-art health care unless they make money. Whether the gov't pays or the insurers and uninsured, someone pays.
Maybe if the politicians who take big donations from big pharma and the insurance sector stopped, we'd see a drop in prices. Until then, don't expect anything to change. When US citizens can't buy cheaper drugs from Canada because DEMOCRATS who campaign on improved healthcare voted it down, you can't expect the costs to get any better.
But, at least ONE person in DC is trying .... Now, if Congress could do something other than "WE HAVE TO IMPEACH TRUMP AT ANY COST!"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-announces-plan-lower-drug-prices/story?id=64679533
Trump administration announces plan to lower drug prices
Jul 31, 2019, 2:21 PM ET
On the heels of Tuesday night’s Democratic debate where presidential hopefuls pitched plans to lower health care costs,
the Trump administration moved to fulfill one of the president’s own pledges: lowering pharmaceutical drug costs.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday unveiled a new plan that could lower prescription
drug costs. The plan includes a proposal to import FDA-approved drugs from other countries like Canada.
“For the first time in HHS’s history, we are open to importation: We want to see proposals from states, distributors, and
pharmacies that can help accomplish our shared goal of safe prescription drugs at lower prices,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar
said Wednesday on a call with reporters.
According to HHS, the dual-pronged plan would establish a rule that would allow various entities, like states and pharmacists,
to create proposals for the FDA. The FDA would then look at how “they would import certain drugs from Canada that are
versions of FDA-approved drugs that are manufactured consistent with the FDA approval,” according to HHS.
The second part of the plan would have the FDA create recommendations for drug manufacturers that sell FDA-approved
drugs in foreign countries but want to import those drugs to the U.S.
“To use this pathway, the manufacturer or entity authorized by the manufacturer would establish with the FDA that the foreign
version is the same as the U.S. version and appropriately label the drug for sale in the U.S.,” HHS said.
HHS noted in its announcement that this part of the proposal could also potentially lower the price of medications for insulin
and cancer, among others.
Azar also called on Congress to continue working on ways to lower drug costs.
-
As opposed to gov;t run healthcare which must use taxes, premiums and national debt to pay for buildings, services, supplies, companies, etc.
No one is going to provide state-of-the-art health care unless they make money. Whether the gov't pays or the insurers and uninsured, someone pays.
Maybe if the politicians who take big donations from big pharma and the insurance sector stopped, we'd see a drop in prices. Until then, don't expect anything to change. When US citizens can't buy cheaper drugs from Canada because DEMOCRATS who campaign on improved healthcare voted it down, you can't expect the costs to get any better.
But, at least ONE person in DC is trying .... Now, if Congress could do something other than "WE HAVE TO IMPEACH TRUMP AT ANY COST!"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-announces-plan-lower-drug-prices/story?id=64679533
Trump administration announces plan to lower drug prices
I am glad Trump is working to lower drug prices. He is going to face some stiff resistance from the pharmaceutical companies, hope hit actually makes it through.
Government health insurance eliminates some or most of the problems with the profit aspect but it does bring a different set of problems to the table. I think the best solution is to find a combination of government subsidization and free market ingenuity. Having purely one or the other results in terrible outcomes.
What do you think about the VA? Do you think it should be fully or partially privatized? I see a number of inefficiencies in the system but I think it can serve as a lesson on what can be done right and done wrong by government run healthcare.
-
I am glad Trump is working to lower drug prices. He is going to face some stiff resistance from the pharmaceutical companies, hope hit actually makes it through.
Government health insurance eliminates some or most of the problems with the profit aspect but it does bring a different set of problems to the table. I think the best solution is to find a combination of government subsidization and free market ingenuity. Having purely one or the other results in terrible outcomes.
What do you think about the VA? Do you think it should be fully or partially privatized? I see a number of inefficiencies in the system but I think it can serve as a lesson on what can be done right and done wrong by government run healthcare.
The VA, like all massive gov't run institutions, is fraught with fraud, waste, abuse, incompetence and corruption. It was improved to some degree when Trump signed an order allowing patients on wait lists to use outside, non-gov't providers. It greatly reduced the backlog of people trying to be seen.
Obama ran on fixing the VA in 2008. in 2012, the VA was letting people die while on 12 month waitlists while managers collected performance bonuses based on falsified reports of patient care.
The government is just too big. Nobody knows what anyone is doing -- good, bad or otherwise -- unless it winds up on the news. Then the media tries to cover it up if "their guy" is in the WH, or they blow it out of proportion and blame the guy who DID NOT CAUSE THE PROBLEM for its existence.
Obama's efforts did very little to improve problems at the VA. It took Trump, a problem solver, to actually make a dent in it.
-
There are many vets who commit suicide in VA parking lots because lack of treatment.
Before I understood the topic of the government providing everything, I thought that Michael Moores movie Sicko had a good point from a British PM. He said after WWII, if they could fund a war, why can't they provide heath care to all? Sounds good in theory. But fast forward to today. Their health care system sucks. Long wait times and people missing out on treatments due to lack of staffing.
But now I understand.
-
The harsh reality is that medical care will never be "free". The medical professionals and industry are expensive because of the extensive training and technology.
Would you work for free after spending years and thousands of $$$ in education?
Like food and shelter, medical care is a responsibility of the individual - not the government.
-
The harsh reality is that medical care will never be "free". The medical professionals and industry are expensive because of the extensive training and technology.
Would you work for free after spending years and thousands of $$$ in education?
Like food and shelter, medical care is a responsibility of the individual - not the government.
That is very true.
When I comment about the healthcare industry, it's mostly about the drug companies and the healthcare executives. Not the nurses, doctors, etc primarily doing the work. I mean, I'm all about people getting their due for their extensive training, but there are many who are flat out raping others.
-
The harsh reality is that medical care will never be "free". The medical professionals and industry are expensive because of the extensive training and technology.
Would you work for free after spending years and thousands of $$$ in education?
Like food and shelter, medical care is a responsibility of the individual - not the government.
Try watching Sicko. There is a young doctor in Brittan or some where around there. He states that he and his wife have only 1 home and 2 cars. 1 is an Audi. He said this luxury of goods is common with many doctors in Brittan. Compared to the US where doctors have multiple homes and cars (Porsche, BMW, BNZ, etc...). This is 1 reason why the country can partially afford to pay the doctors what they do.
-
Try watching Sicko. There is a young doctor in Brittan or some where around there. He states that he and his wife have only 1 home and 2 cars. 1 is an Audi. He said this luxury of goods is common with many doctors in Brittan. Compared to the US where doctors have multiple homes and cars (Porsche, BMW, BNZ, etc...). This is 1 reason why the country can partially afford to pay the doctors what they do.
There's nothing wrong with that. They chose a profession where there is a high and constant demand for it.
We are in a capitalist society no matter what you'd want to believe. There is a level of economical Darwinism built into it.
-
Try watching Sicko. There is a young doctor in Brittan or some where around there. He states that he and his wife have only 1 home and 2 cars. 1 is an Audi. He said this luxury of goods is common with many doctors in Brittan. Compared to the US where doctors have multiple homes and cars (Porsche, BMW, BNZ, etc...). This is 1 reason why the country can partially afford to pay the doctors what they do.
So, Doctors and other medical/healthcare workers should work under a "salary cap" for the good of the rest of the population, whereas every other non-gov't worker can ask for whatever compensation their particular education, experience, talent or specialization is supported by the market?
That's basically what your (Socialist) example requires. The state/feds will dictate what is "enough" for the people they pay vs. being paid by patients and insurance outside of a gov't run system.
Doctors with a good reputation and/or specialized skillset can demand higher pay. Most of the doctors people point to as "overpaid" are surgeons, anesthesiologists, or other specialized or skilled doctors who can do things not every HMO primary care doctor can do. If they could, don't you think they would be? Many doctors make more modest incomes, spend many hours seeing lots of patients a day, spend many after-office hours doing paperwork or reading up on current advancements in medicine, etc.
I think we have a tendency to look at the top tier of a profession to make a point, but ignore the majority who are already making what you'd consider "reasonable incomes".
We all know doctors have to get a 4-yr undergrad degree, another 4 yrs in graduate medical school, and 2-5 years in residency. That's a minimum of 10 years, and as many as 13 years or more, of their lives spent preparing for their career. Unless they have someone else pay for their education and living expenses, they are having to hold down a job outside of school and take on huge student loan debt. If they are lucky, that debt will be paid off in another 10 years once they begin their actual practices.
Each year, over 20,000 U.S. students begin medical school. They routinely pay $50,000 or more per year for the privilege,
and the average medical student graduates with a debt of over $170,000. That’s a lot of money. But for some who pursue
careers in medicine, the financial cost has been considerably greater. Melissa Chen, 35, a final-year radiology resident at
the University of Texas San Antonio, calculates that her choice of a medical career has cost her over $2.6 million in lost wages,
benefits, and added educational costs. And yet in her mind, the sacrifice has definitely been worth it.
“So I enrolled in a post-baccalaureate program to complete my premedical requirements and then started medical school
back in my hometown of San Antonio. It has taken two years of additional premedical studies, four years of medical school,
and five years of residency, for a total of 11 years.”
https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/11/2-6-million-cost-becoming-doctor-worth.html
Take away the opportunity to recoup that cost, pay off their education debts and afford a career in medicine while possibly starting a family, and the prospect will start to lose its attractiveness.
If the response is to let the gov't (tax payers) subsidize that educational and residency process, that opens up another bunch of problems, like people without the aptitude choosing this career path because they can't or don't want to pay for their own education. We still have to maintain the quality of the services provided.
You get what you pay for.
-
A lot of people are willing to accept lower quality of care in exchange for cheaper prices and making it available to all....
....until they are stricken with a life threatening illness. I would not want to be in any other country if I had cancer.
-
A lot of people are willing to accept lower quality of care in exchange for cheaper prices and making it available to all....
....until they are stricken with a life threatening illness. I would not want to be in any other country if I had cancer.
Or ....
They go to the doctor for what they think is a minor complaint, and the treatment or misdiagnosis results in a worsened, even fatal, outcome.
Not saying malpractice and negligence are nonexistent now. Just saying that as bad as it is now, it'll only get much worse under gov't-run healthcare.
See my reply re: the VA for reference.
-
Another way to think about it is you need open heart surgery needed to save your life and had 3 choices.
Hospital A:. Best doctors in the nation and newest treatments but will put you in bankruptcy.
Hospital B:. Good doctors and cheaper, but you'll be paying off the doctor bills for a long time.
Hospital C:. Interns and Doctors at the bottom of the list and old techniques.
Nothing wrong with these as long as you can choose. The problem with Medicare for all is when you restrict prices it eliminates rewarding good doctors and researching new treatments, so all your left with is option C
-
Another way to think about it is you need open heart surgery needed to save your life and had 3 choices.
Hospital A:. Best doctors in the nation and newest treatments but will put you in bankruptcy.
Hospital B:. Good doctors and cheaper, but you'll be paying off the doctor bills for a long time.
Hospital C:. Interns and Doctors at the bottom of the list and old techniques.
Nothing wrong with these as long as you can choose. The problem with Medicare for all is when you restrict prices it eliminates rewarding good doctors and researching new treatments, so all your left with is option C
Exactly. Look at what happened in the UK. Parents were FORBIDDEN to seek medical care for their son outside of the UK Socialized medical system, even though there were people offering to pick up the cost.
An eight month old boy being denied “potentially life-saving” treatment at Great Ormond Street would be given it at
any hospital in America, a court has heard.
The parents of terminally ill Charlie Gard broke down in tears as they listened to medical evidence relating to his
rare genetic condition and what his doctors say is a “vanishingly small” chance of his survival.
But an American doctor who has agreed to attempt a pioneering treatment for his mitochondrial disorder, said that
it was “reasonable” to attempt to save his life and if he were in a hospital in the USA his parents would have the option.
Great Ormond Street, where Charlie is currently being treated, have applied to the High Court in for permission to
withdraw life support and argue that he should not be taken abroad for treatment as it will prolong his suffering.
His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, who clutched his son’s toy monkey throughout the hearing, disagree and
have raised £1.2 million in less than a month to pay for treatment.
Death panels.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/
-
Another way to think about it is you need open heart surgery needed to save your life and had 3 choices.
Hospital A:. Best doctors in the nation and newest treatments but will put you in bankruptcy.
Hospital B:. Good doctors and cheaper, but you'll be paying off the doctor bills for a long time.
Hospital C:. Interns and Doctors at the bottom of the list and old techniques.
Nothing wrong with these as long as you can choose. The problem with Medicare for all is when you restrict prices it eliminates rewarding good doctors and researching new treatments, so all your left with is option C
Or Option D: Sell all possessions, and spend on hookers and cocaine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btAbU1sPqIM
-
So, Doctors and other medical/healthcare workers should work under a "salary cap" for the good of the rest of the population, whereas every other non-gov't worker can ask for whatever compensation their particular education, experience, talent or specialization is supported by the market?
That's basically what your (Socialist) example requires. The state/feds will dictate what is "enough" for the people they pay vs. being paid by patients and insurance outside of a gov't run system.
Doctors with a good reputation and/or specialized skillset can demand higher pay. Most of the doctors people point to as "overpaid" are surgeons, anesthesiologists, or other specialized or skilled doctors who can do things not every HMO primary care doctor can do. If they could, don't you think they would be? Many doctors make more modest incomes, spend many hours seeing lots of patients a day, spend many after-office hours doing paperwork or reading up on current advancements in medicine, etc.
I think we have a tendency to look at the top tier of a profession to make a point, but ignore the majority who are already making what you'd consider "reasonable incomes".
We all know doctors have to get a 4-yr undergrad degree, another 4 yrs in graduate medical school, and 2-5 years in residency. That's a minimum of 10 years, and as many as 13 years or more, of their lives spent preparing for their career. Unless they have someone else pay for their education and living expenses, they are having to hold down a job outside of school and take on huge student loan debt. If they are lucky, that debt will be paid off in another 10 years once they begin their actual practices.
https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/11/2-6-million-cost-becoming-doctor-worth.html
Take away the opportunity to recoup that cost, pay off their education debts and afford a career in medicine while possibly starting a family, and the prospect will start to lose its attractiveness.
If the response is to let the gov't (tax payers) subsidize that educational and residency process, that opens up another bunch of problems, like people without the aptitude choosing this career path because they can't or don't want to pay for their own education. We still have to maintain the quality of the services provided.
You get what you pay for.
I had a real doctor friend who still lived at home and drove a beat up car. He was making almost $100K a year. I asked him how come he doesn't move out or have a newer car. He said cause he's paying off his student loans. Then I saw him a few months later and he was driving a BMW. So I asked if he paid off his loan. He said no. But he talked to his other doctor friends and they all have nice stuff. They made him realize that if he died today, he would have not had to enjoy the nicer things in life. So pay the min on the student loan and move out and buy what he wants. Enjoy his hard earned career, which is what he did.
-
I had a real doctor friend who still lived at home and drove a beat up car. He was making almost $100K a year. I asked him how come he doesn't move out or have a newer car. He said cause he's paying off his student loans. Then I saw him a few months later and he was driving a BMW. So I asked if he paid off his loan. He said no. But he talked to his other doctor friends and they all have nice stuff. They made him realize that if he died today, he would have not had to enjoy the nicer things in life. So pay the min on the student loan and move out and buy what he wants. Enjoy his hard earned career, which is what he did.
That scenario isn't unique to medical doctors, especially in high cost of living areas like Hawaii.
I know a guy who had his doctorate degree in mathematics. His undergrad degree was from Harvard. He worked for my company, a worldwide technology contractor.
He also lived at home with his mother and father and had huge student loan debt. I believe he drove a car he'd recently bought new, but nothing high-priced.
Lifestyle often dictates whether you can live within your means. Nothing says you can't "enjoy" your life while digging out from under massive debt.
When you try to keep up with the Jones, you better first make sure the Jones aren't living on credit cards and only 2 paychecks away from bankruptcy. :geekdanc:
-
I had a real doctor friend who still lived at home and drove a beat up car. He was making almost $100K a year. I asked him how come he doesn't move out or have a newer car. He said cause he's paying off his student loans. Then I saw him a few months later and he was driving a BMW. So I asked if he paid off his loan. He said no. But he talked to his other doctor friends and they all have nice stuff. They made him realize that if he died today, he would have not had to enjoy the nicer things in life. So pay the min on the student loan and move out and buy what he wants. Enjoy his hard earned career, which is what he did.
it happens to not real doctors too...
-
My brother was an OB/GYN for most of his career. He worked hard and put himself through USC and UC Davis as well as his internship where ever it was. He supported his family up to 7 kids at one point. He was the sole breadwinner. He never drove nice cars. Always bought used and drove them until they died. He even fixed them himself. However, he did buy nice homes due to his large family. He always bought high and sold low. Or in one case he over built for the neighborhood and never got his money back out of the house. He had his own practice and had 2 other doctors in his practice. Most of his time was spent in SoCal. When the Dems took over SoCal and the taxes and mostly the cost of insurance became unbearable he moved his family to Utah where he finished his time as a doctor. He had his own practice until the HMO insurance became the norm of the insurance industry. He couldn’t afford to pay his staff and accept mostly HMO patients unless he only spent a few minutes with each and ran as many as he could through his office. So basically the insurance business model of the HMO put him out of business. He didn’t get enough business without accepting HMO patients and he didn’t make enough money per HMO patient to keep his practice above water. I am sure there were other factors he didn’t tell me about.
He basically sold his practice and only the money he got and his very modest home for all his years of being a successful doctor. We worked in the IT field for about 5 years before his heart failed him. He has managed to live another 10 years with a heart that only works at about 40% on good days. He managed to pay off his house before his health problems. He has been retired living comfortably. He bought himself a 10 year old Infiniti. That is the most expensive car he has ever owned. My brother was never very good with his money when he was making a great living. I think he peaked around $250k a year back in the 80’s, maybe 90’s. If he had a few less children and was better with his money I am sure he would be much better off. His wife still works at 72 because she loves what she does. And my brother has been on her insurance all this time. But if she had retired and my brother had been on Medicare he would have had to declare bankruptcy and probably living with one of his kids.
After watching a small part of the debates tonight it sounds like Warren and Bernie are backing off a bit on the Medicare for all because I think people are realizing it is not what it sounds like in reality.
-
We are in a capitalist society no matter what you'd want to believe. There is a level of economical Darwinism built into it.
NO, we don't live in a capitalist society.
We live in a Ultra-Wealthy/Corporatocracy controlled SOCIALIST society, where if the ultra-wealthy/corporations make money they find tax loopholes to avoid taxes, and when they fail, they will receive a government bailout from looting the masses.
As for the middle class, well, they are slowly dying away since they are the ones who have to pick up the slack from the Ultra-Wealthy/Corporatocracy who don't pay their fair share of taxes.
-
NO, we don't live in a capitalist society.
We live in a Ultra-Wealthy/Corporatocracy controlled SOCIALIST society, where if the ultra-wealthy/corporations make money they find tax loopholes to avoid taxes, and when they fail, they will receive a government bailout from looting the masses.
As for the middle class, well, they are slowly dying away since they are the ones who have to pick up the slack from the Ultra-Wealthy/Corporatocracy who don't pay their fair share of taxes.
you should stop supporting and shopping at Walmart, Amazon, McDs...avoid all the malls...ditch your corporate made car..
that's why you distressed...
-
So, Doctors and other medical/healthcare workers should work under a "salary cap" for the good of the rest of the population, whereas every other non-gov't worker can ask for whatever compensation their particular education, experience, talent or specialization is supported by the market?
That's basically what your (Socialist) example requires.
Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.
Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.
-
A lot of people are willing to accept lower quality of care in exchange for cheaper prices and making it available to all....
....until they are stricken with a life threatening illness. I would not want to be in any other country if I had cancer.
This is slightly off topic but I have heard it discussed that there are cultural aspects that come into play here as well. Whereas Americans seem to fight and suffer to the bitter end holding out for the smallest chance at a cure, some other cultures more accept a terminal diagnosis and choose a more peaceful end instead of fighting. Just a philosophy really, not right or wrong per se.
I looked it up and America is at the top when it comes to curing cancer. It is true that being broke is better than being dead. I guess the counter argument is what if affordable health care in the beginning might have caught the cancer before it became something that turned into a huge bill? Some people forego health care due to cost until the condition has progressed so far as to be impossible to ignore any further.
-
Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.
Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.
What you're describing is a price ceiling but "voluntary" ???.
It's part of getting hired for the position, the salary negotiation part. Would you give back a portion of your pay for the "greater good" ? The doctors and surgeons have extensive education, training and liability. They exist in a market like everyone else. There are stringent academic and institutional requirements for being a doctor in America. Good doctors get compensated well - and for good reason. There is a demand for them. Would you choose budget Dr A who went to a community college and graduated from an online university or expensive Dr B who went to the best medical school in the USA and successfully treated a large number of patients?
-
Not necessarily. A voluntary salary cap would have a positive effect without the government control.
Since I am generally against the government trying to change society through laws I don't agree with forced salary caps but I think there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a bit of a greed problem in the USA. You can't legislate greed away but you can try to change society through other means. So in this case if you have doctors who are more socially conscious and decide to charge what is reasonable instead of whatever they think they can get away with then you could see a reduction in the price of healthcare.
LOL
-
LOL
Patch Adams
-
What you're describing is a price ceiling but "voluntary" ???.
It's part of getting hired for the position, the salary negotiation part. Would you give back a portion of your pay for the "greater good" ? The doctors and surgeons have extensive education, training and liability. They exist in a market like everyone else. There are stringent academic and institutional requirements for being a doctor in America. Good doctors get compensated well - and for good reason. There is a demand for them. Would you choose budget Dr A who went to a community college and graduated from an online university or expensive Dr B who went to the best medical school in the USA and successfully treated a large number of patients?
I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.
So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.
So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.
-
I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.
So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.
So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.
Another way to describe the apartment you rent out is you are letting someone move in and pay $1700, because charging $1800-$1900 somehow is the difference between being part of the "problem" and being "fair"?
LOL!!!
It must be nice living in your alternate reality, where $100/month is the difference between affordable housing and homelessness.
What if the person paying your mortgage via their rent checks is able to pay $2000? You're making a HUGE assumption without presenting any evidence that the renter can't afford more than you are charging.
Maybe a better solution would be charging the renters $2000, pay the minimum due on your mortgage, and give the remainder to charity --something that actually works to help people who need it?
BTW, you're probably paying taxes on the rental income after expenses. With depreciation, mortgage interest, repairs, other operating expenses and so on, you could be operating at a net loss which means you pay no taxes on that income. If you charged more in rent, that might mean you lose money since you can't deduct the loss from your personal income.
Why is it greedy to want to maximize your income from a real estate investment? Every person who takes the risk should be allowed to take the reward as well without being called derogatory names. Lots of rental property owners lost their investments -- equity, property, etc -- when the housing bubble burst. They could very easily take that money and invest elsewhere. But, because they want a return on their investment, even if it means some people can't afford the rent, you call them greedy.
You really have some major problems with your thought processes.
-
I still own my last apartment and I rent it out. I rent it so I just about break even and it pays for itself. Currently I rent it for $1700 but the property manager suggests I rent it for $1800 and I would still be at or below current market value. Probably could even ask for $1900 a month.
So I could ask for more but I am currently living comfortably enough and the condo is currently paying for itself so I don't charge more. I know that Hawaii already has a high cost of living problem and I can either be part of the problem or I can set aside my greed and rent it at a more reasonable rate to make it affordable for someone who probably makes a fair amount less.
So no, my point has nothing to do with the best doctors vs marginal doctors, it has only to do with how much they choose to charge relative to the situation. The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality.
That's a bold assumption .
That's still $1700 someone has to pay for a measly little apartment. Why not let someone stay there for free? You are living comfortably. You are in a better position than many with 2 residences. You don't need two - just give away your apartment? You're not living in it. Someone is in need of a place to live...someone less fortunate than you. Or how about someone who doesn't want to work but is homeless? They just want a place to live...that's all.
-
"The best doctor in the world could still decide to charge a reasonable affordable rate without sacrificing quality."
What is "reasonable"? What is "affordable?"
No matter what anyone charges, there will always be those who think the cost is too high or unreasonable.
Who sets that price? The doctor? Based on what? Should he lower his standard of living, that of his family, and take out student loans to send his kids to medical school since charging "reasonable affordable fees" doesn't give him the option of paying for it out of pocket?
Just because a doctor -- or anybody else -- makes a larger-than-average income doesn't mean they are "greedy", and that that income isn't being used to make lives better for others. Some use their income to sponsor themselves for Doctors Without Borders. Some use it for scholarships for low income students who want to go to college but can't afford it. Some DONATE THEIR TIME to working in clinics where they make $0.
So, if these doctors listened to you, they'd be living on what they make, have little to invest while paying off $150K in student loans, and can't afford to give their own kids the opportunities THEY WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES to be able to provide.
You really are sounding like a Socialist tonight. Been binge-watching the Democrat Debates and rallies?
The difference between you and Bernie is he has 3 houses and is worth over a million bucks while preaching fairness and wealth redistribution.
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from giving away their wealth for the greater good of society. Please, lead by example.
-
I knew a mouth surgeon who had 2 BMW's and at least 2 homes. He would take part in Operation Smile and go to 3rd world countries to help operate on people with IIRC, cleff lip or something. Would he have done the same if he only had 1 car and 1 home? IDK, I never asked. This was back in 2008 and I didn't know anything about this subject or cared.
-
Learned about the history of medical insurance at the libertarian party conference. Prior to WWII health insurance was uncommon. Instead the local lodges, like Elks Lodge, hired doctors and members could be treated by those doctors. This was affordable health coverage for many people. Then after WWII there was pay caps, so employers used health insurance to compete for workers. Doctors got paid more this way and discontinued services at the lodges.
-
That's a bold assumption .
That's still $1700 someone has to pay for a measly little apartment. Why not let someone stay there for free? You are living comfortably. You are in a better position than many with 2 residences. You don't need two - just give away your apartment? You're not living in it. Someone is in need of a place to live...someone less fortunate than you. Or how about someone who doesn't want to work but is homeless? They just want a place to live...that's all.
I don't make enough money that I could pay the mortgage on the apartment so as to let someone stay there for free so the premise of your question is wrong.
-
Another way to describe the apartment you rent out is you are letting someone move in and pay $1700, because charging $1800-$1900 somehow is the difference between being part of the "problem" and being "fair"?
LOL!!!
It must be nice living in your alternate reality, where $100/month is the difference between affordable housing and homelessness.
What if the person paying your mortgage via their rent checks is able to pay $2000? You're making a HUGE assumption without presenting any evidence that the renter can't afford more than you are charging.
Maybe a better solution would be charging the renters $2000, pay the minimum due on your mortgage, and give the remainder to charity --something that actually works to help people who need it?
BTW, you're probably paying taxes on the rental income after expenses. With depreciation, mortgage interest, repairs, other operating expenses and so on, you could be operating at a net loss which means you pay no taxes on that income. If you charged more in rent, that might mean you lose money since you can't deduct the loss from your personal income.
Why is it greedy to want to maximize your income from a real estate investment? Every person who takes the risk should be allowed to take the reward as well without being called derogatory names. Lots of rental property owners lost their investments -- equity, property, etc -- when the housing bubble burst. They could very easily take that money and invest elsewhere. But, because they want a return on their investment, even if it means some people can't afford the rent, you call them greedy.
You really have some major problems with your thought processes.
By golly... the point slipped through your fingers like water.
Somehow you are trying to turn my personal choice to charge less for my personal property into an argument for socialism, that's absurd. It isn't socialism if it is a personal choice genius. Am I not free to charge less if I want to? Are you that threatened that I decide to make my apartment a little more affordable instead of charging more so I can make my life a little more comfortable?
You tell me to lead by example and that is what I am doing yet you criticize me for it. What kind of hypocrite are you?
-
Learned about the history of medical insurance at the libertarian party conference. Prior to WWII health insurance was uncommon. Instead the local lodges, like Elks Lodge, hired doctors and members could be treated by those doctors. This was affordable health coverage for many people. Then after WWII there was pay caps, so employers used health insurance to compete for workers. Doctors got paid more this way and discontinued services at the lodges.
I think the advancements certainly account for a big portion of the increase in cost. Not only are there so many more treatments but we know so much more about medical problems that you have so many levels of specialists. A simple traveling clinic like you mention just wouldn't cut it these days.
-
Another new revelation in this Medicare journey I am taking with my wife. During the time I had her on private insurance our prescription copay was based on day of purchase. Meaning if we bought a 30 day prescription or a 90 day prescription the copay was always the same. So it is beneficial to always talk our doctor into prescribing a 90 day supply. But with Medicare, the copay is only based on a 30 day supply. So when her copay is $47 for 30 days and we buy 90 days worth we have to shell out $141 dollars at a time. And my wife has 5 of these ultra expensive prescriptions with the $47 copay. While I understand it is the same amount over the long haul, it is just another surprise that if I were a senior living on a small fixed income and barely making it every month this would be a hard pill to swallow. Especially the first time it happens and you are not expecting it.
Now I have a much better understanding of why some seniors are choosing to continue to work just to pay for private healthcare. For me it is not so much that Medicare and all its rules and requirements are completely ridiculous and unnecessary. And it is not so much that it is costing us more than private health insurance in states that don’t force Obamacare down our throats. It is that it is a very much a bloated bureaucracy controlling our lives due to the requirement we have to eventually sign up and pay for Medicare if we don’t maintain our own private insurance. BTW, since we live in (and I am moving to) a state that requires we purchase Obamacare as our only choice of private insurance, private insurance actually costs WAY MORE than states that allow insurance companies to compete. For us it is the Part D (Prescriptions) that is costing us so much. Medicare Parts A & B is actually considerably cheaper even if you purchase the most expensive supplement plan than any private insurance plan you can buy. So if you don’t have to take certain expensive prescriptions like my wife, you will actually have cheaper healthcare with Medicare (All Parts).
Medicare and all the bureaucracy that goes along with it is so hard to understand and deal with that I am sure some seniors are working and getting private insurance just so they don’t have to deal with all this crap. I feel sorry for all of you that will have to deal with this when you get to that point in your life.
-
I don't make enough money that I could pay the mortgage on the apartment so as to let someone stay there for free so the premise of your question is wrong.
Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk
-
Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxYOQS6ggk
Ren,
I saw your quote of the fish eye troll in your response and something caught my eye. I stopped following him so I no longer see his posts but if someone quotes him I can see some of what he posts. I stopped following him because of his lies and especially due to his lies by omission. So I went back and checked out other posts where he is quoted so I could piece together your conversation with him. Don’t let him lie to you by not telling you the entire story.
There are several reasons to rent property. The first reason is cash flow. If you are not bringing in more in monthly income than your monthly expenses you are an idiot. Having cash flow is one of the main reasons to rent out a property. If you don’t have positive cash flow to an extent then you will have a negative cash flow over the long haul due to your having to put money into it every time something breaks and every time you turn it over for your next tenant. If you are not getting positive monthly cash flow you are running your business at a negative cash flow. And that money has to come from somewhere else. That is just plain stupid. The second reason is appreciation of the property. The last 3 years median price appreciation for condos/apts is 8.3%, 3.8% and 3.7% with a median price increase from $390k to $420k. Based on median price data he has made approximately $30k in appreciation in the last 3 years (assuming he has owned the place for that long). The third reason is principle pay down. His tenant his paying down the principle on his loan. Meaning every month he owns a bigger chunk of the property that is being paid for by his tenant. And the fourth reason to own rental property is the tax advantages. Every penny you spend to maintain and upgrade and run the property as a business can be deducted against income. The IRS also allows you to depreciate the property over 27.5 years. And you can deduct as much as $25k a year against your income. So in other words, most if not all of his income is not being taxed due to the depreciation deduction. So while he is running his rental business at a negative cash flow, he is still making big bucks thru appreciation and principle pay down (which he only gets when he sells his property) and he is not paying much if anything in Federal and State taxes due to all the tax deductions. All I can say is he better be paying his 4.5% GET quarterly taxes because the County will charge fees and penalties if he is not doing it currently.
-
Exactly. You could let a Section 8 recipient live there. Nonetheless your kind but insignificant act most likely enabled another person to enjoy another pleasure or luxury in life at your cost of $100 a month - money that couldve gone into unit repairs or improvements. Maybe that person will get a manicure or enjoy more Starbucks coffee. To alleviate the "homeless problem" takes a bigger perspective than an egocentric perspective. It's a competitive environment here. So instead of growing and diversifying the economy we restrict it with more taxes and focus in on our seemingly sole economic driver - tourism. People want more opportunities not subjugation. Philanthropy is a choice not an obligation imposed by government.
Insignificant? To me maybe but to the renter? Maybe not so insignificant.
Note that I never claimed to be solving the problem of homelessness. I only doing a small part that I can do to make housing a little more affordable.
But the greater point I was making was not about house prices, it is about how we as a society value wealth and how much we keep.
Take the guy who became in charge of the company that sold epinephrine pens, he increased the cost 10 fold or something insane all to rake in huge profits. That is obviously one extreme but more common we hear about CEOs making 20 million a year in compensation. Are they worth that much? Sure, the argument could be made that their leadership earned them that salary, and a private business certainly has the right to pay the CEO that much if they want. But imagine just a societal shift if people valued wealth a little different. Imagine that same CEO deciding to cut his pay in half and increase the wages of his employees. Please clearly note that I am not suggesting laws to force this, I am only talking about individual choices that someone could make to raise others up.
Doctors are just one small piece of this puzzle. I am sure many of them volunteer or work at relatively low salaries to keep costs down for patients so don't think that I am maligning all doctors here. Just saying that there is an element of greed that does increase the cost of health care in this country. Sometimes by the doctor, sometimes by the health insurance company, sometimes by the pharmaceutical company.
-
Insignificant? To me maybe but to the renter? Maybe not so insignificant.
Note that I never claimed to be solving the problem of homelessness. I only doing a small part that I can do to make housing a little more affordable.
But the greater point I was making was not about house prices, it is about how we as a society value wealth and how much we keep.
Take the guy who became in charge of the company that sold epinephrine pens, he increased the cost 10 fold or something insane all to rake in huge profits. That is obviously one extreme but more common we hear about CEOs making 20 million a year in compensation. Are they worth that much? Sure, the argument could be made that their leadership earned them that salary, and a private business certainly has the right to pay the CEO that much if they want. But imagine just a societal shift if people valued wealth a little different. Imagine that same CEO deciding to cut his pay in half and increase the wages of his employees. Please clearly note that I am not suggesting laws to force this, I am only talking about individual choices that someone could make to raise others up.
Doctors are just one small piece of this puzzle. I am sure many of them volunteer or work at relatively low salaries to keep costs down for patients so don't think that I am maligning all doctors here. Just saying that there is an element of greed that does increase the cost of health care in this country. Sometimes by the doctor, sometimes by the health insurance company, sometimes by the pharmaceutical company.
Businesses exist to make profit. Basic economics.
https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html (https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html)
And to your next statement that doctors work at less than they are worth - Can you name a few? I'd like to dump my healthcare plan so I can get medical care for free. Please share.
-
Businesses exist to make profit. Basic economics.
https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html (https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html)
I notice EEF wants doctors, and I assume all other healthcare professionals, to be altruistic by donating their wealth-earning time, skills and sacrifices to the people who need their services.
I also notice sports professionals, Hollywood actors, big name singers, and financial fund managers should keep every dime they earn at whatever level the market will bear. Why is that?
I guess it's okay to steal the fruits of one's labor in the form of taxes. So, it must also be okay for gov't to steal the labor as well, since it's for the good of others.
What if a Hollywood superstar making, say, $20M per picture, or a TV star making $1M per episode for a sitcom, needs to see a doctor? Why not charge the wealthy patients 1,000 times more for the same services everyone else needs? That way the doctors and nurses get what they are worth, those who can't afford the best doctors get a deep discount, and the people performing no intrinsically valuable service but receives massive wealth because "the market decided" gets to subsidize everyone else?
First it's the doctors and nurses, then it'll be dentists, plumbers, mechanics, and so on. Anyone who performs a critical and expensive service must involuntarily work when, where and for how much the gov't decides, because they know how to control greed. :rofl:
-
What happens when government requires people to do things which require high skills, education, and knowledge for next to no pay or benefits, all for the "good" of the people?
Chernobyl
-
First it's the doctors and nurses, then it'll be dentists, plumbers, mechanics, and so on.
:'(
dentists are doctors...
:-\
-
:'(
dentists are Tier 2 doctors...
:-\
FIFY
-
FIFY
heads
-
I notice EEF wants doctors, and I assume all other healthcare professionals, to be altruistic by donating their wealth-earning time, skills and sacrifices to the people who need their services.
I also notice sports professionals, Hollywood actors, big name singers, and financial fund managers should keep every dime they earn at whatever level the market will bear. Why is that?
I guess it's okay to steal the fruits of one's labor in the form of taxes. So, it must also be okay for gov't to steal the labor as well, since it's for the good of others.
What if a Hollywood superstar making, say, $20M per picture, or a TV star making $1M per episode for a sitcom, needs to see a doctor? Why not charge the wealthy patients 1,000 times more for the same services everyone else needs? That way the doctors and nurses get what they are worth, those who can't afford the best doctors get a deep discount, and the people performing no intrinsically valuable service but receives massive wealth because "the market decided" gets to subsidize everyone else?
First it's the doctors and nurses, then it'll be dentists, plumbers, mechanics, and so on. Anyone who performs a critical and expensive service must involuntarily work when, where and for how much the gov't decides, because they know how to control greed. :rofl:
That's a great point and I always think about how privileged actors and actresses are for the services they provide - which we CAN live without. They get paid a lot of money for entertainment but no one is attacking them for it. Our society and culture seems to place them on some platform and reward them for their hubris and hedonistic lifestyles. They have the audacity to tell us to give our rights and values coming from a platform of blatant drug use, atheism, excess and promiscuity. Then we are told that drug use is a "disease". C'mon. Reality please kick them in the face.
Anyways, my rant.
-
:'(
dentists are doctors...
:-\
Keep dreaming ... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Businesses exist to make profit. Basic economics.
https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html (https://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48648.html)
Never said we shouldn't have a profit margin.
-
I notice EEF wants doctors, and I assume all other healthcare professionals, to be altruistic by donating their wealth-earning time, skills and sacrifices to the people who need their services.
Strawman.
-
Strawman.
it always amuses me how you inject yourself into so many topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with your little stories.
WTF does you pretending giving someone who might not even NEED to pay less a break have to do with Medicare for All?
:stopjack:
-
heads
(https://www.healthdiseases.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hyperdontia.jpg)
-
That's a great point and I always think about how privileged actors and actresses are for the services they provide - which we CAN live without. They get paid a lot of money for entertainment but no one is attacking them for it. Our society and culture seems to place them on some platform and reward them for their hubris and hedonistic lifestyles. They have the audacity to tell us to give our rights and values coming from a platform of blatant drug use, atheism, excess and promiscuity. Then we are told that drug use is a "disease". C'mon. Reality please kick them in the face.
Anyways, my rant.
It was bad when Jimmy Kimmel used his show to promote barry care. He was crying because his son got the surgery he needed thanks to barry care. Like he doesnt have the cash to pay for the surgery. And retards who sided with him didnt think about that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
It was bad when Jimmy Kimmel used his show to promote barry care. He was crying because his son got the surgery he needed thanks to barry care. Like he doesnt have the cash to pay for the surgery. And retards who sided with him didnt think about that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
He's only worth $35 million ::)
https://networthbro.com/jimmy-kimmel-net-worth/ (https://networthbro.com/jimmy-kimmel-net-worth/)
and a look at his paltry home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAgSHTXfaEQ
-
It was bad when Jimmy Kimmel used his show to promote barry care. He was crying because his son got the surgery he needed thanks to barry care. Like he doesnt have the cash to pay for the surgery. And retards who sided with him didnt think about that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
My wild eyed progressive cousin’s wife unfortunately went through a bout with breast cancer. Fortunately, she beat it and is doing very well. After her diagnosis of beating cancer he went on Twitter and thanked Obamacare for saving his wife. He is a developer for a huge nationally known and recognizable website and she is a teacher for Los Angeles School District. They both have excellent PRIVATE insurance. So I publicly tweeted on his tweet the question how Obamacare had anything to do with his wife beating cancer particularly since they both have some of the best PRIVATE insurance in the country. He deleted my tweet. Several times. So for a week I waited until after 10pm in CA and then posted my question again so it sat overnight before he deleted it. Some people started asking him the same question. :shake: :shake: :shake: He finally deleted his own tweet. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
My wild eyed progressive cousin’s wife unfortunately went through a bout with breast cancer. Fortunately, she beat it and is doing very well. After her diagnosis of beating cancer he went on Twitter and thanked Obamacare for saving his wife. He is a developer for a huge nationally known and recognizable website and she is a teacher for Los Angeles School District. They both have excellent PRIVATE insurance. So I publicly tweeted on his tweet the question how Obamacare had anything to do with his wife beating cancer particularly since they both have some of the best PRIVATE insurance in the country. He deleted my tweet. Several times. So for a week I waited until after 10pm in CA and then posted my question again so it sat overnight before he deleted it. Some people started asking him the same question. :shake: :shake: :shake: He finally deleted his own tweet. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You must be WAYCIST! You hated the 1/2-Black-1/2-White President because you hate anyone the White Nationalist Brotherhood tells you to!!
There .... your logic and reasoning no longer exist. O0
-
You must be WAYCIST! You hated the 1/2-Black-1/2-White President because you hate anyone the White Nationalist Brotherhood tells you to!!
There .... your logic and reasoning no longer exist. O0
You’re right, I’m not smart enough to think for myself.
-
My wild eyed progressive cousin’s wife unfortunately went through a bout with breast cancer. Fortunately, she beat it and is doing very well. After her diagnosis of beating cancer he went on Twitter and thanked Obamacare for saving his wife. He is a developer for a huge nationally known and recognizable website and she is a teacher for Los Angeles School District. They both have excellent PRIVATE insurance. So I publicly tweeted on his tweet the question how Obamacare had anything to do with his wife beating cancer particularly since they both have some of the best PRIVATE insurance in the country. He deleted my tweet. Several times. So for a week I waited until after 10pm in CA and then posted my question again so it sat overnight before he deleted it. Some people started asking him the same question. :shake: :shake: :shake: He finally deleted his own tweet. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Someones not invited to holiday dinners T their place.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
it always amuses me how you inject yourself into so many topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with your little stories.
WTF does you pretending giving someone who might not even NEED to pay less a break have to do with Medicare for All?
The stories are there to illustrate points which you then try to misrepresent. I was talking about the cost of healthcare and on (of many) factors that contributes to the cost.
What I can't understand is why you push back so hard at the suggestion that people consider charity over profits as a personal life decision. You going to complain I tithe too much next?
-
USAA is who I was talking about.
I had 5 @ 4-wheel vehicles and a motorcycle insured with them at one point, with more than the bare minimum coverage plus a $500 deductible.
Also, I've been with USAA since 1984. :thumbsup:
I'm down to one vehicle now. Last year's distribution was $289.86 (Dec 6, 2018).
My expectation of what's "usual" needs adjusting now that I'm not paying for 4 drivers.
Follow-up. I just got my deposit from USAA: $657.51. :thumbsup:
I also didn't go into detail on how that whole thing works.
They set up a "Subscriber's Savings Account" with each policy holder. At the end of each year, they determine what they can refund to the customers.
Once your account exceeds a certain level, they THEN start sending a check/direct depositing the "additional overage" amount.
So, it might take a year or three for your account balance to exceed the point where you actually get a refund. All depends on how well they did in a given year, and how much you are paying in premiums.
The remaining balance in each customer's "savings account" is invested to generate more revenue or as a "buffer" in years where claims are higher than premiums and investments alone cover their costs.
Hope that helps.