Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are much less overhead than any private insurance company.
That's false, since you're only looking at Medicare's administration of the program. Who manages the HI and SMI Trust Funds? Not Medicare....the Department of Treasury does that. Who collects the FICA payroll tax? Not Medicare....the IRS does that. Who audits Medicare? Not Medicare...the GAO does that. I could go on and on. If you add in the cost that other departments spend on Medicare, it ends up being the same as private administrative costs.
However, in at least one instance, the amount of administrative and facilities costs not shown was about 31 percent—a total of $1.05 billion—of the program’s cost.
....and that was in reference to...
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) creates its budget request through its Enrollee Health Care Projection Model (EHCPM) using data from systems designed for the former single-account structure.
Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648482.pdf
The administrative costs are ~31% whether you are a government or a non-profit or a for-profit.
Republicans will simply play the Obstructionist card. Nothing new here.
Were you perchance formerly in the under-insuring individual market? It seems like after Limbaugh-listeners, that's where the highest percentage of anti-PPACA grousing is coming from.
How can anyone else determine if I am under-insured as far as health insurance goes? For a very long time I carried a 10 grand deductible with a much lower premium than now. Now the highest deductibles are around 6 grand and I pay a lot more per month. Considering we have almost never had to pay our deductible what I had before Obummer care was the better deal. 2013 was the exception. I got cancer. The plan was what I needed. How was I under- insured if it kept us from losing everything? Or do you consider under-insured to mean that at that time I wasn't paying twice as much in order to buy insurance for other people? What do you mean by under-insured?
Under-insurance is when your financial standing is wiped out in a medical crisis even though you have (or THOUGHT you had) insurance cover. Being under-insured is the other big problem that PPACA set out to rein in.
Under-insurance is when your financial standing is wiped out in a medical crisis even though you have (or THOUGHT you had) insurance cover. Being under-insured is the other big problem that PPACA set out to rein in.
Why can't people read their insurance policies before they buy instead of the government getting involved?
Yeah, these STOP signs all over are getting to be a bit much as well. In other words, the government gets involved when "people" simply can't do it right.
Yeah, these STOP signs all over are getting to be a bit much as well. In other words, the government gets involved when "people" simply can't do it right.
You can't compare a stop sign to health insurance. They get involved and I'm having to buy things like maternity coverage that I don't need. I would rather make my own choices than have them do it wrong for me. And Obummer care is done wrong. It isn't just something where they have to work out the glitches. Failure is failure.
You can't compare a stop sign to health insurance. They get involved and I'm having to buy things like maternity coverage that I don't need. I would rather make my own choices than have them do it wrong for me. And Obummer care is done wrong. It isn't just something where they have to work out the glitches. Failure is failure.
The problem is that you make the mistake of thinking health insurance should be all about your needs.
That's the way it used to be. With the passage of the ACA, a public policy was established. That public policy is that coverage for certain services is deemed to be so critical that they are now mandatory parts of health insurance for everyone. You seem to think these issues weren't debated and decided. They were decided by Congress back in 2010. If you don't like the decision that Congress made, you can work to elect a different Congress and a different President. If you can persuade these people to repeal the ACA, you'll at least get what you think you want. Frankly, until that time you're simply trying to advance an idea that the law doesn't support.
You are required to have maternity coverage because your paying into the pot reduces the cost for young women who get pregnant. These women can now be sold an affordable policy that allows them to have maternity coverage. Frankly, I think people who oppose mandatory maternity coverage are rather short-sighted. It is in everyone's interest that babies be born healthy. Babies who receive prenatal care and are delivered by a professional are least likely to be born with birth defects or injuries. Babies that are born with such problems often require a lifetime of care. Much of this is paid for by our tax dollars through state and federal programs.
Actually the concept of insurance is that everyone pays into a common fund and only those who develop a specific problem take money out of the fund. That is how risk is spread among a population. The concept is that no one person bears the entire cost of an injury or a disease.
I am concerned about the cost and large deductibles that some of these policies offer. However, the problem isn't the ACA. The problem is the profit that exists within the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Until we are willing to deal with that and impose some limits, the cost of health insurance is going to continue to be a problem.
The problem is that you make the mistake of thinking health insurance should be all about your needs.
That's the way it used to be. With the passage of the ACA, a public policy was established. That public policy is that coverage for certain services is deemed to be so critical that they are now mandatory parts of health insurance for everyone. You seem to think these issues weren't debated and decided. They were decided by Congress back in 2010. If you don't like the decision that Congress made, you can work to elect a different Congress and a different President. If you can persuade these people to repeal the ACA, you'll at least get what you think you want. Frankly, until that time you're simply trying to advance an idea that the law doesn't support.
You are required to have maternity coverage because your paying into the pot reduces the cost for young women who get pregnant. These women can now be sold an affordable policy that allows them to have maternity coverage. Frankly, I think people who oppose mandatory maternity coverage are rather short-sighted. It is in everyone's interest that babies be born healthy. Babies who receive prenatal care and are delivered by a professional are least likely to be born with birth defects or injuries. Babies that are born with such problems often require a lifetime of care. Much of this is paid for by our tax dollars through state and federal programs.
Actually the concept of insurance is that everyone pays into a common fund and only those who develop a specific problem take money out of the fund. That is how risk is spread among a population. The concept is that no one person bears the entire cost of an injury or a disease.
I am concerned about the cost and large deductibles that some of these policies offer. However, the problem isn't the ACA. The problem is the profit that exists within the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Until we are willing to deal with that and impose some limits, the cost of health insurance is going to continue to be a problem.
I understand the need for good prenatal care, but that is really beside the point.
PUB 911 wanted to compare it to stop signs, but a better comparison to stop signs would be this:
The government installs stop signs for safety reasons. The government also provides free schooling for people. Regardless of having the ability to learn to read provided people either decide not to read stop signs or don't go to school and learn what S-T-O-P spells and blow right through them and people are killed. So, because people are clueless the government comes in and gives half or more of the population free or discount taxi service to where ever they want to go because they can't drive around without people dying all over the place. In other words the population is really being dumbed down on a large scale. Problem is there are not enough taxi drivers. Just like there isn't enough of other peoples money to pay for obummer care. The point is that it is bad for everyone when government dependency gets out of hand.
I'm all for helping the helpless, but you are clueless rather than helpless if you keep having kids when you can't even pay for prenatal care. Prenatal care is just the start of it with kids.
The truly helpless are a small part of our population. Having a developmentally disabled son I know the difference. I think the clueless that want the same services should have to have the same limitations he does.
Instant failure. $350 per MONTH for one person at their "bottom tier of coverage" with a deductible of over $6,400. You tell me if that's f'n affordable. Oh, and if you don't enroll, they PUNISH you at the end of the year by stealing the tax money you should be getting back because you earned it. Extortion at the highest level.
You can't compare a stop sign to health insurance.
I just did. Each is an example of society being forced to step in where an unguided system simply mucks things up. It's not really an advanced concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots.
They get involved and I'm having to buy things like maternity coverage that I don't need.
You only claim in the moment not to need it. And as maternity care (like public schooling) is a SOCIAL endeavor, even the childless have an obligation to help pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots.
I would rather make my own choices than have them do it wrong for me.
I don't think I would have chosen to invade Iraq on such flimsy evidence. But that's the price of living in a society. Some things go your way, and some things don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots.
And Obummer care is done wrong. It isn't just something where they have to work out the glitches. Failure is failure.
You know only what you hear from partisans and stooges. PPACA is working just fine for the vast majority of people. I have kept my insurance plan and all of my doctors. I enjoy quality care at reasonable costs. I have a lot of company in that regard, but not so much of it from among former individual market reprobates chafing at the terms of some Bronze Plan somewhere. The rest of us are no longer willing to foot the bill for free-loaders. Pay up.
Last edited by Pub-911; 10-16-2016 at 09:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
