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.
I have Medicare and a supplemental which does not cost me any extra. I have no idea how this works, except the 2 medicines I take cost me about $15 every 90 days, and every medical visit costs hardly anything. I just hope I don't get an ugly surprise if I ever get sick.
My DH, who is too young for Medicare, but is retired without insurance, has been trying to sign up, but at the rate he's going he might become eligible before he is able to successfully sign up for Obummer care.
Traditional medicare with a supplement should allow you to go to any hospital you want. That was my experience when I had cancer, without any out of pocket costs. Meds are extra as well. You need to purchase Part D for that. That's why it cost more than having a MA, which provides care and even meds, but costs less. However, you are usually just restricted to the hospitals and doctors in their network.
Kind of like what I was saying in another post. If you want the extra perks, you have to pay for them.
But nothing wrong with MA. I sometimes wish I was on it, as I'm paying over $400 a month for Medicare insurance. I used to think when I reached Medicare age I would finally be free of expensive medical insurance. ( A + Medigap and Part D = $426)
not sure if this link was supposed to be a joke/stab at ACA, but it certainly make no sense at all
"NEW REPORT: 95% of uninsured Americans will see lower than expected health care premiums"
lets evaluate this very dumb statement.
1) me uninsured = zero $ needed to be 100% uninsured = no premium
2) me with something per ACA = $ out of my pocket to get something
so, from 1 to 2 i see my expected premiums to go up, not down.
you could perhaps argue that once people are forced into paying $$ to be in the med ins system then medical premiums for others who were already had med ins might go down, but i highly doubt it.
if in fact that statement was to compare what it costs for emergency room visits over 10yr period vs same costs for same services if person had med ins, we might see total $ spent for the services be less for patient if s/he had med ins. however, those who like to not pay emergency room bills would of course be paying zero, thus ACA isnt lowering the costs unless ACA can pay patient.
as i already said, there are too many gaps that were not addressed, the cost for healthcare will eventually climb past existing levels.
can they change the name of ACA to "Affordable Competency Assignment" ? lets see if it can work before passing a bill that, according to some fed folks, needs to be passed before they read it.
"NEW REPORT: 95% of uninsured Americans will see lower than expected health care premiums" lets evaluate this very dumb statement.
1) me uninsured = zero $ needed to be 100% uninsured = no premium
2) me with something per ACA = $ out of my pocket to get something
so, from 1 to 2 i see my expected premiums to go up, not down.
Speaking of dumb statements, if you have no insurance right now and you decide to purchase some, then gee, I guess you could conclude that your rates will indeed go up. What was your first clue?
Speaking of dumb statements, if you have no insurance right now and you decide to purchase some, then gee, I guess you could conclude that your rates will indeed go up. What was your first clue?
so how exactly does ACA reduce my premiums?
the statement made on that site was
Quote:
"NEW REPORT: 95% of uninsured Americans will see lower than expected health care premiums"
I don't think anyone knows doodle about this yet. When I went into the "new improved" healthcare.gov website yesterday - I was quoted about a $550/month premium for someone about my age (2 years younger and not on Medicare in my zip code for plan X). When I went to the provider website - list price for plan X without subsidies was about $900/month. FWIW - these price discrepancies were discussed on CNBC today - with lots of ????. IMO - I think healthcare.gov is giving price quotes on plans with maximum subsidies - or perhaps simply generating random numbers.
I think the basic idea here is to delude clueless lower income and/or dumb people into thinking their plans are cheap/relatively cheap - while screwing middle or upper middle class people. It's as simple as that IMO. OTOH - what average pre-Medicare senior can afford $550/month?
In all honesty - I just don't get any of it. Robyn
As for paying for it. WE'RE PAYING FOR IT NOW. AND WE'RE PAYING FOR IT THE EXPENSIVE WAY.
Why can't you grasp this? Why don't you just check some books out of the library and learn what happened to health care costs once a single payer system was put in place. Why do you want to only concentrate on the numbers for the system we have in place, and not look at numbers when the transition was made. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT ALL INDUSTRIALIZED FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES HAVE SWITCHED OVER TO A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM? Do you think they are just playing follow the leader?
The discussion was the cost of substituting a single payer system with the one we have now. My point was that we are all ready paying by far the most for health care in this country, and how we are paying for it is the most expensive way. The amount we are paying in our premiums for what has now become sub-par coverage, could be transferred into a much more cost effective system of delivering health care, and making it available to everyone. The rest of my post details some of the reasons in more detail.
My point was that we are all ready paying by far the mostfor health care in this country, and how we are paying for it is the most expensive way. The amount we are paying in our premiums for what has now become sub-par coverage....
True. Posted on another thread here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
I just read in last week's issue of Time magazine that "Beyond taxpayer funded health care, about $1,000 is built in to annual insurance premiums paid by American families just to offset the cost of caring for those without insurance."
I just read in last week's issue of Time magazine that "Beyond taxpayer funded health care, about $1,000 is built in to annual insurance premiums paid by American families just to offset the cost of caring for those without insurance."
ok, so ACA forces those w/o to have, does this mean this extra $1k you speak of will be $1k less i have to pay? i dont see my rates going down anytime soon, they still continue to rise even with ACA. so how exactly is ACA helping me?
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.
