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.
We had the need to take our son to the free clinic when he was a baby.....for a short term until I had employer covered health insurance.....notice that I called it "insurance" and not employer covered "health care"?
Free clinics?? How many of those are out there? Are you talking about Medicaid when you refer to "free clinics"? I don't know exactly how Medicaid works. I'm just not aware of any free clinics near where I live.
Free clinics?? How many of those are out there? Are you talking about Medicaid when you refer to "free clinics"? I don't know exactly how Medicaid works. I'm just not aware of any free clinics near where I live.
Psst. Free clinics are a relic of a bygone age. You know it and I know it, but no one told the poster.
Come on Swagger the rationale is obvious. They covered everybody for everything. That costs the people who were free of many possibilities money and saved money for those who use the specialized services.
The elderly and those with existing conditions made out. The young and well off lost.
Final views on ACA are at least five years out. And note the voter is tricky on this stuff. They oppose the ACA while supporting coverage for existing conditions and no upper limits on policies. So when you discuss the alternatives all that don't have most of the features are unacceptable. It swiftly becomes clear that no policy that makes everyone happy can be written by an insurance company.
It is much easier to oppose something than to pick between alternatives.
As an example see Part D of medicare. We all love it now...but hated it at the start. Now the big complaint is the donut hole.
Agree with you here.
But you see. Medicare affects about 15% of the population. Part D portion of it didn't affect the rest of the 85% of Americans.
The ACA directly affects 85% of Americans (and also Medicare though supposedly Medicare cuts and more effiency (I'll see it when I believe it on the Medicare cuts).
Right now we all see the Dems strategy to defend themselves for 2014. It's quickly becoming a fix and not repeal strategy they are laying the ground work for.
Honestly and i know the law very well and I know how health care is delivered. The thing that irks me is the Dems made a big deal about what accounts to a minority of the population.
When they say 50 million Americans don't have healthcare. But than they start grouping those 50 million and try to wrap it around by saying those 50 million have pre existing conditions, they can't afford it. They are often not correlated.
I've broken down the true 50 million figure many times over many posts. I've broken down the true number of people who have pre existing conditions who don't have access to care.
You've responded to my post about a "net" cost of zero in terms of how much the ACA will cost overall.
But I'll respond by also saying the ACA becomes a zero sum law as well.
Essentially will leave about the real number of truly uninsured (20, maybe 30 million) at about the same pre or post ACA. The law overall does not improve access. It flips affordability on its heads.
But you keep advocating doing away with government programs which does away with medicare~~ better luck with the doing away with government healthcare leave my government healthcare alone.
Where did I ever advocate doing away with medicare? Point out a single link, I challenge you to do so!
Come on, put up or shut up!
If you check my previous posts you will also find I am a big advocate of social security as well. I have never wavered on this and I have said countless times I favor medicare because I don't want to live in a country like Mexico. Those that want to kill social security and medicare need to go live in a third world dirt hole for a while.
Social security is a wonderful system that needs to be strengthened and we can easily do this by lifting the cap on wages subject to the social security tax. And yes, I have had years in my life when earned more than the cap but I have always been for a strong social security because you may never know when you will need it.
In a short while my wife and I will collect and together we should collect around $3,500 which makes it a is a good portion of our retirement income. Out of that $3,500 we are going to have to pay over $500 towards our medicare but so what? We have always paid for our own medical insurance.
So by collecting am I going to make out? I don't know and it really doesn't matter. A few years ago i worked up what I would have had if I had saved all my contributions, along with self employment tax and employers contributions, putting them in a simple bank passbook savings account. I came up with over $650,000 I would have now so based on$3,500 my wife and I will have to collect for 185 months or 15 1/2 years to break even. Maybe we will, maybe we won't but you know what? It doesn't matter because to me that isn't the important part of social security at all.
To me the important part is survivor benefits. Assume you are the bread winner of the family with a wife and two children at home and on the way home from work some evening you are killed in an auto accident. Or perhaps you come down with cancer or a million other things bad that happen that can cost you your life.
What happens to your wife and children? Yeah, you might have $250,000 in life insurance (you should have) but spread over 20 plus years that won't last em.
Copy and pasted out of one of my statements:
You have earned enough credits for your family to receive survivors benefits. If you die this year, certain members of your family may qualify for the following benefits:
You child $ 1,625 a month
Your spouse who is caring for your child $ 1,625 a month
Your spouse, if benefits start at full retirement age $ 2,167 a month
Total family benefits cannot be more than $ 3,793 a month
Where else could you find an insurance policy that would pay your family up to $3,793 a month, indexed to inflation, over a 20 year period? That would be over a million dollars if you add a little inflation.
Even if it was half that amount it's still a whole lot better than nothing.
If you were working and something bad happened to you I am happy your wife and children won't have to beg in the streets at least. To me that is one of social security's strongest selling point.
Let me be direct: I don't gamble, so, No, I'm not interested in your offer.
Fair enough - that's your prerogative. Not everyone is cut out for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
I also realize that asking me to make such a bet is sort of like that question, "Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/child"?
Paranoid much? I offered, ok, begged, you to back up your claims with a bet. That's it. I saw an opportunity to make some money with a bet that has much better odds than I'd find in any casino around here. There's nothing nefarious about making a good investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
In case you didn't read the post I replied to ... (was that you who made that post?), the words used were "maternity (baby wellness)" which I repeated.
I don't usually play grammar cop, but you're wrong here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Yeah, like me, a 42 year old man with no kids, having to have maternity, "baby wellness" and pediatric dental coverage.
The comma indicates a separation between two independent things as part of a list. Not the same thing as how you quoted it. Just sayin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
You do realize that men are capable of fathering children even into their 70s, don't you? At 42, how could you possibly know that you will never, ever want children, either adopting, or via a wife?
You accused me of not reading my own post, and here it's clear that YOU didn't read it, despite the fact that you replied to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
It's physically impossible for me to EVER require maternity coverage, and at 42, I've pretty well made up my mind about having kids, and should that ever change, it would be a planned pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Additionally, if you don't have to pay extra for that coverage, why do you care?
I AM paying for it!
Seriously - how dense does someone have to be to think that it's not costing you anything, even though it's specifically listed on the policy?
If common sense is eluding you, let me state it explicitly: My girlfriend and I bought the same policies, with the same coverage, for the exact same price. You bet your behind that I'm paying for it!
Free clinics?? How many of those are out there? Are you talking about Medicaid when you refer to "free clinics"? I don't know exactly how Medicaid works. I'm just not aware of any free clinics near where I live.
Hi FF - nice to "see" you again on this list. In Central Florida where you and I are there are some free clinics where the doctors and nurses volunteer their time. One is the Orange County Medical Clinic on Westmoreland. A few others are fee based for low income or free for no income such as the Orange Blossom Family Health Center. Take care!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Free clinics?? How many of those are out there? Are you talking about Medicaid when you refer to "free clinics"? I don't know exactly how Medicaid works. I'm just not aware of any free clinics near where I live.
How do you collect a tax from people with no income?
I see no reason why Medicaid patients, those on welfare and disability, can not have at minimum,
5 percent deducted from their handout to pay towards their own health care. After all, they
utilize the system more than anyone else. And regardless of how poor one is, they have to
contribute. We all do.
If I had my way, I'd get rid of the IRS all together and have a national sales tax and take
a percentage of that to go towards Medicare for all. Then surely everyone would pay.
Health care debate as we know it now, would be a dead issue for sure.
It isn't free. I pay $105 for Part B plus $142 for a Plan F and $30 for pharmacy for a total of $277 monthly and my wife pays the same which brings both of us to $554 every month.
To this monthly cost add in paying 50 years worth of medicare taxes.
And I betcha you thought medicare was free!
Your plan F is quite reasonable considering if you are over 65, your chances
of accumulating high medical expenses is much more likely than any other demographic.
Plan F is also not mandatory. But still, you're being subsidized, as is
everyone else except the 15 - 20 percent that are self employed.
So make it one big happy family and have single payer, Medicare for All, with one Medicare tax
for everyone
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.
