Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-30-2016, 06:13 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,740,196 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

So much hysteria. This is comical.

Take one of these 2 icd 10 codes to your mental health provider: f44.9 and f41.8.

Don't worry, it's billable and reimbursable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2016, 06:26 AM
 
34,062 posts, read 17,081,326 times
Reputation: 17213
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Why should medical debt be placed above other debt?

Because other services need not provide them to those w/o demonstrated ability to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 06:38 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,740,196 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Because other services need not provide them to those w/o demonstrated ability to pay.
Repeal EMTALA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 06:48 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Because other services need not provide them to those w/o demonstrated ability to pay.
But they are also choices one makes. Getting sick is not.

So to further the obvious here. If I make a conscience choice to buy a car I can not afford, I should be able to charge that off to bankruptcy but if I get cancer which I want no part of, I should not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 07:29 AM
 
601 posts, read 593,160 times
Reputation: 344
There is no way to profit off of health care for seniors. None. All old people have health issues. Anyone with half a brain cell should know this.

I am not counting on Social Security being around when I’m older, but I am damn well counting on Medicare. My husband and I will have no choice, as much as it would break my heart, but to move abroad if republicans successfully repeal Medicare and replace it with privatized plans. Paying 6-10K a month for privatized healthcare as a senior is just not feasible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,419,987 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Thats part of why the American system is so broken. People dont go to the doctor in fear of the costs and wait until it is 50 times as serious and 50 times more expensive. As you say, the republican "pay your own way" is just a phony gimmick, as Americans pay for all the people who dont bother to pay insurance even if they can afford it and Republicans do nothing about it.

In addition, thousands of useless "billing clerks" in a administrative maze which single payer systems dont have and letting big pharma rip off the people.

You also refuse to answer why you would revolt if your employer pays 8.5% in a employer payroll tax instead of 9% for an insurance premium.


I wouldn't revolt. But millions who don't have employer-sponsored insurance would revolt. There is a difference between a negotiated benefit and a statutory payroll tax.

A $12/hr employee costs the same to insure as a $25/hr employee. As a percent of payroll, the average family premium is higher than 12%. In California the average family premium is $16,200. The average individual plan is $6,200.

Ignore all other taxes. $6.2/$24k > $6.2/$50k. It's about dollars AND percentages. Many lower income families are offered employer insurance and simply pass because the premium is too large as a percent of income. A $24k/year employee would pay 33% of his after-tax income to fully fund the average individual plan. Assume the employer is sponsoring 70%, which is the current national average. He would pay ~10% of his after-tax pay. The percent decreases as income increases, making the tax regressive. It's why millions didn't have insurance even when it was offered. It's why millions chose the penalty over the ACA even with subsidies.

Everyone wants single payer except when they have to contribute. The Feds have done countless studies. If we suddenly implemented a new payroll tax of 12% on every American, some would see no change. Millions of the lowest earners who currently pay zero would revolt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,419,987 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by East of the River View Post
As long as you can show them how much they spend on healthcare now vs what the tax will be it should work. When I have run the numbers before it comes out pretty good for those making less then 200K.

For professionals it probably works out pretty good. Do the math for a clerk at Walmart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,419,987 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
So you're saying that once we exclude the payroll tax we pay for medical care, then there is no payroll tax for medical care.

Very clever.

The thread is on Obamacare. There is currently no payroll tax like they have in countries that have UHC, which is exactly what I stated: a new payroll tax and an increase in the current Medicare tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,892,870 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfriqueNY View Post
Just like Trump had no chance huh?
Look what happened to Obama's hope and change. Ain't nothing changing much when the ones who want change are about equally divided between right and left. Any significant cuts in SS and Medicare would result in losses for the Republican Party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2016, 11:04 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,737,789 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Risk averse. All millennials I know have health insurance, and purposely chose careers which feature employers offering quality coverage.
Thats because obamacare ruined private plans for young people.

I'm not kidding, it went from $75/mo to $500/mo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top