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 06-12-2019, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
9,404 posts, read 7,212,531 times
Reputation: 8145

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
As if dying because one cannot afford the price of Insulin is freedom of privatized healthcare.

High insulin costs are killing Americans

With a Medicaid card, that insulin would cost a meager $3 co-pay.
an honest conversation about insulin needs to be had. I admit, I was SHOCKED to hear that something so "common" and that had been around so long could cost so much. Then I found out it was because it was a new(er) synthetic insulin, and the old insulin can still be had pretty inexpensively. Is the newer needed for some patients? Most assuredly. Can most do just fine on "old" insulin? Absolutely.

Or at least by the materials I read, and the insulin company scientist I asked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2019, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
9,404 posts, read 7,212,531 times
Reputation: 8145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Family of 4 average today is about $28K in HC related OOP spending per year.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...4-in-2018.html
so $70K per person over 10 years, though the cost is rising (at a slower rate per your article).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 01:00 PM
 
13,148 posts, read 4,487,819 times
Reputation: 6421
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
about $90K per person over 10 years.

Which, FWIW, I'd say isn't that bad. I know that my annual premiums alone for a family of 4 and high-deductible coverage had gotten to $12-15K per year
9k/year? I pay $2800/year now with my employer coverage. No thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:03 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
I do not believe that Medicare for all will be lowering overall HC costs. It may well lower the cost of many if not most medical/surgical encounters. But in the end we will have many more such encounters. More patients will eventually gain access. And many patients will have more encounters if convenient enough with a Medicare for all program.

For several reasons. First being that much of medicine is always left undone in any one medical community. And this is very important, something I rarely see discussed. But after 45 years in medical practice, I can assure you this is significant. Especially if rural or in other areas of low or inconvenient access. Many patients simply do not follow through on all that their medical providers recommend. Again inconvenience, but also cost. And if we have enough future providers, and that of course is key, then the encounter costs will be much less an issue for patients and families. In many ways this is a good thing, if more patients follow their doctor's advice. For instance with routine preventatives, assuming that's good advice.

The way I see it, this will improve economies, local and general. Medicine is a service industry needing many local employees. And in the end will give us a healthier population.

IMO even with central cost controls as per Medicare, the overall costs will only rise moving forward.
I agree. "Obamacare" AKA the ACA was supposedly going to lower costs. It did not. Obamacare didn't even lower premiums as it was also supposedly going to do. More people eligible for coverage = more costs. Better coverage = more utilization. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you, but it is what it is.

I do favor a UHC, because I think everyone should have access. I'm not sure what form I favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
No.

Think about this.

Almost everyone who works contributes to the cost of SS and Medicare for OTHER people who are collecting it now.
They also likely pay towards health insurance premiums for themselves and their families.

Why shouldn't those payments that are already going to Medicare go towards health care access for those who are already contributing to it?

Why should people have to pay twice, particularly when there is no guarantee that they will ever be able to utilize the Medicare that they are paying for NOW?
Now think about this: to qualify for Medicare, you have to be 65 years of age or older and have paid into Medicare for 10 years (or have a spouse/ex-spouse if the marriage was long enough) who paid in for 10 years. [I know there are exceptions for the disabled and people with end-stage renal disease, but I'm talking about the average Joe/Jane here.] Part A, hospitalization, is free and Part B, basically major medical, has premiums. Part D, prescription drug coverage, is through private insurance.
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare...are/index.html

Many, if not most people have paid in far longer than 10 years (or have a spouse who did). Lots of people retiring now or in the recent past have paid into Medicare for close to 50 years.

In those 10-50 years, Medicare recipients paid for a lot of other people's Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:12 AM
 
18,296 posts, read 10,390,605 times
Reputation: 13361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
9k/year? I pay $2800/year now with my employer coverage. No thanks.
I think you entirely missed the point. Your employer is picking up the bulk of your tab making him less competitive to others not providing any healthcare benefit and paying you less because of it. Should he stop providing it or take a dislike to you personally …… guess what happens …...

You're an indentured servant whether you're paying middle class taxes to provide a universal or single payer system (way less than $28K U.S. equivilant for those who have it) or whether you dislike your job and would like to work somewhere else but cannot leave because it would mean you have to find a duplicate, over $20K greater re-imbursement pay rate.

Enjoy your "choice" of servitude while denying it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:19 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I think you entirely missed the point. Your employer is picking up the bulk of your tab making him less competitive to others not providing any healthcare benefit. Should he stop providing it or take a dislike to you personally …… guess what happens …...

You're an indentured servant whether you're paying middle class taxes to provide a universal or single payer system (way less than 28k per year for those who have it) or whether you would desire to work for someone else but cannot leave because it would mean you have to find a duplicate over 20K re-imbursement pay rate.

Enjoy your choice of servitude while denying it.
I know you think the US is a lawless sh*t-hole, but really. It may come as some surprise to you to learn that there are laws preventing employers from just deciding they don't like so, thus discontinuing your insurance. The ACA does assess penalties to companies with 50 or more FTEs if they do not offer insurance.
https://www.kff.org/infographic/empl...able-care-act/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:22 AM
509
 
3,006 posts, read 4,090,387 times
Reputation: 3542
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...us-51-trillion
The reason Medicare is popular with the general populace is most of them are NOT covered by it.

IF your on Medicare you better have a doctor since many, many doctors will NOT take new patients on Medicare.

I have Medicare, Part A....pay for Medicare Part B, and still kept my private insurance.

Medicare is run as a scam by much of the medical community. Two appointments when one will do, just so they can bill Medicare twice and break even. Treatments that are designed to recover Medicare costs rather than serve the patient.

Then there are the costs not covered by Medicare. That's fine, but when it is for basic medical care....REALLY, what is the point for refusing to cover??

Anyway, I kept my private health insurance and can by-pass Medicare when needed. Particularly, having two appointments when one will do......the reason Medicare would save money...is so much of the medical care is not covered by Medicare.

Congress really needs to investigate Medicare. The taxpayers are being ripped off right and left and well as the patients.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:28 AM
 
Location: in the soup
3,894 posts, read 1,646,507 times
Reputation: 4512
Imagine how many people could switch to a more appropriate job if they weren't relying on employer-provided health insurance to keep themselves and/or loved ones alive and financially solvent.

Imagine how many people could start their own businesses if health insurance wasn't such a hurdle... and tied to employment for no good reason.

Fact is that here in the U.S. we pay TWICE per capita what any other industrialized country pays for healthcare. And for worse outcomes. In a system where any middle class person can be quickly made penniless if they simply get sick.

And this is all done solely to squeeze corporate profits out of the sick, the dying, and the people who love them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:55 AM
 
18,296 posts, read 10,390,605 times
Reputation: 13361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I know you think the US is a lawless sh*t-hole, but really. It may come as some surprise to you to learn that there are laws preventing employers from just deciding they don't like so, thus discontinuing your insurance. The ACA does assess penalties to companies with 50 or more FTEs if they do not offer insurance.
https://www.kff.org/infographic/empl...able-care-act/
I think no such thing but nice try. AND; a penalty assessed toward an employer does nothing whatsoever to benefit the terminated employee who may have been dealing with a major health issue when terminated.

In discussion with American friends I have had the occasion more than once to hear the term COBRA and queried them about something named the same as a deadly snake. I was flummoxed at it's requirement gensis.

"State laws often provide interesting twists that make it easier to get continued coverage. However, for an employee to be eligible for continued coverage, most state laws require that he or she must be covered for a certain time—three months is common—just before being terminated. In nearly all instances, any continuation of coverage will be at your expense, just as it would be under COBRA.

Even if your state does not have a law that gives you the right to continue group health care coverage after employment ends, it may have a law that requires health insurance companies to offer you the option of converting your group policy to individual coverage."


Aside from the disclaimer that while you are in dispute over some wrongful dismissal or somesuch you must provide your coverage at your own expense... plus paying lawyers fees; did you notice how ,many times words like "easier", "often", "most", "nearly" and "may" are used to describe something that is not an absolute …. as compared to "covered regardless from cradle to grave"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Location: NJ
16,950 posts, read 11,834,180 times
Reputation: 10924
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...us-51-trillion
So healthcare is determined solely on a financial scale??????????????


disaster!


Since when has any cost estimate for any government program been within this galaxy's outer reaches???????


like the 'affordable healthcare', affordable for a very small segment of the population. the rest of us not so much.
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top