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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2019, 05:18 PM
 
2,106 posts, read 768,896 times
Reputation: 2261

Advertisements

Imagine believing that a 40 TRILLION dollar government program administered by federal union employees is going to SAVE us money. You would have to be retarded to believe tbis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2019, 06:36 PM
 
6,336 posts, read 3,411,161 times
Reputation: 3499
Were these the same people who told us we'd save a bundle of money if everyone was insured as the ACA required them to be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 08:00 PM
 
5,481 posts, read 6,910,390 times
Reputation: 4287
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head View Post
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.
People already can start a new business and get a marketplace plan aka Obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 08:05 PM
 
5,481 posts, read 6,910,390 times
Reputation: 4287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
+1. Agree 100%. Senate Bill 470 does exactly that, allowing people 50 and over to voluntarily "opt in" to Medicare if they want to. Since Medicare has lower premiums than private insurance, many if not most people will opt in.
Traditional Medicare as it is only pays 80% of costs, so a supplement must be purchased. So that might eliminate the premium advantage. I don't believe traditional Medicare has an out of pocket spending maximum. Obamacare marketplace plans all have max oop limits.

Premiums are only 1 variable to look at when comparing plans
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Houston
5,420 posts, read 2,745,483 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
good use of meaningless words
That's the answer I've come to expect from conservatives. They throw it out with not even a shred of logical discourse as to why they feel that way.

So, I'll put it to you since you so eloquently dumped it out here in a public forum: care to explain why they're meaningless?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 09:00 PM
 
897 posts, read 445,012 times
Reputation: 873
Don't forget Medicare came into being in the first place because health insurance companies didn't want to insure seniors because they couldn't make million dollar profit margins on their insurance policies so the government had to step in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 10:54 PM
 
8,888 posts, read 3,940,934 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
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.
What have you found not to be covered by Medicare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2019, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Out West
22,764 posts, read 16,845,978 times
Reputation: 26307
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
Quote:
About Common Dreams

Our Mission:
To inform. To inspire.
To ignite change for the common good.
Karl Marx on Socialism:

"...in which production, distribution, and exchange are collectively regulated and/or managed by a government of the PROLETARIAT for the common good."

Nope!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 06:37 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
What have you found not to be covered by Medicare?
With my husband's leukemia, some meds. We're paying out of pocket for a few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 09:08 AM
 
8,888 posts, read 3,940,934 times
Reputation: 1726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
With my husband's leukemia, some meds. We're paying out of pocket for a few.
I have a friend and apparently Imbruvica was recently denied. My wife was on that one a few years back, retail $98K/yr. But for her the OOP was $10/mo with her insurance.

My wife is on over $20K of esoteric meds per month and it never ceases to amaze me how her Obamacare policy comes through every time.

There are bound to be - even should be - denials for some of these more esoteric sub-specialty meds, as some are very new and just coming off experimental. Medicare cannot - should not - cover everything. It has to have time for approval. But it certainly covers most meds. And about all mainstream general medicine drugs. At least generics.
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