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.
His latestbill was in error. Take away the $31,000.00 from Feb.2008 add it to his existingbill and he owes $319,000.00.
Do you have that much in your "personal responsibility" account, please advise him how you would proceed.
Me, I would sell off a property and pay the bill.. But since this isnt an option for the man, I guess he'll have to live with a colostamy bag.. Many individuals do just fine.
All your thread did was to show that the man received $319K worth of treatment due to the generosity of hospitals and doctors. Seriously, do you think they expected to get paid?
Well if he can't afford to pay for private health insurance how will he pay the increased tax burden to fund the government take-over?
I suppose it's not relevant, but someone should have also advised him that being an underemployed stage-hand might not be the best way to go for someone with a chronic medical condition.
Quote:
Families Pay Less
A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.)
Proposed Funding For HR 676 Program
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing healthcare programs; employer payroll tax of 4.5%, an employee payroll tax of 3.3%, in addition to the already existing 1.45% for Medicare; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.
It's one thing to pay an increase in taxes to fund the health care bill the Dems want to pass and then have to pay health insurance premiums, deductibles, etc.
I'd rather just have Medicare for All where people 65 pay monthly premiums for Medicare.
My guess is most people who can "afford" to pay for health care already do so through private companies. How are you going to increase a pool to pay for healthcare with people like this guy? He can't afford private coverage, how will he magically afford premiums under BO's plan?
He probably can't even GET private health care.
That surgery, among other things, will be considered a pre-existing condition.
How much of your own money did you send this person? I think its a very fair question.
I thought it extremely fair. Those who want others to pay for something should be willing to pay for it themself.. I see the answer is not coming, so we can assume $0 is reality.
It's one thing to pay an increase in taxes to fund the health care bill the Dems want to pass and then have to pay health insurance premiums, deductibles, etc.
I'd rather just have Medicare for All where people 65 pay monthly premiums for Medicare.
I think you meantMedicare for All where people UNDER 65 pay monthly premiums for Medicare.
I agree. That would be the better plan - Instead of subsidizing the insurance companies profits. Get rid of the third party, for profit payment system.
I agree. That would be the better plan - Instead of subsidizing the insurance companies profits. Get rid of the third party, for profit payment system.
How does this get rid of the 3rd party? You do understand that medicare, medicaid, and almost all government plans involve 3rd party insurance companies to process claims and insure the public on behalf of the govt right? This does nothing to get rid of the "for profit" it simply changes the payor and allows more buying of influence from politicians for contracts..
I'd rather just have Medicare for All where people 65 pay monthly premiums for Medicare.
medicare for all, or any type single or dual payer system would be too costly, it couldnt be funded, we dont have the assets to do so.
medicare currently covers (only partially, it is not 100% coverage) about 40 million (about 1/7th of the population) seniors and has an ANNUAL COST of 500 BILLION dollars.............................to cover all, would cost anywhere from 2.5-4.5 trillion A YEAR..............divide by the 120 million taxpayers...that's an average tax bill of 20,000-38,000 EACH HOUSEHOLD, EACH YEAR, an always rising.......can you afford that,,, I certainly cant...and its a HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE
you're not willing to see that robbing peter to pay paul and cozying up with the insurance companies is not the way to do it?
.
But cozying up with the Government printing monoploy money out of thin air is the way to do it?
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.
