03-03-2005, 05:56 AM
Pages: 1 2
03-03-2005, 03:17 PM
expensive surgeries will be covered by the plan.
You pay for everything up to the deductible (can be anywhere from $1,000 to $2,650 depending on how cheap you want your insurance to be) and then the insurance pays after that (either 100% or 80% again depending on how cheap you want your insurance to be)
You pay for everything up to the deductible (can be anywhere from $1,000 to $2,650 depending on how cheap you want your insurance to be) and then the insurance pays after that (either 100% or 80% again depending on how cheap you want your insurance to be)
03-03-2005, 03:27 PM
Quote:And "where does the money come from", for HSAs initially will be lowered taxes.
Now there is a winning solution. Let's not forget that the last "tax cut/rebate" that every economist said we couldn't afford to do, plunged us into record deficits. But W needing something to improve his approval rating after being elected by a minority of American's, forged ahead anyways. And then along came the wars. And we continue spending billions to fund war efforts with no plan to pay for it. And this expense is not going away in the next few months. The final price tag is a long time away.
History will not reflect well on Bush at all. History will show;
The largest, longest and most costly war in Americas history (the Middle East war hasn't even reached its pique yet)
The first nuclear strike on Israel
Lebanon is already a free country by Middle East standards so I'm not sure how he gets credit for that.
A return to a cold war with Russia (we will be at odds with Russia's support of the Iran, Syria, Iraq alliance)
bin Laden will evade capture but will pass the baton to a new leader of the Jihad
North Korea becomes the largest nuclear threat in Asia
First President to have seen two major attacks against Americans on US soil.
03-03-2005, 03:56 PM
Quote:The first nuclear strike on Israeloops! OAS has let the details of his next covert mission slip out. now he has to kill all of us.
03-03-2005, 06:08 PM
The reason we have a giant deficit isn't because we don't tax people enough, you idiot.
03-03-2005, 06:55 PM
In theory it sounds great, except that when people are facing serious illness, they do not consider nickle and diming their life, and really shouldn't.
HMO's were supposed to bargain collectively to the benefit of the consumer, and in the end worked it out so only the HMO's profit from it. I think that these accounts will only work as yet another tax shelter for those with expendable income to keep getting richer from. Meanwhile, the other 80% of America that simply makes it from paycheck to paycheck will get fucked if companies start to veer in this direction.
I'm only working from your description of the plan, as I basically have read nothing on it. I'm a lot more skeptical than you are.
HMO's were supposed to bargain collectively to the benefit of the consumer, and in the end worked it out so only the HMO's profit from it. I think that these accounts will only work as yet another tax shelter for those with expendable income to keep getting richer from. Meanwhile, the other 80% of America that simply makes it from paycheck to paycheck will get fucked if companies start to veer in this direction.
I'm only working from your description of the plan, as I basically have read nothing on it. I'm a lot more skeptical than you are.
03-03-2005, 06:57 PM
Quote:The reason we have a giant deficit isn't because we don't tax people enough, you idiot.
It never ceases to amaze me how you self righteous fucks just read whatever you wish into someone’s opinion. But thank you for clearing that issue up for me. I am now informed. For that I am exhilerated and I eagerly await your future teachings.
In the meantime, let me pull out my crayons and draw a picture for you. Your sarcastic, sniveling I don’t give a fuck what you think hero, inherited a surplus budget. And yes I know, Clinton didn’t do shit but get his cock sucked by fat chicks and smoke cigars (Doesn’t sound like a bad gig to me but what the hell) and that it was Newt and company that really fixed the economy (and all he did was smoke cigars and got his cock sucked by fat boys) but none the less, W inherited a surplus.
With that surplus, W wasted no time just like he did with the State of Texas and a couple of private ventures, he financially managed them right into the fucking ground. Bottom line is we couldn’t afford the tax rebate but he did it anyways. And of course we all were happy because we all got a few hundred bucks in our pocket. Then along came the war. The first one, the “war on terror” was justified. It made sense, it needed to be fought. As many before him, there was no plan on how to pay for it, but we worry about that later. Find and kill bin Laden, overthrow the Taliban, disrupt the terror network. It was needed and it made sense.
But, did we figure out a plan to pay for it? Oh no. We planned a second war. We will call it the continued war on terror. We need to destroy those WMD’s. We need to topple Sadaam. The world will be a better place for it. Oh and by the way, fuck all that other intelligence that suggests there is no threat. Fuck the fact that we have no plan to pay for it because after all, it is an election year and there will be no new taxes. Oh and fuck that fact that we have no plan on how to get the fuck out of there. After all, that will be someone else’s problem a few years down the road. No, forge ahead, fight a war, expand the war to keep the Texas war machine buddies happy and we can worry about paying for it later. Oh and by the way, while I’m doing this we are going to sink trillions into privatizing social security and funding HSA’s similar to what congress has (you know, the one he told his Democratic opponent who recommended it that it wouldn’t work for the American people) by spending even more money that we don’t have.
But you are right, it’s not because we don’t tax people enough. You know us damn Democrats, tax and spend. I suppose we should learn from our conservative friends and their policy, Just fucking spend.
03-03-2005, 07:56 PM
to Silera: HMOs are the least profitable of all members of the healthcare industry. The system discourages those buying the product (patients) from doing anything to keep costs down, and therefore doctor, hospital, and drug prices keep rising 10% a year. When people are in charge, that will be changed.
Again, major issues will be covered by insurance, so there's no need to "nickel and dime" anything. Third 25% of the people who signed up for HSAs last year had no insurance previously, so it's certainly not hurting them.
To OAS, talk about reading whatever you want into someone's opinion. I have explicitly said that I don't like Bush. I wouldnt' vote for him. Bush has spent and spent. He pushed the shitty Medicare Modernization Bill, which will ceate yet another governemnt spending program. That's why there's such a deficit and will continue to be one. It doesn't matter what the tax revenues are (when low, we don't cut spending, when high--like during the economic boom of Clinton's second term, we raise spending because of how great things are.)
Spending should be cut. Across the board. Numerous government programs should be ended because they have either outlived their usefulness or were never useful to begin with.
I'm not talking about taxes being raised or lowered, I'm talking about spending. Spending is the problem, not taxes. That's why I said, we don't have a deficit because we aren't taxing enough (and why that's not a valid contra-HSA argument) but because of spending.
And I really don't give a shit to hear yet another cunty anti-war anti-imperialism argument that you and Ken's Pen have vomited back ad nauseum for the last 3 years.
Again, major issues will be covered by insurance, so there's no need to "nickel and dime" anything. Third 25% of the people who signed up for HSAs last year had no insurance previously, so it's certainly not hurting them.
To OAS, talk about reading whatever you want into someone's opinion. I have explicitly said that I don't like Bush. I wouldnt' vote for him. Bush has spent and spent. He pushed the shitty Medicare Modernization Bill, which will ceate yet another governemnt spending program. That's why there's such a deficit and will continue to be one. It doesn't matter what the tax revenues are (when low, we don't cut spending, when high--like during the economic boom of Clinton's second term, we raise spending because of how great things are.)
Spending should be cut. Across the board. Numerous government programs should be ended because they have either outlived their usefulness or were never useful to begin with.
I'm not talking about taxes being raised or lowered, I'm talking about spending. Spending is the problem, not taxes. That's why I said, we don't have a deficit because we aren't taxing enough (and why that's not a valid contra-HSA argument) but because of spending.
And I really don't give a shit to hear yet another cunty anti-war anti-imperialism argument that you and Ken's Pen have vomited back ad nauseum for the last 3 years.
03-03-2005, 08:17 PM
Well Sir Galt, for once I stand corrected and respect your non W support. I just sensed that based on your typical conservative stance that you were a W Kool-Aid drinker.
And for the record, I am anything but anti-war. Hell, people like Arpi believe I'm into all kinds of covert shit. That was years ago when slitting Muslim throats wasn't all the rage that it is today. And other than a few consulting opportunities on some Clinton Administration task forces, I have been out of that life for some time (remember your thread about your West Wing tour and the Sit Room (pfffft). And no it's nothing like you see on TV's West Wing. However the chair installed by Nixon and the story behind it is a real hoot).
My whole issue with the Iraq war was it should never have been fought. Regardless of where you sit on the political fence, we broke all the rules of why we should go to war. We continue to break them by not developing an exit stategy. The reason we don't is W wants a force immediatly deployable in the area. He can move anywhere he wants without the approval of Congress. He knows once he moves, Congress has no choice but to support him. This is why I say, the Middle East war hasn't even begun to take shape.
And for the record, I am anything but anti-war. Hell, people like Arpi believe I'm into all kinds of covert shit. That was years ago when slitting Muslim throats wasn't all the rage that it is today. And other than a few consulting opportunities on some Clinton Administration task forces, I have been out of that life for some time (remember your thread about your West Wing tour and the Sit Room (pfffft). And no it's nothing like you see on TV's West Wing. However the chair installed by Nixon and the story behind it is a real hoot).
My whole issue with the Iraq war was it should never have been fought. Regardless of where you sit on the political fence, we broke all the rules of why we should go to war. We continue to break them by not developing an exit stategy. The reason we don't is W wants a force immediatly deployable in the area. He can move anywhere he wants without the approval of Congress. He knows once he moves, Congress has no choice but to support him. This is why I say, the Middle East war hasn't even begun to take shape.
03-03-2005, 08:34 PM
Galt Wrote:to Silera: HMOs are the least profitable of all members of the healthcare industry. The system discourages those buying the product (patients) from doing anything to keep costs down, and therefore doctor, hospital, and drug prices keep rising 10% a year. When people are in charge, that will be changed.As far as I understand HMO's, they work under the premise that Doctors are required to agree to a set fee list in order to be participating physicians in the plan. They get a set amount from the HMO for every patient that elects said physician as their provider regardless of whether or not that patient ever visits the provider. So, the HMO is in effect doing the bargaining for the patient. The buying is done on a group basis, which should provide much more leverage than me myself and I telling my OB GYN that I don't feel like paying her $250 to finger me and give me a birth control subscription. (I could be using the term "HMO" loosely to cover the entire managed care/health insurance industry, so forgive me.)
The idea that someone could bargain down a doctor's rates is incredulous to me. If a doctor states that certain tests need to be performed, unless you feel like playing with your life, I don't see many people having the balls to say, nah, I don't think so doc, you're just trying to get more money out of me. The plan also expands on the current healthcare situation which dictates that your worth monetarily reflects the healthcare you receive.
If a doctor knows that patient x never bitches and always pays on time, and patient y is a jew that nickels and dimes him, which patient is going to get better care?
03-03-2005, 08:35 PM
I'm not a conservative. I've decided to follow my hero Arpi and become a libertarian.
03-03-2005, 08:39 PM
Silera Wrote:which should provide much more leverage than me myself and I telling my OB GYN that I don't feel like paying her $250 to finger me and give me a birth control subscription.Would you be interested in pursuing a medical malpractice claim?
03-03-2005, 08:42 PM
I'm a closet republican/self hating liberal.
The only reason I care about anyone else is because hungry poor people tend to rob and steal from me.
The only reason I care about anyone else is because hungry poor people tend to rob and steal from me.
03-03-2005, 08:44 PM
I should sue the makers of the patch for child support.
03-03-2005, 08:47 PM
Amen, sister!
03-03-2005, 09:02 PM
Quote:If a doctor states that certain tests need to be performed, unless you feel like playing with your life, I don't see many people having the balls to say, nah, I don't think so doc, you're just trying to get more money out of me.
The irony of that statement is that the courts don’t agree with you. If you have a standard health plan, the typical 80/20 plan, and your insurer will only pay “reasonable and customary” charges, you are liable for the difference in the eyes of the courts. Courts have ruled that the patient is responsible for making sure that a hospital or doctors charges are reasonable and customary for similar services of other providers in the area. It is your responsibility to know charges in advance and you can request to move to another facility if your insurer will not pay that fee.
So the next time you're in the emergency room and the nurse is putting the paddles on you and yelling “clear!”, make sure that you ask them if their charge to revive you is “reasonable and customary”. If not, please ask them to transfer you to a facility that charges less or find out if they are willing to meet or beat their competitors price. Otherwise you must pay the difference.
Quote:telling my OB GYN that I don't feel like paying her $250 to finger me
I don't know, that seems like a fair price to me.
Edited By OAS on 1109884101
03-03-2005, 09:32 PM
those with an HSA are still part of an HMO and benefit all the pricing negotiation that occurs. It's just a matter of who's paying the first dollar.
When I'm not paying it, I don't care what it costs. When I am paying it, then it becomes "do I really need it"? That could be regarding whether to take the $75 perscription to Lipitor or the $20 perscription to some generic drug that does exactly the same thing. It could be getting your teeth cleaned once a year instead of three times because your dental plan covers it. it could be buying $300 glasses instead of $1,000 glasses. It could be not having a cat scan for a broken finger. Just a lot of needless expenses don't occur.
Another result will be people demanding more description in their bills rather than "office visit: $3,000". When the price gets broken down, it will be easier (for the HMO) to chip away at each cost and get further discounts from the providers
When I'm not paying it, I don't care what it costs. When I am paying it, then it becomes "do I really need it"? That could be regarding whether to take the $75 perscription to Lipitor or the $20 perscription to some generic drug that does exactly the same thing. It could be getting your teeth cleaned once a year instead of three times because your dental plan covers it. it could be buying $300 glasses instead of $1,000 glasses. It could be not having a cat scan for a broken finger. Just a lot of needless expenses don't occur.
Another result will be people demanding more description in their bills rather than "office visit: $3,000". When the price gets broken down, it will be easier (for the HMO) to chip away at each cost and get further discounts from the providers
03-04-2005, 10:47 AM
i wish i could offer an opinion but it's been 7 years since i've had any kind of insurance. is this going to do anything to help me? i've looked into private insurance but even the "charitable" city health programs still involve me giving up a weeks pay each month. i dunno, that's seems a little crazy, my one visit to the doctor in the last 5 years cost me 120 bucks. if i get hit by a car i better die, unless they're paying for it.
Pages: 1 2