Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.

[rightwinger]

I really didn't find the OP too difficult....
....it seems that you did...or do.

No, the OP identifies two federal studies that prove the falsity of the Obama legal defense of ObamaCare.

Try it again. I'm sure you'll get it.

I'm afraid you don't get it. You need to do more than cut and paste. Is that how you got through college? Just parroting other peoples ideas?

What is so hard about posting your own ideas?

Well, since I explained it to you, I'm going to assume that your blather about the way the material is provided, is simply a diaphanous attempt to argue against the point without way of doing so.

Be honest.

I find it fruitless to argue with a cut and paste.

I prefer to argue with a posters actual opinions.

Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe rather than swamp us with the opinions of others?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem to be implying that most people under 65 really don't want healthcare insurance. They would prefer to risk the the health and financial future of themselves and their family. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of people under 65 who do not carry health insurance do so because either they can't get it or they can't afford it.

Most Americans don't use healthcare? Well, that's like saying most Americans don't use an emergency room. Almost everyone will need healthcare and will need it badly. If they are among the lucky few who don't, their spouse or other family members will.

Sorry if it comes across that way. My premise is that there is a better way than government one-size-for-all coercion as the answer.

It is not.

Freedom and liberty apply to healthcare.

Now, for a bedtime tale, on that point:


The Dog and the Wolf

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Doctor Aesop

Nice analogy, but the situation is a bit more complex.

As the saying goes, one person's freedom ends where another begins. Is a person to be allowed to act irresponsibly when those actions hurt others? This is exactly what would transpire if people were allowed to reject health insurance for themselves and their families and subscribe to it once they become ill or to depend on government to pick up the tab.

Just as before healthcare reform, there are plenty of healthcare options. Individual policies and group policies, PPOs, HMOs, EPO's, and a host of new policy types, some being catastrophic policies featuring high deductibles and low cost and other that cover everything. There will also be more Co-Ops which offer even more choices. Policies can be acquired just as they are now. For individuals and low income workers, they can be acquired through regional exchanges. Healthcare reform is certainly not one size fits all. In fact people will have far more choices, not less.

"There will also be more...."

Sadly, that is not the case.

I have a problem believing that you actually subscribe to what you just posted. Are you denying that the thrust of ObamaCare is a government takeover of the industry...and a sleight of hand policy of taxation designed to redistribute the wealth of the nation?

Up for a little education?

1. Obamacare was intended to have one national exchange to regulate all health insurance, and to distribute subsidies. Forced to back down on that idea, he got fifty instead! Under Title I, state officials are instructed that they “shall” establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange, “ (AHB) in each state. The secretary of HHS will make grants to each state to set them up, determining the amount of money, whether or not to renew depending on whether the state is “making progress” in meeting the new federal insurance requirements, and other “benchmarks” that the secretary may see fit to establish. And the secretary has the power to decide if the state exchanges are “qualified,” as of January 1, 2013.

a. These exchanges will be the central vehicle for the federal government to control and regulate the health insurance market. Washington will dictate exactly how they work, and step in and set them up if not satisfactory.
PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(c) (1)

b. Rather than co-equal with the federal government, as is the character of American federalism, the state becomes nothing more than an distal agency of Washington.

2. The feds will require the ‘state’ exchanges to perform a dozen or so “minimum functions”
Section 1311(d)(4) of the PPACA requires all Exchanges to perform certain minimum functions:
Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange,
Operate a toll-free hotline for consumer assistance,
Maintain a website providing standardized comparative information on health plans,
Assign price and quality ratings to plans,
Present plan benefit options in a standardized format,
Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs,
Provide an electronic calculator to allow applicants to determine the actual cost of coverage, taking into account premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,
Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement,
Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and
Establish a Navigator program that provides grants to entities to conduct outreach and education, as well as assist consumers in enrolling in qualified health plans through the Exchange.

a. While states cannot accept any insurers who offer policies that provide fewer benefits than those ordered by the federal government, they may offer plans that include more benefits. This, of course, obviates the kind of competition that lowers cost or favors the consumer. The state must them subsidize the additional benefits, which requires extensive invasion of privacy of the individual.

b. While mandating additional benefits, the PPACA imposes restrictions that one would hardly expect in a free market system, i.e., more benefits results in higher premiums. On the contrary, this law gives the secretary of HHS the ability to remove the company if the increases are 10% or more.
Questions and Answers: Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and ?Grandfathered? Health Plans

3. One would do well to look beyond the word salad in section 1311 (d)(4), and carefully consider the machinations necessary to ascertain “Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs” , to “Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement, “ and to “Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,” and “Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange.”

a. They will have to check the incomes of people applying for health insurance subsidies to make sure they qualify…and stay qualified. Every month. Every family member.

b. The state exchanges will be tasked with making sure that all ‘private plans’ meet the new expanded federal mandates and standards. They must have, as well, enough, and the right mix of doctors.

c. Exactly what the ‘private plans’ in the exchanges must and will do is difficult to pin down, as the PPACA has built in the right of the secretary of HHS to change, add delete requirements at will. Neither the ‘private plan’ nor the consumer has any rights here. The secretary has sweeping powers to decide which insurers will be allowed to sell policies in the exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(e) (1)(B)


Please find any errors in the above.

If there are none....see if this verifies your post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm afraid you don't get it. You need to do more than cut and paste. Is that how you got through college? Just parroting other peoples ideas?

What is so hard about posting your own ideas?

Well, since I explained it to you, I'm going to assume that your blather about the way the material is provided, is simply a diaphanous attempt to argue against the point without way of doing so.

Be honest.

I find it fruitless to argue with a cut and paste.

I prefer to argue with a posters actual opinions.

Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe rather than swamp us with the opinions of others?

"Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe..."
How absurd to think that makes any sense.

What I believe is what you find in the OP.

If you find reading that too difficult...
...don't let me keep you....

 

[rightwinger]

Well, since I explained it to you, I'm going to assume that your blather about the way the material is provided, is simply a diaphanous attempt to argue against the point without way of doing so.

Be honest.

I find it fruitless to argue with a cut and paste.

I prefer to argue with a posters actual opinions.

Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe rather than swamp us with the opinions of others?

"Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe..."
How absurd to think that makes any sense.

What I believe is what you find in the OP.

If you find reading that too difficult...
...don't let me keep you....

Are you incapable of posting your own opinion without cutting and pasting what someone else has said on a topic?

I guess it is easier for you since you do not have to defend another persons opinion like you would your own

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I don't read your posts

They tend to be rambling cut and pastes and you just take too damn long to reach your point

Pretty good strategy if you are afraid of being proven wrong.

That's beside the point that one can opt out of auto insurance - by choosing not to drive. I'd damned if I can work out how we opt out of living.... particularly for Catholics - suicide is a huge no no.

The point is that healthcare became under government purview due to wage-and-price controls, which prevented employers giving raises, and due to FDR's Second Bill of Rights speech.

In that speech, he created entitlements such as:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

Of course, FDR understood that to give one said entitlement, someone else had to be taxed to provide it.

It changed America from equality of opportunity, to equality of outcome.

So, the question is not one of doing without healthcare, but rather of the appropriate method of acquiring same.

I have profound fears about both future healthcare in America, and our economic health if ObamaCare goes into effect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find it fruitless to argue with a cut and paste.

I prefer to argue with a posters actual opinions.

Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe rather than swamp us with the opinions of others?

"Why do you find it so difficult to present what you actually believe..."
How absurd to think that makes any sense.

What I believe is what you find in the OP.

If you find reading that too difficult...
...don't let me keep you....

Are you incapable of posting your own opinion without cutting and pasting what someone else has said on a topic?

I guess it is easier for you since you do not have to defend another persons opinion like you would your own

Sorry, wingy...but you have zero input into my method of posting.
If you feel incapable of responding to an OP, .....don't.

 

[Flopper]

I have a problem believing that you actually subscribe to what you just posted. Are you denying that the thrust of ObamaCare is a government takeover of the industry...and a sleight of hand policy of taxation designed to redistribute the wealth of the nation?

I certainly don't believe Obamacare is a government take over of the health insurance industry or for that matter healthcare providers. Yes, there are some additional regulations to make the plan work, but government has taken over nothing, no new government ownership. For insurance companies, Obamacare is manna from heaven. It will eventually add up to 30 million new subscribers. Millions of new patients will provide additional revenue for healthcare providers.

Obamacare will make health insurance coverage possible for millions of people while stopping insurance companies from selecting only the healthiest subscribers. There are of course cost. Everyone must carry insurance and the cost of coverage for those who can't afford it are paid for by the taxpayers. The alternative to Obamacare would be universal healthcare via a single payer system, which would be a takeover of the health insurance industry. Continuing as we were is simply not an option.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a problem believing that you actually subscribe to what you just posted. Are you denying that the thrust of ObamaCare is a government takeover of the industry...and a sleight of hand policy of taxation designed to redistribute the wealth of the nation?

I certainly don't believe Obamacare is a government take over of the health insurance industry or for that matter healthcare providers. Yes, there are some additional regulations to make the plan work, but government has taken over nothing, no new government ownership. For insurance companies, Obamacare is manna from heaven. It will eventually add up to 30 million new subscribers. Millions of new patients will provide additional revenue for healthcare providers.

Obamacare will make health insurance coverage possible for millions of people while stopping insurance companies from selecting only the healthiest subscribers. There are of course cost. Everyone must carry insurance and the cost of coverage for those who can't afford it are paid for by the taxpayers. The alternative to Obamacare would be universal healthcare via a single payer system, which would be a takeover of the health insurance industry. Continuing as we were is simply not an option.

I appreciate your interest, but not your faith in the government.

I hope you take another look at that post I provided.

Can you handle a little more?

1. The thugs in this administration won’t permit companies to tell customers how new Obamacare regulations and mandates will increase costs and premiums: “…there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” Sebelius calls on health insurers to stop misinformation and unjustified rate increases

a. "How do you sell a product that can only hurt most of its buyers? That was the task of President Obama and his team. The only way is to lie, and that's what they did."
David Freddoso, "Gangster Government," p. 56.

2. Who said “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan?” “An analyst from McKinsey & Company knocked the socks off insurance company executives yesterday when she told them the new health law will bring “fundamental disruption to the health care economy” — so much so that “something in the range of 80 to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years post-2014.” They will lose their employer coverage, move into exchanges, or go on to Medicaid. This would be an extraordinary disruption that will cause widespread outrage.” http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,14/category_id,0/blog_id,1497/type,33/

3. And, the hallmark of liberal-progressive government, bureaucracy!

a. The legislation runs 2,801 pages when the two companion bills that were passed the same week are combined.

b. It is more than enlightening to recall that the 1965 Medicare and Medicaid law required only 137 pages, but when the chairman of the Mayo Clinic asked his staff to count the number of pages of regulations the clinic had to comply with to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, they counted more than 132,000 pages! So, each page of the legislation led to nearly 1,000 pages. Get ready!
Interviews - James Reinertsen, M.d. | Dr. Solomon's Dilemma | FRONTLINE | PBS

c. The law requires an estimated 159 new agencies, boards, commissions, and government offices to put healthcare under Washington’s control. Of course, pursuant to liberal protocols, these bureaucrats aren’t accountable to voters, since they know what’s best for us.

4. “Remember when Barack Obama promised that his health-care overhaul would “bend the cost curve downward” and arrest rapid increases in costs? ObamaCare bends the cost curve
“In April 2010, Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released an analysis showing that the new law would increase national health care spending by more than $311 billion over the next ten years.” Obamacare repeal and the CBO | Pundit House

 

[Flopper]

I have a problem believing that you actually subscribe to what you just posted. Are you denying that the thrust of ObamaCare is a government takeover of the industry...and a sleight of hand policy of taxation designed to redistribute the wealth of the nation?

I certainly don't believe Obamacare is a government take over of the health insurance industry or for that matter healthcare providers. Yes, there are some additional regulations to make the plan work, but government has taken over nothing, no new government ownership. For insurance companies, Obamacare is manna from heaven. It will eventually add up to 30 million new subscribers. Millions of new patients will provide additional revenue for healthcare providers.

Obamacare will make health insurance coverage possible for millions of people while stopping insurance companies from selecting only the healthiest subscribers. There are of course cost. Everyone must carry insurance and the cost of coverage for those who can't afford it are paid for by the taxpayers. The alternative to Obamacare would be universal healthcare via a single payer system, which would be a takeover of the health insurance industry. Continuing as we were is simply not an option.

I appreciate your interest, but not your faith in the government.

I hope you take another look at that post I provided.

Can you handle a little more?

1. The thugs in this administration won’t permit companies to tell customers how new Obamacare regulations and mandates will increase costs and premiums: “…there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” Sebelius calls on health insurers to stop misinformation and unjustified rate increases

a. "How do you sell a product that can only hurt most of its buyers? That was the task of President Obama and his team. The only way is to lie, and that's what they did."
David Freddoso, "Gangster Government," p. 56.

2. Who said “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan?” “An analyst from McKinsey & Company knocked the socks off insurance company executives yesterday when she told them the new health law will bring “fundamental disruption to the health care economy” — so much so that “something in the range of 80 to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years post-2014.” They will lose their employer coverage, move into exchanges, or go on to Medicaid. This would be an extraordinary disruption that will cause widespread outrage.” http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,14/category_id,0/blog_id,1497/type,33/

3. And, the hallmark of liberal-progressive government, bureaucracy!

a. The legislation runs 2,801 pages when the two companion bills that were passed the same week are combined.

b. It is more than enlightening to recall that the 1965 Medicare and Medicaid law required only 137 pages, but when the chairman of the Mayo Clinic asked his staff to count the number of pages of regulations the clinic had to comply with to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, they counted more than 132,000 pages! So, each page of the legislation led to nearly 1,000 pages. Get ready!
Interviews - James Reinertsen, M.d. | Dr. Solomon's Dilemma | FRONTLINE | PBS

c. The law requires an estimated 159 new agencies, boards, commissions, and government offices to put healthcare under Washington’s control. Of course, pursuant to liberal protocols, these bureaucrats aren’t accountable to voters, since they know what’s best for us.

4. “Remember when Barack Obama promised that his health-care overhaul would “bend the cost curve downward” and arrest rapid increases in costs? ObamaCare bends the cost curve
“In April 2010, Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released an analysis showing that the new law would increase national health care spending by more than $311 billion over the next ten years.” Obamacare repeal and the CBO | Pundit House

Thugs in this administration and Gangster Government; no I think that's enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I certainly don't believe Obamacare is a government take over of the health insurance industry or for that matter healthcare providers. Yes, there are some additional regulations to make the plan work, but government has taken over nothing, no new government ownership. For insurance companies, Obamacare is manna from heaven. It will eventually add up to 30 million new subscribers. Millions of new patients will provide additional revenue for healthcare providers.

Obamacare will make health insurance coverage possible for millions of people while stopping insurance companies from selecting only the healthiest subscribers. There are of course cost. Everyone must carry insurance and the cost of coverage for those who can't afford it are paid for by the taxpayers. The alternative to Obamacare would be universal healthcare via a single payer system, which would be a takeover of the health insurance industry. Continuing as we were is simply not an option.

I appreciate your interest, but not your faith in the government.

I hope you take another look at that post I provided.

Can you handle a little more?

1. The thugs in this administration won’t permit companies to tell customers how new Obamacare regulations and mandates will increase costs and premiums: “…there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” Sebelius calls on health insurers to stop misinformation and unjustified rate increases

a. "How do you sell a product that can only hurt most of its buyers? That was the task of President Obama and his team. The only way is to lie, and that's what they did."
David Freddoso, "Gangster Government," p. 56.

2. Who said “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan?” “An analyst from McKinsey & Company knocked the socks off insurance company executives yesterday when she told them the new health law will bring “fundamental disruption to the health care economy” — so much so that “something in the range of 80 to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years post-2014.” They will lose their employer coverage, move into exchanges, or go on to Medicaid. This would be an extraordinary disruption that will cause widespread outrage.” http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,14/category_id,0/blog_id,1497/type,33/

3. And, the hallmark of liberal-progressive government, bureaucracy!

a. The legislation runs 2,801 pages when the two companion bills that were passed the same week are combined.

b. It is more than enlightening to recall that the 1965 Medicare and Medicaid law required only 137 pages, but when the chairman of the Mayo Clinic asked his staff to count the number of pages of regulations the clinic had to comply with to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, they counted more than 132,000 pages! So, each page of the legislation led to nearly 1,000 pages. Get ready!
Interviews - James Reinertsen, M.d. | Dr. Solomon's Dilemma | FRONTLINE | PBS

c. The law requires an estimated 159 new agencies, boards, commissions, and government offices to put healthcare under Washington’s control. Of course, pursuant to liberal protocols, these bureaucrats aren’t accountable to voters, since they know what’s best for us.

4. “Remember when Barack Obama promised that his health-care overhaul would “bend the cost curve downward” and arrest rapid increases in costs? ObamaCare bends the cost curve
“In April 2010, Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released an analysis showing that the new law would increase national health care spending by more than $311 billion over the next ten years.” Obamacare repeal and the CBO | Pundit House

Thugs in this administration and Gangster Government; no I think that's enough.

Flopper, I'll never understand how facts and data mean nothing to folks on your side of the argument.

No matter how much they lie and steal....see, that's what thugs and gangsters do.
Yet, they continue to have your support.

Unfathomable.
Be well.

 

[American Horse]

I think our hospitals and Dr's are the ones forcing the healthcare to explode.....
It's things like...my son had been seeing his dr for a few months and had no insurance. His office visits were $78.00 each time he went. When he got insurance through his new job, his Dr. was billing his insurance $130.00 for each visit. Something pretty stinky about that one......

You have to look at what the doctor was actually paid. I see pretty large charges for my dermatologist to do skin cancer excises, but when I look at what he was actually paid I wonder if he'll see me again. My payer is Medicare.

 

[American Horse]

4. ...half of Americans consume almost no healthcare. Fifty percent of the population needs so little healthcare that they accounted for only 2.9 percent of healthcare spending in 2009. Looking only at Americans under age 65, the percentage of nonconsumers is even higher.

So why are health insurance premiums so expensive? Because insurance companies are profit-hungry monstrosities that control the price of healthcare.

Insurance companies work on a very small margin, maybe 6% compared to Apple that runs at over 40%, But, well, bitch all you want about mean old ins. companies. There's an app for that.

People are deluded into believing they can't afford health insurance and consequently they don't even check the market. If there's a scam, then that's it. It seems complicated so they don't read their insurance contract so they don't know what they are entitled to. I've bought in the individual market since I left Westinghouse in 1972 (up until medicare in 2006) and could always afford it for a family of three, no problem at all. And during all that time I was self employed with some years with no income at all because of real losses in spec homes I'd built and had to sell for less than I had in them.

We may be typical in that during that 35-years we only needed healthcare service a few times but when we did, the insurance companies took care of most of it, and what was left for us to pay was entirely manageable. Unlike some, I never saw paying in and getting nothing in return as being unfair. Just like home/hazard insurance, you may pay in for 35 years and never have a claim, and that is a good thing.

 

[American Horse]

I think our hospitals and Dr's are the ones forcing the healthcare to explode.....
It's things like...my son had been seeing his dr for a few months and had no insurance. His office visits were $78.00 each time he went. When he got insurance through his new job, his Dr. was billing his insurance $130.00 for each visit. Something pretty stinky about that one......

Do you know how much of the $130.00 billed was allowable under the coverage?

No i don't...and i really don't understand how the insurances work. But it just doesn't seem right that they can charge a different prices than what would be charged without the insurance. But they do and they can get away with it...

It's not that they get away with, it's that they are forced to do that to just end up with what they consider a nominal price for their services.

Say you had a service you could provide for a hundred dollars and that was a competitive rate. But a government program, which you were required to be enrolled in, would only pay 25% of your charges any time you went through them. You'd have to charge that third party payer $400 to end up with the $100 you need to do it and stay in business.

Add to that the injustice of having to suffer the anger of the person you provided the service to because they didn't understand why it was that way, and could only see that before they "insured" they'd paid just $100.

 

[uscitizen]

About 1/2 of america is pretty young.

note:
Virtually everyone in America consumed healthcare coming into this world.
And if you have raised children you know they consume healthcare.

but yes the big costs/profits are in keeping the elderly alive beyond their normal lifespan.
Cancer centers, transplants, nursing home care, etc.
If they just went ahead and followed the will of god....

 

[American Horse]

They can't charge a different rate for self-pay. It's illegal.

Under which law?

I think this is true under Medicare. Medical providers cannot charge any person who is on SS/Medicare any differently than Medicare allows as a payment seperate from Medicare.
I cannot name or source that, but I'm sure it's some variance of that.

You may be able to correct that to what is actually the case.

 

[uscitizen]

Insurance companies pay less for the same procedure than self pay patients do.

 

[rightwinger]

About 1/2 of america is pretty young.

note:
Virtually everyone in America consumed healthcare coming into this world.
And if you have raised children you know they consume healthcare.

Nobody knows for sure what half they will fall in. You can go most your life without using the healthcare system and then get hit with hundreds of thousands in medical expenses from one illness.

Even the young have babies, try paying for a C-section out of pocket. Or better yet, let the taxpayers pick up the tab because you are uninsured

 

[American Horse]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs... So you believe that over half of Americans were not born in a hospital or medical facility?

And obviously THAT'S just for starters.

PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy!

Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not!

Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!!

TO? A dummy?
Hmm......

 

[American Horse]

Insurance companies pay less for the same procedure than self pay patients do.

Larger builders pay lower prices at the lumber yard I shop at, because they are larger more stable customers. Their loyalty brings discounts to them they I simply do not merit.

 

[uscitizen]

So why are health insurance premiums so expensive? Because insurance companies are profit-hungry monstrosities that control the price of healthcare.

Insurance companies work on a very small margin, maybe 6% compared to Apple that runs at over 40%, But, well, bitch all you want about mean old ins. companies. There's an app for that.

People are deluded into believing they can't afford health insurance and consequently they don't even check the market. If there's a scam, then that's it. It seems complicated so they don't read their insurance contract so they don't know what they are entitled to. I've bought in the individual market since I left Westinghouse in 1972 (up until medicare in 2006) and could always afford it for a family of three, no problem at all. And during all that time I was self employed with some years with no income at all because of real losses in spec homes I'd built and had to sell for less than I had in them.

We may be typical in that during that 35-years we only needed healthcare service a few times but when we did, the insurance companies took care of most of it, and what was left for us to pay was entirely manageable. Unlike some, I never saw paying in and getting nothing in return as being unfair. Just like home/hazard insurance, you may pay in for 35 years and never have a claim, and that is a good thing.

Try buying affordable HC insurance with a pre existing condition.

And do not even talk about COBRA it is a joke. $1,400 a month for me?