Oh but you can switch to a plan that covers all doctors! Or something. It's not Obama's fault. Reading is hard for some and he's got bigger things to worry about like domestic violence awareness.

We're just racists. Bush did it. Since gas is cheap we need more road tax to cover the potholes that were supposed to be covered under a previous budget.

Or something.

Just take it! Racist!

I never said that. I specifically said the opposite. I said the system was far from perfect and needed reform. As I said before, I thought it was practically criminal the way Anthem kept raising my premium by around 15-20% a year. I was in favor of reform. But that doesn't mean I have to endorse Obamcare or the way he lied about it to get it passed.

i don't think he lied about it to get it passed...everyone either knew, or should have known, what was in the bill that they voted for.
i figure at some point single payer will be passed-it will have to be.
obamacare is a convoluted mess that the health insurance companies had a huge hand in writing...and i think it's disingenuous of the republicans to still go on and on about it, considering that a lot of what's in there was originally their idea.
the law is pretty much a failure at this point, since half the states voted not to expand medicaid, which means a lot of people aren't benefitting from it at all.
i get why they did what they did-i guess they figured it was better than nothing being done. it's helped a lot of people, but there are still hundreds of thousands of folks no better off than before.

Edited to remove. Post didn't actually have anything to do with the thread.

Sweet Jesus. Do you have any idea what a crappy plan you were buying from them? An almost $9,000 deductible per year? Was there a lifetime cap on it after that? The reason many of these low-premium, high deductible plans were ended is because they were TERRIBLE. They were the Yugos of the health care industry (to show my age).

Rupert, none of us are getting any younger. At this point you should be on your knees, thanking the ACA for requiring young, healthy people to get insurance, because that's what brings the rates down on older folks. The ACA is what will keep health insurance even possible for you.

You honestly think Anthem wants you as a customer? Please. They want young non-smoking men in their 20s. That's it. No olds, no people with chronic conditions and no women who have an annoying habit of getting pregnant and having expensive babies. THEY DO NOT WANT PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY NEED HEALTH CARE.

You didn't answer my early question- how did you vote on Prop 45, which would have made it illegal to arbitrarily raise health care premiums by 15 or 20 percent? How did you vote on it?

Post that does have something to do with the thread-

Here's an example of why the low-cost, high deductible plans are bad, Rupert. I'll use an example from myself this summer, so apologies if it's TMI.

I had miscarriage this year :( that came on very suddenly and very severely. I called the midwife who had delivered my son, and who was, I thought, going to see me through this very much-wanted pregnancy, to ask what to do and she said the bleeding was bad enough that I needed to go to the ER.

My husband has good, employer provided health insurance, so I was aware our copayment for the trip would be something like $50 (in fact it was $100, which I wasn't thrilled about when I paid, but it's still not going to break us). So, fifteen minutes later, once my best friend had raced over to watch our son and once I was fairly certain I wasn't going to pass out in the taxi (I was getting a bit woozy at that point), we headed to the nearest hospital.

If I'd had one of these low-cost, high deductible plans that are no longer legal under the ACA, my mind would have gone to the cost of an ER visit ($500 just to get into the room, then add on everything they might have to do- D&C, the thingy they put in in case I lost too much blood and needed electrolytes or a transfusion, blah blah blah) and I'm looking at least a few thousand dollars, all of which I'd be responsible for, and which we didn't have, and I might have decided to stay at home in my bathroom and hope for the best. And I might have bled out and died on my bathroom floor and my son might have grown up telling the story of how his mom died from a miscarriage.

But, because I knew I had coverage, I went to the ER, they took care of me, and sent me home the same night to grieve the loss of a pregnancy, which sucked to be sure, but is nothing compared to a child grieving the loss of a mother.

Those catastrophic plans forced people suddenly confronted with a health crisis to choose between their physical health and their financial health. It's good they're gone.

Making young, healthy people and healthy people in general pay more than their fair share is what is keeping this afloat. Especially when young healthy people are no longer able to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic policies that were completely adequate w/o being subjected to the 1% and growing fine imposed for not having what the government considers proper insurance.

What's next? Requiring all citizens with driver's licenses to carry comprehensive, low deductible auto insurance regardless of the condition of one's vehicle or whether one even owns a vehicle, so those who are bad drivers and those with tickets and DUI's can be supplemented to purchase the same?

'Free Choice Hypocrites!'

Completely adequate until they get leukemia or cancer or Crohn's Disease and then the government has to pay for them because no health insurance company wants customers with chronic illness. My formerly healthy, non-smoking mother died of breast cancer at 35, Dell. If my father had not had health insurance through his job her death would have bankrupted us.

Yes, people who don't use insurance having insurance is what makes insurance work. That's why insurance companies don't want to insure people in flood zones and the government has to do it.

The problem is that we view health care as an insurance product at all. But as the defeat of Prop 45 showed, health insurance companies see great value in keeping the status quo as unchanged as possible, and they'll spend a lot of money to that end.

:tro:

as for flood insurance....yeah, that's separate so that the majority of us who don't choose to live in flood zones don't have to help pay for those that do.

people like to compare health to other insurance, but it's really not comparable.
one can choose not to drive a car, or to not drive drunk, they can be good drivers so they get good rates.
health is a crap shoot for the most part. non smokers get lung cancer, people who eat well get diabetes, or crohns, or colon cancer, etc.
as long as health insurance is handled for profit, it's going to remain a mess.

when one is a bad driver with multiple violations, one has to buy high risk auto insurance which is costly. obviously health insurance can't be handled the same way.

This is utter BS but not surprising considering the source.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic...sk_factors.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

However, unlike obesity smokers billow 2nd hand smoke and if one is regularly exposed to it either at work or home it increases the chances of lung cancer by 20%-30%. And don't get me started on exercise or the lack of it by many who are too lazy to do even basic calisthenics.

Obese people should be paying at least $1,429 per year more (plus whatever the increase since that number is outdated by 6 years) than those who are not and smokers should be paying for 90% of the costs associated with lung cancer.

We need to stop looking for the nanny and start looking in the mirror.
I and many others don't smoke, are not obese and exercise daily yet we are unfairly mandated to supplement obese, lazy, smokers.

Just as at risk drivers pay more for automobile insurance so should the at risk health insured especially considering they did it to themselves.

My aunt, who never weighed more than 105 pounds, had gestational diabetes by the end of her life, Dell. IT'S HEREDITARY. Her parents, my grandparents, were thin (especially my grandfather, who was a 6 foot tall rail) and THEY BOTH HAD TYPE TWO DIABETES. Please tell me how that was their fault?

Please explain to me how my mother, who had both of her kids before the age of 30 and breast fed both of us for an extended time, gave herself breast cancer. Because that's what you do to reduce your risk- have kids before 30 and breast feed. In fact, the first two specialists she saw didn't believe her, because she was in such a low-risk group. They made fun of her alleged hypochondria ("You nurses are all the same") and sent her on her way.

And actually, according to this study, the obese and smokers are cheaper than health nuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0

that's awful.
reminds me of stories i've heard about guys who get breast cancer-people think that there's no way guys can get that. hello, men have breast tissue, of course they can get breast cancer.

knowing some conditions people are born with, and deal with in their lives, if they had to pay according to their risk...they'd be beyond bankrupt. how would that make sense, to rate like that?

Yeah, a former roommate's boyfriend's dad (how's that for a how-I-know-them chain?) was a breast cancer survivor.

They're better about it now than they were 30 years ago, in terms of understanding young women can get it, too. But back in 1979, when she found a lump, forget it. No one was talking about it.

I remember two neighbor girls wanted to take up a collection to help us with medical costs and my mother had to tell them no, because my dad was too uncomfortable about the whole neighborhood knowing she was sick. Ah, the good old days*, when even the word "cancer" had to whispered...

*not actually good

Well than she and your grandfather would not have paid a premium as they were not obese and or smokers. Get it? Only those tipping the scale and or testing positive for smoking would be subject to the added premium.

Your study though is telling.

Only I haven't heard any complaints from you about Michelle O demanding healthy lunches, especially to kids whose family have no resources to pay for insurance. If only we could get everyone to chain smoke and get to 400lbs. :tro:

Also why in the hell are you worried about measles vaccinations? Imagine the savings to the system visa vi a measles epidemic? Especially since it would rid us of 'unhealthy' children eating up health costs?

How about extending the late term abortion limit to children under say 8, as surely they are incapable of sustaining life on there own. And for God's sake stop treating diseases like leukemia and AIDS. :zz:

Bingo bongo!:wf

Except, unlike you, I don't have an issue with contributing to the health of society at large, so of course I support the First Lady's efforts to improve eating and exercise habits. I'd like people to live long, healthy lives.

How is it fair under your "punish the people who do things I don't like" utopia to charge a smoker who doesn't ever develop lung cancer? Or an obese person who is in perfect health?

And really, smokers already are doing that, via the taxes they pay on every package of cigarettes.

Only that tax money is going into the general fund like SS payments and everything else to pay for things like a billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, 3 billion to destroy cars and untold billions wasted bringing in, educating, insuring and housing illegals.

It should be solely dedicated to lung cancer and related illnesses and anyone selling cigarettes w/o paying the tax should be choked out. ;)

No, it's not, because the states tax it, not the feds. Le sigh.

Wanna bet?

I'll give you a chance to google before you decide.

Ok I can't take your money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigaret..._United_States

As someone who has never purchased a pack of cigarettes in my life, I fully cop to be ignorant of how much tax is on them. That said, I did google, and the Feds collect about $14 million a year on them. Explain to me, how that amounts to, in your words:
"a billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood, 3 billion to destroy cars and untold billions wasted bringing in, educating, insuring and housing illegals."

Because, thanks to the same google, this is what I read about what the recent federal excise increase has gone to:

"On February 4, 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 was signed into law, which raised the federal tax rate for cigarettes on April 1, 2009 from $0.39 per pack to $1.01 per pack.[8][9] The purpose of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is to provide aid for impoverished children. SCHIP expanded its coverage of liability (in 2009) to include families with up to three times the federal poverty level as well as children from high-income families in New York and New Jersey. SCHIP is proposed to also cover dental benefits and treatment of mental illnesses where it previously did not exist. In addition to providing these services for U.S. citizens, SCHIP is also expanded to cover immigrant children and immigrant pregnant women.[10]"

Maybe that's what you meant by "educating, insuring and housing illegals?" Getting health care to poor kids and pregnant women? Dude, you're harsh.

And there but for the grace of god (or the flying spaghetti monster, or woden) go all of us.
I deal every day with people from every walk of life. I think it has really helped me to learn, to understand, and to have some empathy. Many of us are a catastophe or less away from having a completely changed life.

I'm sorry about your miscarriage. That is a shame.

I don't remember Prop 45 at all. I usually remember most propositions. I would think I would have had to vote yes on it. How could anyone be in favor of insurance companies raising rates by huge amounts? Are you sure that there wasn't more to the proposition? I don't know how a proposition like that could have lost. Although the prop about labeling GMO food lost, so it shows you that the voters can easily be fooled by tons of misleading advertisements by one side.

With regard to having a really high deductible and a low premium, I think that is the way to go for a really healthy person. For me, the point of insurance is to insure against a catastrophic illness. My medical bills are extremely low. I take good care of myself. I eat right and exercise daily. Even though I'm in my 40s, my blood pressure is 105 over 70. I certainly don't want to pay $4,500 a year for insurance when my medical bills are typically less than $1,000 a year.

With regards to what you were saying in another post about an emergency room visit, if I have a cheap deductible I am saving close to $2,000 a year. When my monthly premium dropped from $520 a month to $210 a month, I was saving $3,600 a year. So over just a 3 year period, I was going to save almost $10,000. I would have no problem spending $2,000 on an emergency room visit once every 5-10 years. I would much rather do that than spend an extra $2,000-$3,000 a year on premiums.

Thank you for your kind words.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Pr...itiative_(2014)

Anthem was one of the top 5 donors working to defeat it (contributed $250,000 towards campaigning against it) but didn't spend nearly as much as Kaiser and Wellpoint, which spent over $18 million. Each.

Propositions like that lose because people are influenced by advertising. Look at how much money grifters have made off of charter schools, which do no better than public schools and in many cases, do worse. And yet they are still being served up as the solution to education (when in fact the real issue is poverty, of course). It takes a lot of time and effort to be well informed on an issue, and most people have neither the time nor the inclination, though they still do get to vote on them.

As to your example of money saved, that's a fine idea if a person has the disposable income to put into a savings account that is reserved only for health care and if that person suffers illness or injury that is not more expensive than the money saved. For an example, here is the cost of a broken leg, which an active, 20 something might suffer while riding a bike, or crossing the street.

http://health.costhelper.com/broken-leg.html

Now, at the low end, three years of saving in your premiums would not have been enough to cover the cost of a broken leg that needed setting. And of course, the lifetime cap can become an issue if there is long term physical therapy needed. Did yours have a lifetime cap?

So many things can go wrong with the human body. I have a friend, in (she thought) great health, who, while volunteering at a riding stable, had a locker fall on her, breaking her neck. In treating the neck, they found she had a tumor growing there, which (oh, the irony!) likely would have killed her if she hadn't had a locker fall on her and break her neck. Tests also revealed she has multiple myeloma. While the combination of the broken bones in her spine and the tumor have resulted in her no longer being able to shake her head side to side (and, at this point, drive, or ride, or work sitting at a desk), she has, after a year, gone into remission. So now they can finally address the physical therapy for her neck, although she still must go through several more rounds of chemo.

How much of this would your old policy have covered?

A friend from high school had a double lung transplant 4 years ago- she has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which killed her father in his 30s. Her medical costs are now well into seven figures. But she was unaware she had a problem until her 30s, when she started having trouble breathing- hell, she ran track in high school, and her siblings are fine. As her father died of it, you'd better believe that was considered a pre-existing condition. What was your plan like about pre-existing conditions?

It's excellent that you take good care of yourself, but a huge part of health, especially where things like cancer are concerned, is just luck (with, as Dell often points out, the exception of lung cancer, though I had a professor who died of it and had never smoked in his life). You've been lucky so far, and here's to hoping that you continue to be lucky and enjoy good health into old age. But life doesn't owe you anything, and as infuriated as you are now about your premiums, I would wager it's better coverage overall than what you had before.

And hey, if your health is that good, then one doctor is pretty much like another at this point and if you have to switch, it's no big deal. I had to switch a lot in my 20s and early 30s when I was buying my own insurance. If it's that you happen to just personally like certain doctors over others (which is natural), then that just falls into, well, sucks to be middle class; the rich get to have nice things the rest of us don't.

Fantastic program for those trying to kick the cigarette habit :zz:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middlee...212-story.html

:tro:

Shiny graphs and whatnot.

Seniors on Medicare Advantage aren't technically receiving services from medicare. They give up that right to the private insurance companies.

I thought democrats hated medicare advantage? Now they like it?

Oh the spinning never ends when you're on the Titanic.

Small hospitals love Obamaca...oh wait.

Another one just closed.

:D

Another doctor retired too.

Holy shite!!!!...may monthly premium went up $150 bucks for worse coverage.

thanks obama. dont let the door hit you etc etc....d'bag

Post of the YEAR

:rolleyes:

Reggie?

There is an article on the 'fringe' news sites about 3 billion of the treasury being used to fund the ongoing lie that is Obamacare.

No big deal.

Your welcome.

Most people don't have a clue what 3 billion dollars is unless you say it's more money than all the money Oprah, Michael Jordan and Kim Kardashian have.

Meanwhile getting all riled up if someone from the WalMart family buys a $30 million apartment in NYC ignoring 3 billion could buy a 100 of them.

Then again the President spent 3 billion on Cash for Clunkers over 2 weekends and the lemmings applauded. :wf

Yes the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were disastrous and any President that would continue to spend right after that disaster is either a moron or hates this country.

That link doesn't justify the continued spending of this idiot we have in office.

And remember Hillary voted for Iraq.

A lot of democrats voted for it. Just like the Republicans have bent over and took it in the ass on immigration, budgets, etc.

False left-right paradigm continues due to partisan bickering.

Both parties are useless and destroying this country. All part of the plan.

Nice to know Harvard's Kennedy School of Government now considers us an Imperialist nation as opposed to a Democracy.

Dell my point is that both parties are destroying this country.

And on that I agree with you.

If only we could have the 'Greatest Generation' back.

One's who valued independence from government as opposed to dependence on government.

Where actions meant more than feelings.

Dependence on the government by the Rich and Poor while us stuck in the middle pay the tab.