Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jparr, Feb 2, 2013.
It wasn't trouble until you insulted the poster. As usual.
My opinion on Obamacare is well-known, and I have no intention of re-hashing it here.
What I have noticed as a common thread here is that co-pays on Novolog seem to be much higher than they are on Humalog. Anyone know why that might be?
We pay 20% of Rx costs, not a flat copay. Our coinsurance went up recently. We used to pay just shy of $20 for a bottle of Novolog, now we are paying a little more than $25. It looks like the price of Novolog went up.
(Disclaimer, I did not read the entire thread.)
We have an employer paid policy that covers everything except for a few $3 copays, for prescriptions, $10 copays for dental and vision. Additionally, the employer pays a large percentage of the premiums, I am not sure how much but I am pretty sure it is more than most pay.
That would be sweet for many. But the last I heard it can't realistically be done. In fact a quick search on the net found this site where someone asked if he could do that and people responded that he could not. It appears to be common knowledge that one cannot negotiate for a higher salary in exchange for not taking the insurance. After all, the reason the insurance company gives the company a break on premiums is because they get ALL the employees as customers without having to go out and convince all of them to join. The company also loses tax breaks. The opt-out credit if it exists is generally a few hundred dollars rather than the full thousands and you will have to pay taxes on the income. Hardly non-coercive.
I really have never made anay claims for it being an ideal world. Only a world in which people are not coerced into doing things because the tax code makes them or because a law makes them do things they should be able to do or not on their own. It is really not too much to ask that the government would not make people make certain non-criminal non-harmful decisions through either force of law or financial punishments. Is it too much to ask that everyone gets to buy and sell whatever they want or not as long as they don't harm people?
I have hardly said people are on their own. In fact in that 12 point list I provided before upon your request only half of #1 was a situation in which a person is on his own. In every other example given cooperation between people was a part. Most of my points even require more cooperation than the present plan.
I also have no doubt that there would be law suits like today, and contracts like today , and difficulties like today...
Are you suggesting that for people without insurance public aid is so horrible that you can't imagine that? I doubt it but if so then why would you want another gov program? We don't even need the ACA because every state has a program already that covers everyone who needs it.
Yes you are right that no one knows how this will play out. Did you read the "I pencil" article I linked? The point the economist was making is that people do not know how to centrally plan the production of a pencil let alone a health care system. That is an argument FOR free markets.
The unfortunate people you speak of are being taken care of right now to the best of our health systems ability except for those who are stuck on public aid who receive inferior care when they should not. If you think public aid is great then why do we need the ACA. If you think it is awful then the last thing we need is another failed gov program. Right now not a single person in the US lacks health care. I am not going to explain that so people can come out all indignant and then I can come back and prove it later.
Additionally, in the history (before nationalized public aid) of our country no one was left without health care to the best of the countries ability with the exception of those who faced discrimination or those who had inferior service because it was a government run program. This country has never lacked the will to provide good care to all and great care to most and when the care was only good it was because of government or discrimination.
You are flat-out wrong that every state already has a system in place that covers everyone who needs it. In Illinois, there are many, many thousands of adults who do not qualify for Medicaid and who do not have other insurance options. Some of them are my clients who are divorcing the spouse who has always carried the health insurance for the family.
And it's always nice to see Brensdad pop in to stir the pot over a comment that occurred pages ago and was no longer affecting the dialogue in the thread. Right on schedule.
Well, I can see I'm done here. The sum total of WTF in this paragraph alone is too overwhelming for me to even process. The unfortune are being taken care of except those that aren't ... no one lacks health care ... and I couldn't help but notice that you staged the question so that the only outcome would be your position that the ACA is unnecessary. I'm going to advise you to conclude, if you haven't already, that I am just too dense to understand your point of view.
I am going to go enjoy a nice cup of coffee - for some reason I've lost my taste for tea.
If they do not qualify for Medicaid then they have assets which they should be using to pay for their medical care. The important thing is not that they have insurance but that they have medical care.
The situation of a person who is the midst of a divorce is not one I had considered. Can they buy Cobra? Either way you have to admit this is a temporary situation. It would be far better to offer a fix for this small segment of people who fall through the cracks than to revamp the whole system.
Um, no the unfortunate never have a lack of options.
They are always taken care of. There is no situation in which under normal circumstances they are not. Pending more information it just might be true that a person who is almost poor and is going through a divorce does not have insurance. I doubt they would not qualify for medicaid unless they did had assets. If they had assets then they should use those assets. But if they did not qualify for insurance or medicaid then they could just walk into any ER in the country and receive care. They would not be able to see most doctors in the office. But there are some who see people for free.
I am sorry that I was not clear enough for you to understand. I would be happy to clarify if anyone asks questions. If someone does not understand and does not ask questions then their next step should be to just listen.
No, they don't have assets to pay for their medical care. Their income/assets are going to pay for food, shelter, clothes for their kids, etc. These people can't afford COBRA, which is wildly expensive. And the situation is not temporary, either. How do you propose a formerly stay-at-home mom with a high school education and three kids just run out and find herself a job with benefits that will also pay her enough to find a sitter for her kids while she works? Even once the kids are in school, someone has to watch them when they get home, during the summer, during school breaks, etc.
Or think about a 57 year old woman who has never worked outside the home, who now finds herself divorced. Do you know how hard it is for someone in that situation to find a job with health insurance benefits?
In Illinois, if you are an able-bodied adult, you can only have income up to 100% of the poverty level and assets of $2000 total in order to qualify for Medicaid. Do you know how poor you can be and NOT qualify for Medicaid? Very poor, my friend. Very poor.
If you think this is just a small segment of the population, you are completely out of touch. I see it all the time. ALL the time.
ETA: Sure, they can go to the ER. But can they get prescriptions? Preventative care? Cancer treatment? Non-emergency surgery? Insulin and test strips? Really, I can't tell if you're this clueless or being deliberately obtuse. I'm really getting furious here, so I'm going to have to bow out now. Later.
since the conversation has devolved already, I will share what I feel like when I read these comments and hope and pray that Lakeman never needs to be fully dependent on all the marvelous care that he thinks serves the poors so well. Because certainly no one ever ever dies from lack of appropriate health care in this country. Nope. Never.
This shows just how arrogant and privileged you are. The lack of health insurance greatly decreased the level of care, pain medicine, and treatments available while my father lay dying from cancer. He could not afford health insurance and he was on a 2 year long waiting list for state aid - he died in 1 year and 9 months. There was NOTHING - nothing. No options other then a handful of doctors willing to donate their time and services. No options.
And a newly divorced parent, looking for new housing and somehow making ends meet? How are they supposed to pay the $700 a month for Cobra?
Seriously, I cannot imagine the lucky and privileged life you have led to never have experienced true need or true poverty in your life.
I've opened the thread.
This is an incredibly important topic, and one that tends to cause passionate discussion from all sides.
Please keep the discussion civil.
When did I say that the only way she could have health care is to get a job that offers benefits? What I said is that she will not be out of options.
You are telling me that a woman in this position cannot earn enough to pay for her own expenses like food and health care. These are your words.
You are telling me that this example the woman is head of a family of four. In 2009 before the ACA was passed she could have earned about $22 and still qualified for Medicaid. Since she obviously could not have found a job paying that much she clearly qualified. She had health care.
Let us imagine however, that you were mistaken and she could find a job that paid enough to pay her expenses. Well then she had enough to pay for her expenses. She had health care.
Let us suppose that she found a job that paid over 22k, did not offer insurance, but she also could not afford her expenses. Does she have no other resources to help her make ends meet? Her food comes from the food pantry. She moves in with relatives or friends or a room-mate. Her room-mate also has kids so they take turns watching each others kids while they work. When that won't work she uses the state CCAP program which provides child care for $45 per month (yes I just looked that up on their website). The local church gives her cash and other assistance. She uses other state programs specifically for kids that are not medicaid (there are quite a few programs). Yes it is hard. I would be one of the people who would be shoveling her driveway and giving her cash. But the point is that that she gets enough help to free up cash to pay for medical care. Ah, you say but what if something big comes up and she can't afford it? It has to be her own health because the kids are already covered. Now the social worker at the hospital sees that her situation is different than it was a month ago and she now qualifies for Medicaid or any number of state programs. First she had health care when she could afford it and later she had health care from the state when she could not.
Since she has no job she qualifies for public aid. Unless she has money in which case she uses that money to pay for health care. Unless it runs out then she qualifies for Medicaid.
The poverty level is somewhere around 11K. So yes that is very poor. And no the state program is not the only place one can get help. This person should seek help from friends, family, neighbors, and programs other than medicaid. If this is not sufficient then he would be better off leaving his job and going on public aid in the event that he got sick. But it would never really come to that. A person can not qualify for public aid and be enrolled instantly at the hospital when the need arises. He has options and one of them is to earn less to qualify for public aid. I used to be a benefits administrator for a group home and quite a few of my clients planned to work less hours than they could so they could keep benefits. he has health care - at the very least the health care they give you in the ER.
All of these people whether they be a large or a small group can pay for their own care until the run out of cash then they can adjust their work situation to enroll in medicaid. If there is no emergency they will have to wait to be enrolled but if they are sick they will be enrolled right away.
You are upset because you are misinformed. Every single person in this country has access to health care in one of three ways: 1. they have money. 2. They enroll in public aid or another state program or 3. They cant enroll yet but as soon as they get sick they can. This is not the only way to get care. They can also appeal to friends, relatives, neigbors, chariites, gov programs other than medicaid.
It is not easy and we need to fix the problem as a nation but we need to start with accurate information - they have health care.
The next problem is how hard it is to make ends meet. This is a different problem that I would be willing to discuss if it fit this thread. But first things first. An the first thing to realize is that no one does not have options for health care. Some are hard and addressing the hardship is a separate issue.
Since this is about Obamacare and how it will impact YOUR family....go to the web site
If you are low income...mostly positive benefits.
If you work for a large company or are a city employee, you will see less benefits, higher out of pocket costs, as the larger corporations needs to see to the budget.
Seems like middle class working people will carry the burden of paying more.
Welfare fraud frustrates me.
I actually think that the health care provided to poor people is good but not as excellent as mine. I know this from first hand experience having administered this kind of health care for over a hundred people at varying levels of poverty.
My opnion is that the state system is merely good. But it does do what I said it would do - it provides health care for everyone who cannot afford it themselves. The state has set limits in who qualifies if you think the limits are wrong then write your congressman. I think that the federal and state legislatures were about right in how they set the limits.
But if you think that the government system is so poor that it does not even count as health care or that the rules to enroll are so bad that people who need it don't qualify then why on Earth would you want the government to be controlling your health care?
There are problems that need to be fixed but the solution is not to create a whole new badly run program.
Good points, and very passionate in protecting those struggling.
My son got married last year, he is a full time student, works a 20-30 hours a week, his wife stays home raising their child.
His job pays minimum...no health benefits.
He pays rent, food, car and rent insurance, gas, utilities, Internet-basic, cell phones-no frills, diapers, and tuition.
His success....a budget. We taught him how to budget. And he is brilliant about numbers.
This is something all students should learn how to do.
Health insurance - covered by Obamacare...students covered til 26.
I am sorry your father died. My mother died of cancer a few months ago and my father is dying of it right now. I am sorry that you choose to use a personal example for us to discuss. If we are going to get at the truth we are going to have to ask hard questions.
Are you saying that the state program that helped poor people was so bad that a man with no way to pay for his own care had to wait for two years? Frankly I just don't believe this. If this is true then that state program is far far worse than I ever thought and we should never entrust that state to provide health care to anyone ever again. I am more familiar with Illinois where he would have qualified.
What state did he live in? Was he poor? Did he have a house? Did he have a job? Where there hard choices that he decided not to make which caused him not to qualify? Choices like selling his house? Why did he not have insurance before he got sick?
Did you help him? If so then he obviously had help but not enough. Then there were the doctors who provided help. Which is it? Did he have nothing or did he have you and some doctors? What did you do to find other help? Did you talk to the social worker at the hospital?
These are hard questions and I really wish you had not used an example so close to home. If he had options you can just listen for a while and we will know that is what you are doing, but if he really had no options then please respond and we can figure out if the state was to blame or what happened here. If he really had no options I will modify my statement. I still cannot believe that a man with no assets or income who was sick did not qualify.
P.s. my father never earned more than $20K per year in his entire life. (less than the woman in hawkeyegirl's example and we had a home, food, insurance etc.) My mother stayed at home. I put myself through college with hard work bailing hay and driving a delivery van and the like. Hardly privilege.
I don't see Low income people getting different care. If a person goes to the hospital they get treated. Regardless of ability to pay or not if they have title 19.
If you don't have ANY insurance, then those individuals will get billed full price for services. What most don't realize is that your insurance carrier negotiates fees with Healthcare providers.
Example the bill is $1000, but your insurance will only pay $600 for that service, the rest is either written off or charged to patient. Mostly it is reduced fee.
What we need in the big city is less healthcare abuse, intercity proverity areas will call 911, demand an ambulance ride for a cold or minor illness. That ambulance ride is $800 charged to the city, which is paid by raising taxes. OUT of the pockets of those who are working and own property.
Those who truly need assistance...I honor it. Those who abuse it, waste our resources and our hard earned monies.
This article is a must read:
Dude, "she" may receive maintenance (alimony) or child support from her spouse that puts her over the income level. She may have more than $2,000 in assets. I honestly can't believe that you're arguing with me about the fact that there are adults in Illinois who are not eligible for Medicaid, who do not have enough money to pay for their health care. They sit in my office all of the time. You can sit in your little bubble and call me misinformed all you want, but I am actually out in the real world trying to help these people, and I can tell you that they do not have reasonable access to quality health care. And that is what this conversation is (or should be about). REASONABLE access to QUALITY healthcare. The kind of healthcare you would want for your mother or your daughter. Healthcare that does not find you begging on the doorstep of your neighbor or friend so that you can afford your blood pressure medication for the month.
Your premise is flawed, you simply deny the existence of any situations that would negate your own beliefs, and the fact that you deny being privileged shows that you have no true understanding of the word. Are you white? Are you able-bodied? Were you born reasonably intelligent? Are you lacking in mental illness? Did you have two parents growing up? Did they feed and clothe you? Did you have a stay at home mom who was there when you got home from school and helped you with your homework? Did your parents value education and encourage you to further your own education? If you answered yes to some or all of these questions, you are enormously privileged, as am I. The difference is, I recognize and admit it.
Separate names with a comma.