Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Free healthcare...it's the way forward. It actually is. The welfare state is much like the Borg. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 And how much would it be if you weren't getting a subsidy? $800, $900, $1,000 a month?......for people not eligible for a subsidy, I don't call that affordable, plus they have that high deductible on top of that. Here's the thing. I make around thirty dollars an hour and I still am eligible for a subsidy (my wife is a stay at home mom) so it you're making twice that you've got no reason to cry about not getting one. I've got one income and three dependants and we've got money to live on and save. As far as I'm concerned I'm the person obamacare is "supposed" to work for and except for the deductible it works just fine. When I'm old and having to go to the doctors constantly that may not be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Pfffft. Emotional liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gidget Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Someone has to pay that subsidy.....and because you have 4 family members in your household, that income level for a subsidy is about $95,000. So if you made $95,000 annually, you'd think it was ok to pay $1,000 a month for coverage for your family, for a $12,000 deductible plan? So in essence, if you had a hospitalization in your family and had to pay the deductible of $12,000, plus the premium for that year of $12,000, you'd be ok with that? Take that same $30 an hour, for a 2 member household, and the income level for a subsidy is about $62,000. So, that household isn't eligible for a subsidy, and their monthly premium for Obamacare can be anywhere from $400.00 monthly(for a young couple)- $1,000 monthly( for a couple in their 60's) for that same high deductible plan. For the young couple, not so bad, for the older couple, with probably more claims, not so good. To get good coverage, that premium shoots way up. Personally, I feel the word "Affordable" should be nowhere in the "Affordable" Care Act........just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Good post Gidget. Affordable my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Man you guys pay through the nose for healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 It really is unsustainable. And costs are just gonna go up. Eventually a nationalized plan is going to be the only way anybody can get any kind of reasonable care. There will still be private insurance for the very wealthy, and they will get preferential treatment...something I'm 100% ok with. That's the way to go. A wealthy person will go the Dr and he'll ask them if they're going on the national plan or their own private plan.....if it's on their private plan than they'll get whatever preferential treatment is feasible. Of course there will be some far lefties screaming about that but I don't give a fuck. If you make the money to afford what will become very expensive private insurance, than that's the breaks for whomever gets bumped down because a privately insured patient got bumped up. Within reason of course. If there's someone who's about to die and has the national plan and someone who's far from dying but is private, you don't bump the privately insured up in that case. It has to be fairly equal situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Man you guys pay through the nose for healthcare. The same people bitching about it have repeatedly blocked efforts to implement free or "socialized" health care. Not making a hell of a lot of sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Pretty simple in this case. Follow the money. Who gets the free shit and who pays for it? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 If health care went to evil socialization the answer wouled be: Who gets the free shit Steve is so outraged about: everyone Who pays for it: everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 If health care went to evil socialization the answer wouled be: Who gets the free shit Steve is so outraged about: everyone Who pays for it: everyone Well, not those in work, to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 If health care went to evil socialization the answer wouled be: Who gets the free shit Steve is so outraged about: everyone Who pays for it: everyone But of course they don't. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 But of course they don't. WSS The people who don't pay into the system already get "free healthcare". They get Medicaid so they are already on the government teet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 If health care went to evil socialization the answer wouled be:Who gets the free shit Steve is so outraged about: everyoneWho pays for it: everyone Cysko ************************************** Nonsense. Who gets it? Everybody who is poor. Who pays for it? Everybody not poor. What happens? The money eventually runs out, and hc rationing happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 If health care went to evil socialization the answer wouled be: Who gets the free shit Steve is so outraged about: everyone Who pays for it: everyone Cysko ************************************** Nonsense. Who gets it? Everybody who is poor. Who pays for it? Everybody not poor. What happens? The money eventually runs out, and hc rationing happens. I believe Cysko is referring to a socialized medicine system like the NHS where everyone gets use from it. Poor people are already getting "free healthcare". If health care went fully government controlled, they would notice zero difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Ah, I think you are probably correct. But free always seems to always to cost too much money to really work. I mean, rates keep going up for individual use for those who have money, and eventually goes into the red, like social security is going. If all you had was the socialized med system, then everybody would have to use it. And, rates would have to go up... The whole subject of healthcare financing warps my psyche. And anytime the fed runs the show, the high level of control is extremely inefficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Your hospitals seem to be run basically as businesses, with massive costs for things. Which of course means insurance is needed, because nobody pays the massive costs. So then it becomes something of a racket between insurance companies and hospitals, and the prices just keep going up and up and up. Here's where I lean left - healthcare is a basic service required by everybody that should be denied to nobody. Thus, it should be run by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Ah, I think you are probably correct. But free always seems to always to cost too much money to really work. I mean, rates keep going up for individual use for those who have money, and eventually goes into the red, like social security is going. If all you had was the socialized med system, then everybody would have to use it. And, rates would have to go up... The whole subject of healthcare financing warps my psyche. And anytime the fed runs the show, the high level of control is extremely inefficient. Where I think there could be savings are in things like MRIs and CT scans. I would like to see what the cost difference is between how much the government pays out to a facility to give a tax payer an MRI in the NHS as opposed to getting one insured or out of pocket in the U.S. I paid out of pocket years ago for an MRI and it was outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 egad. Out of pocket for an MRI ??? I admit, this whole subject gets me confused. Costs are skyrocketing? A lot of folks who COULD work, get it for free, and did long before obamaodoesn'tcare, because they could go to the emergency rooms. But, that clogged up emergency rooms with non-emergencies. But, hospitals built those buildings, bought all that equipement, doctors paid for all their schooling, opening up all their offices, all those utility bills, etc, etc. If the government wants to build their buildings, pay their own bills, do their own hiring, etc... I'm good with that. All of our taxes go into that. However, I would never go to a gov hospital, and go to whoever was there, to have a new knee, which I will need eventually, when it finally forces me to...... I will go to the very best surgeon I can find. Which btw, I've gone to two of the best, and both say they can't believe I haven't had it done already. hahaha. The main fault of obamaocare, is that it went to interfere with our outstanding, albeit more expensive all the time, medical care system, and tried to screw it over until gov hc had a monopoly. The way I would do it, is people could go and use that, emergency rooms get a lot of relief, as well as private hospitals would have less pressure, and people could to their doctor without having a 6 week wait for an appt. Right now, because our family dr has patients on obamaocare, a certain # of her patients need to sign up to be able to access their medical records electronically. So, we did, to help her out, because if that percentage signing up, don't meet obamaocare requirements, they ***cut back payments*** to the dr. More economic use as a cattle prod. As a "weapon". I made a joke that our dr, who has been just that since I was in the AF, and was my parents dr... is now more like an air traffic controller. She really laughed, and said hc needed fixing, but youknowwhocare was complicating everything. New computer funky system required, reports and paperwork overload, etc etc etc etc. It's like teaching. Used to be, teachers loved teaching and got to do it most all the time. Now? A special ed teacher has IEP's getting longer, and longer, and more and more complicated, and reports, and IEP's change again and again and again in structure, and now a lot of teachers don't teach as much, as they have to get students to conform to standardized testiing expectations. There are outstanding teachers, who are getting more and more stressed, that can't wait to retire asap. I am fine with fed standards if they are valid. But fed control over everything is so inefficient, nobody wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 The Federal Government does a few things well. Well, at least one. The national park system, although unconstitutional is still a decently run organization. I used to point to the military as another institution that the U.S. national government was good at but it's being run down and poorly managed at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Where I think there could be savings are in things like MRIs and CT scans. I would like to see what the cost difference is between how much the government pays out to a facility to give a tax payer an MRI in the NHS as opposed to getting one insured or out of pocket in the U.S. I paid out of pocket years ago for an MRI and it was outrageous. When I used TRICARE for some CT scans a few years back the charged cost was around 1600 dollars. I think Tricare paid around 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 When I used TRICARE for some CT scans a few years back the charged cost was around 1600 dollars. I think Tricare paid around 400. I paid almost 2k out of pocket. I was young and did contract work that did not give me insurance. I got a cancer scare and ended up paying for everything out of pocket. It was a money pit. Won't go uninsured ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 But of course they don't. WSS I can't speak for welfare and ssid recipients but if you think because I make 60 some thousand a year instead of 90 some thousand and am therefore qualified for a subsidy that I don't pay far out the ass for taxes you are very wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 I can't speak for welfare and ssid recipients but if you think because I make 60 some thousand a year instead of 90 some thousand and am therefore qualified for a subsidy that I don't pay far out the ass for taxes you are very wrong Nobody is picking on you. No need to be so defensive. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Feels like some of you are whining that I qualify for a subsidy and I'm taking it. I'd prefer to make 95000 a year and pay 12000 so I could still make 83000 a year if one of you fellas could go ahead and hook me up with a hundred grand a year job that'd be stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Feels like some of you are whining that I qualify for a subsidy and I'm taking it. I'd prefer to make 95000 a year and pay 12000 so I could still make 83000 a year if one of you fellas could go ahead and hook me up with a hundred grand a year job that'd be stellar. But you're taking something from the government, you lazy, no good bum. Are you an immigrant too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Que? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gidget Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Feels like some of you are whining that I qualify for a subsidy and I'm taking it. I'd prefer to make 95000 a year and pay 12000 so I could still make 83000 a year if one of you fellas could go ahead and hook me up with a hundred grand a year job that'd be stellar. You stated how affordable your healthcare is now. I wasn't whining because you qualify for a subsidy. I think it's great that your wife is able to be a stay at home Mom, and a subsidy helps you to afford your coverage. I just wanted to point out, that Obamacare really isn't all that affordable, for someone who doesn't qualify for a subsidy. That's my big gripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 I get it but like I was getting at if I made $95,000 and had to pay 1000 a month putting me around $83,000 I'd still be making more money than I am now and while I'm not rich I have nice stuff and I'm comfortable and all my needs are met and I am still able to have a savings and grow it so really that is affordable. I guess what I'm saying is if a family of four can't live on $83,000 a year they're probably living above their means. I have no clue what the cutoff for one or two people is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.