TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: cb1000rider, you conveniently leave out some salient facts. These are FACTS, not invented.......

1. Denial of Care: until Obama's death panels, nobody has been denied care, including your 20 year old cancer patient. We have had public healthcare for generations now to cover the medical needs of people of small means. IF people did not take advantage of it, that is on them, not on the system. I worked in healthcare for a number of years.....in a private hospital, no less. We never turned away a patient. Did we eventually transfer destitute patients to public hospitals? Yes, we did; but NOT until they were stable to transfer without risk to their health. Those are facts. Those destitute patients, treated by doctors who get paid, have always gotten treatment, and the doctors always got paid. The cost of providing this public healthcare is an iota of a fraction of the cost of Obamacare, and it was paid for out of the taxes you and I were already paying.

First, my omitting them isn't intentional. To be clear - and this is as I understand it, so if I'm not right, feel free to clarify:
Hospitals (public/private) cannot turn away emergency patients. That can turn them out after stabilizing them. That does not mean, however, that they have to engage in long term treatment of patients that can't afford it. I assume that means if you need chemo, but can't afford it, and are not in an emergency situation that you're not going to get it. They'll refer you to a social program designed to help you, which can take months. I'm distinguishing between immediate need and availability of long term treatment. You may not get long term life saving treatment if you can't afford the care.



[*]Assets: the purpose of health insurance has NEVER been to provide for your healthcare (see above....it's all provided for if you have no money....), it was to protect your assets, which includes bank accounts, real estate, and other possessions. Ask any insurance agent. Insurance is about asset protection. If you have assets, then the insurance protects you from having to liquidate your assets to pay for your healthcare. If you don't have assets, then you don't absolutely need the insurance. The only reason for a person without assets to have health insurance is to be able to afford "cadillac" medical care.......which has less to do with whether you get the latest in treatment than it has to do with whether or not you can have a private room, or whether you can stay in a private hospital versus the public hospital. But without it, you will STILL get the healthcare, and without assets, there is nothing to take away from you to pay for it......which is why the state pays for it already, through the taxes you and I already pay.[/list]

That's an interesting point to call out. Certainly "insurance" is for asset protection. Of course, I don't think about it that way anymore. At some time in the past, healthcare stopped becoming affordable and now we need some form of "insurance" to help with it. In the last couple of years, I've paid 100% out of pocket once for "optional" stuff related to FAA licensing. Cash. That stuff, which was really an exam by a family practitioner and 4 X-rays cost me around $1000. If it was covered by my insurance, it would have run me about $50. Why are the costs out of control? Things that come to mind are subsidizing the uninsured and medical malpractice, but there is likely more.

Now my heath coverage (insurance) is simply part of a compensation package and it (the healthcare coverage) is looked at carefully. Something has fundamentally changed. I'm not saying that people don't buy catastrophic coverage anymore, as they some clearly do, but I'm not sure that's the norm for those of us working for the man... Medical care is just too expensive for even minor stuff like a broken bone.

I agree with you, if you're judgement proof, then it's easier to just skate along.. I just don't think that will work when you need long term care to properly treat an illness.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Obamacare punishes those with assets to protect but for whom the plan rates are unaffordable, and takes money from them in the form of fines assessed for not being either too rich or too poor, and gives that money to people who either have no assets to protect, and therefore do not need the asset protection of insurance, or it gives that money to people still make $51,999/year (in other words, NOT poor) in order to protect their assets.

It's definitely tending toward socalism, but where you make the distinction about providing insurance for those that have no assets, I think the only difference is probably providing protection for long term expensive treatments. We pay for it with or without Obamacare. It seems that Obama is shifting some of that burden to the young and healthy versus those that pay more taxes.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Obama calls that social justice. He also says he respects the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. You tell me, does he have values that you want to associate your own integrity with?

Social justice - interesting. I understand the position and didn't like the prior trend, that's all I have to say.
2nd amendment: HA! I have a hard time looking past the reality that the 2nd amendment isn't alive in Texas. It's not the Feds that I blame for that. We have 50% of that 2nd amendment. We have the right (for now) to keep arms, but we don't have the right to bear them.

sjfcontrol wrote:e one...

Then lets take all the money from everybody worth more than, say, $100 million, and distribute it to everybody else. That would be a good thing in your philosophy?

Trick question.
If I say that the good of the many outweigh what is good for me or you or some other individual, then I'm Socialist.
If I say that "I'm good" - doesn't affect me, then I really only care about myself.

How would you answer that?

I want a sustainable solution. I recognize an unsustainable trend. The trend that we were on will mean I work for the rest of my life if I'm to stay insured - and I'm above average means.
I don't think Obamacare is necessarily the answer, but Bush's attempt to reform healthcare failed. Basically, I'm willing to get creative and try a change. I'm not for it, I'm not against it... I just want to see the data.

VMI77 wrote: Wow....so, because of decisions other people make, I have to expend my labor for their care and existence --making me, in essence, their slave? So, money should be taken from me at gunpoint and used to treat some gang banger that got shot in a drive-by? That's your idea of ethical? What you propose is not only evil, but counterproductive. There are a substantial number of human beings on this planet and in this country who are not going to work and make themselves afford things like medical care when they can get it for free. It's a law of the universe: when you pay for something you get more of it. When you pay people not to work you get more people not working.

Your example is extreme. Certainly I wouldn't *choose* to support some gang banger that was shot by someone acting in self-defense. However, that gang-banger is going to be taken to a hospital, where a doctor who swore an oath to treat all people is going to treat him, regardless of how the issue occurred. Someone has to pay for that. The alternative is that someone gets to make a decision about who gets life-saving treatment an who doesn't based on very limited (and often incorrect) facts. You ready to make that call?

The gang-banger gets treated with tax dollars also. That stinks. It's not just, but I don't want to be the one deciding who is in and who is out... Sounds too much like a "death panel" to me.

Let's try a less extreme example. Lets say that I'm 20, I go to school and work to better myself. I don't have insurance as I don't have a full time job and my parents can't cover me. All of a sudden, I've got cancer. I didn't choose cancer. I don't smoke and I'm not lazy.. Stuff happens. Cancer treatment, assuming it is treatable, can run $100k/year. What should happen to this guy?

There are all sorts of stories in between. And sure there are lazy people who want a hand out. But do admit there are not-so-lazy people who can't afford the $12-$14k in insurance costs that I quoted for a family of 4.

The way it worked pre-Obamacare is that the taxpayers would cover it in some form or fashion. Maybe through taxes. Maybe through ridiculous "walk-in" medical costs. Regardless, the costs have gone so high over the last 10 years that it's clearly unsustainable.

VMI77 wrote: You've totally bought into the notion that the government solves problems. There never has been such a government on this planet, and never will be. The government creates problems...and outside of a functioning justice system (which we no longer have), and a military to defend our borders (which it no longer does), that's all it does...create problems and make life worse for the majority, while enriching the elites who rule over us. That's all any government has ever done. Henry David Thoreau could already see it over 150 years ago:

I think that there are problems that the government tries to solve and does a poor job of... on that, you and I agree...
Course, we, the sheep, tend to elect people who promise to give us hand-outs and provide for us at no cost to us, paid for by other people. When is the last time you voted for someone who said that they were going to raise our taxes to pay for the things that we already bought and decrease our benefits? Wait.. No one runs on a platform like that.

VMI77 wrote: So then, if you're good, tough luck for everyone else?

*Laugh*

No, although I leave it to you to assume that such is my immediate attitude.

Remember that I said if I'm able to figure out that it's doing more harm than good, I'll stand beside those trying to get it shut down.

I'm interested in the impact as a whole. Isolated examples of people that it hurts are not pleasant - and I have compassion for those people, especially for those on this forum who are losing homes and employer insurance over it. However, we can find examples of people that it helps too. I'm mainly interested how it will affect the "majority" of Americans and if, as a whole, it's a win or lose. You'd think, just based on the math that if they can bring enough low-risk uninsured into the market.. Well, let's call it what it is - force low-risk uninsured into the market, that this will help subsidize premiums as a whole... The interest in "what does it do to my rates" is anecdotal, but I'll publish it just to be fair.

A friend I trust pulled these - Travis county. Family of 4, non-tobacco users.

It looks like "bronze" - high deductible ($6k) out of pocket max $6k,
HMO: $530
PPO: $692

The idea here was to find lowest premiums (non-exchange). It's still a ton of money $6000-$7200 a year + another $6k up front for coverage. Yea, not real affordable.

I think this is not the national exchange.. IT appears to be blue cross blue shield... But it's a point of reference.
I can't compare it to what I have, as it's not apples to apples... More data to come later.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I know that lots of you have made up your minds.

Dude, it's not that I have made up my mind in a vacuum. I have run the numbers. Did you read my last post? That information comes from MY INSURANCE AGENT. He happens to be the appointed Obamacare specialist for a statewide trade organization of insurance agents. He probably knows more about it than anybody in the state. The numbers don't lie. According to the law, in 2014, I will either pay a fine equivalent to 1% of my 2013 adjusted GROSS income, OR I will spend $13,572 on Obamacare premiums for 2014. What you should know is that, after all taxes, my NET income will be cut by a third by insurance premium alone.

I read your numbers and they're certainly not a great indicator of what's going on. I'm not challenging you on them and recognize that in your case, it's not a good deal.

I will ask you follow-up questions:
1) Is your insurance agent a captive or non-captive agent? It's important to be able to give you a full picture of the market.
2) Have you run the numbers anywhere else - without an agent or broker involved? I haven't tried the national exchange myself as I know that it's overloaded and I'd be taking someone's place that needs to get in.

I work in the "insurance space" - which includes healthcare. Right now we see lots of consumers tire-kicking at a rate which we've never previously seen. I suppose it's to be expected.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Frankly, your "wait and see" attitude is fine for you, but don't you DARE suggest that I'm being close minded. Don't you dare.

I'm not suggesting that you're closed minded as you've got data. On the contrary! You've got a bad situation that is being applied to you and I don't see how you can be anything but mad..

The Annoyed Man wrote: You're "wait and see" obamacare is going to bankrupt me if I enroll, and if I don't I'll pay a fine so that shiftless gimme-free-stuff people can suck the financial blood out of me.

I'm sorry if I'm on the slow side of the learning curve here. I'm certainly not out to bankrupt you or anyone else. Just hold your horses so I can run the numbers myself - for my situation - and I'll be 100% forthcoming about how they turn out. If it's a bad deal all the way around, I'll stand beside you, trust me...

BTW, I think *off the top of my head* my heathcare costs are in the $9-$11k range per year. That's part of being in a risk pool with around 60 other people and a family of 3. I'll recover the exact numbers. That rate is probably doubled in the last 5 years alone.

Jaguar wrote: I don't think the intent is to make our lives “better” at all. I believe the intent of the power hungry people is more power over other people. How better to gain power over people than by having control of their health care.

I don't believe that. There are more effective ways to grab more power that aren't as controversial. The sheep notice this one and are paying attention, probably due to the media.
Largely the lawyers and corporations that have control over healthcare. New legislation doesn't change that. It just herds more of us into the system.
Remember the legislation sets limits to how much of premiums are *not* spent on providing care.... It'll probably be a net win for health insurers though.

Jaguar wrote: There are a whole bunch of bliss ninnies who believe the poor, poor, pitiful poor need insurance and only the power of government can achieve that. I am related to some of the aforementioned bliss ninnies. They are smart, educated, successful professionals but somehow believe the government is the only one that can do anything without evil capitalist unfairly raping the poor and middle class.

Personally, I don't see the difference. Yes, only the government can compel people toward insurances - that I complete agree with. However, we're already funding the healthcare of the poor via underwriting their emergency room visits. Now we're just being taxed so that they don't have to go to the emergency room for care...

Is it Socialist? It's certainly more than it was before. They haven't gone so far as to ruin our medical system yet.

Because we already pay for the emergency room visits of those who can't pay and the emergency room visits of non-citizens, I want to see what the net-net is... Does this help or hurt? I know that lots of you have made up your minds.

When things settle down, I'll get a bid on the exchange and compare it to my current coverage -- I'll do it openly and honestly see what the initial cost trend is (for me).

mojo84 wrote: Hyperbole

No, I mean I want a look at the actual data in terms of coverage and associated costs compared to pre-implementation. I don't mean it as a a rhetorical statement.

If I'm wrong to have a wait-and-see attitude, I accept it.. I've been wrong before.

sjfcontrol wrote:
The rates are capped (for the risk pool) at (as I recall) twice what the average cost for a plan for a non-pre-existing person would be. So no $10k per month premiums.

In that event, we're solving a problem that we don't have (at least in TX).

sjfcontrol wrote: Simply not true. The Texas Health Insurance Pool is (was) available for those that couldn't otherwise qualify due to preexisting conditions. My wife had cancer, and was covered under the pool until she turned 65 and medicare took over. Expensive? Yes. High Deductibles? Yes. But it was insurance and was available.

I stand corrected on this... And a few other things that my fellow members have helped to educate me with.
However, a Texas Health Insurance pool that candidates coverage of pre-existing conditions, but doesn't limit premiums is essentially the same as not insuring them. Have a history of cancer? That'll be $10k/month in premiums. Apparently Obamacare makes it so that you can't exclude the condition and you can't charge more for it.. Which is why they're pushing young (healthy) people to get in the pools and balance out.

Again, I'll wait and see.. It's the statistical cost/coverage data that I want across the board. If it's worse, I'll work beside you to get rid of it...

Rotor,
I think we're on the same page. Congress doesn't have to buy healthcare on the exchange because over 70% of their premiums are covered by their employer (us / Federal government). As I understand it, Congress is treated no differently than any other federal employee with high levels of coverage.

As I understand it, this is the same level of healthcare that they've always had... I did some reading on Grassley - and it's a bit of a mess for what we're trying to keep straight here as it starts to look at Congressional staff (some low paid, some high paid). I think it was intended as "eat your own dog food".

"When a large company cancels insurance and tells it's employees to buy their own at the exchanges those is their employer decides to pay part of individuals are on their own uthe expense. I would bet that most don't do that."

I'm not sure that Obamacare is going to trigger vast majorities of companies to cancel healthcare and just pocket those (often very significant) funds. I'm sure it will happen in some cases. Healthcare coverage is a form of compensation - and that's how I look at it. If you dropped it, you just gave me a pay cut and I'll take that into consideration. Ideally, employers would offer to continue funding current plans or provide those funds to employees to purchase care on the "health exchange".

I know that internally health care costs for companies I've worked for over the last 10 years have gotten ridiculous. Companies started to essentially lower benefits and move to providers that were not of the same quality or accessibility that I had 10 years ago. Again, for me it's part of total compensation. Obamacare or not, something had to change or eventually most of us would end up not being able to afford medical coverage. And getting coverage after having a health condition like Cancer? Forget about it... It wasn't going to happen. Basically, I'd support a "better idea". Haven't seen one. Until I see one, I'm solidly wait-and-see... I want the statistical data that won't be out for a few months.

Vol Texan,
I don't know enough about how Obamacare is going to turn out to be a supporter. If a wait-and-see attitude is too opposed to yours that we can't discuss it, I'm willing to avoid that topic with you also.
Why am I wait an see? If it decreases costs and flattens or reverses the trend of healthcare costs in the US, I consider that a positive. I'm not sure it's going to do that. If it doesn't do that, it's a failure.
I support a change in that I recognize the cost of medical care in the US had a growth rate that had been outpacing incomes for many years. Sure, we have amazing technology and great doctors, but the trend was clearly that unless you were well above middle-class, you were not going to get that type of care... Just calculating what it would take me to retire - the biggest expense was looking to be health insurance costs. And those costs will probably keep me working for years, unless I decided to wrangle a state or federal job that provided healthcare in retirement.

What I don't like about Obamacare, quite simply, is that it is Socialism. That's how I view it. That's not wait-and-see... It is what it is. It's not free market. It's not pay per risk. It's certainly helping those who are poor and have major not-currently-covered health conditions, but it does so at the cost of the rest of us.

I don't mean to come off harsh, but I'm fairly black and white on facts. The fact is that Congress isn't exempt, yet people continue to post that they are... It's not personal and it certainly isn't intended as harsh, but I'm going to challenge those that post it to show me the facts. I can understand and respect varying opinions on Obamacare. I can't understand why people say that congress is exempt.

It's frustrating that fiction, especially spun-up politicized fiction spreads like wildfire.. I don't blame the conservatives alone. I don't blame the liberals alone. It seems to be an effective means of "advertising" and both sides seem to use it.
I think it lends credence to the fact that our founding fathers setup a Republic, not a straight Democracy.. Perhaps because we're not smart enough on a whole to actually check facts - we believe what we want to believe and what supports our agenda.

I just think we'd have a much more effective debate and might actually improve things if we stopped twisting reality.

Vol Texan wrote:[
They may not be fully exempt, but they don't have to eat the bitter pill that ALL of the rest of us have to.

How are they any more exempt than me? There is no language anywhere exempting them. They're like any federal employee with "employer" coverage.

I agree, they should eat their own dog food, so to speak.. but saying they are exempt isn't remotely factual.

This "exempt" thing seems to be a common not-so-truth.. My die hard Republican mother-in-law said the same thing to me "They're exempt".

Turns out, they're not exempt. We all believe it on face value.
Congress isn't any more exempt than anyone else is with employer sponsored health care... See the CNN fact check:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not required to purchase on the exchanges.. Neither is congress.

rotor wrote:In response to cb1000rider

Not correct. You are not exempt because you have an employer.

I meant that I don't have to go to the exchange because I'm already covered per minimums... You're right, I'm not exempt.

Explain to me though - Congress is explicitly exempt? That is, if the US Government did not provide health coverage for those "employees" they are somehow exempted from having to seek coverage in an exchange?