I'm thinking about letting the taxpayers subsidize me.

You've probably seen this--ER visits up:

formatting link

Yep. For lots of them, having to pay higher premiums for junk coverages cleans out what little money they had to cover their share of payments.

A $5k deductible is the same as no insurance at all, for these types who live like this.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat
Loading thread data ...

Trust me. You don't want to hear my numbers. Your head would explode.

But in the years I had insurance through my company the rates went up every year by 15% or so with *no* apparent reason. At least with O'care you are getting more even if you have to pay for it.

I just find it funny that everyone freaks out so much over this when there are many, many other ways that you are paying more and getting less with little choice. But we don't hear anyone whine about that. The ones I can quote are all small change, but it is pretty universal. People just like to bitch about government and blame some group of people they don't like.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

That's not correct Joerg, weight and smoking are the two things insurers

*are* still allowed to charge more for.

The voters have been ignored. They didn't want Ocare O-crammed down their o-throats. The Republicans have been pretty useless getting it withdrawn, too. The R's just thwarted an attempt to cancel Congress' special O-care subsidy, too--it seems neither they nor the Democrat members wish to swim in the rabble's pool they dug.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

You keep dragging out the same stuff. O'care doesn't have a problem, California has a problem because of how they implemented it. California will have to fix it.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

I took a job that paid for the time I spent on it... until we found a short coming in the spec and the customer would have been hard pressed to go back for more money. So I put in some extra time and dealt with a lot of crap from a PCB house that made me work 80 hour weeks to try to stay on schedule. Then I put in more time to get through the poorly organized testing from my customer. Later I did an upgrade for a fixed price which didn't fully cover my time, again because of limited funds from the customer.

The payoff? I am making the boards and have a huge markup. I have even been able to farm the testing out to the board house. So now I get a PO an issue a PO then handle the paperwork for international shipping. The orders are infrequent and always unexpected, but end up being a huge windfall. :)

In my 30's I realized working for an hourly wage is not as good as manufacturing. I just never pulled it off until now.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Good Lord, you're such an idiot. Leftism is your religion.

Reply to
krw

:

ind-a-doctor/522857/

Not as much of an idiot as krw in thinking that "leftism" is a religion.

Whatever else you may think about the left-wing of politics, the right-wing left-wing distinction is that the right wing wants to keep on doing what h as worked, even if we don't quite understand how or why it works, while the left wing has a rational plan to improve things - notionally evidence-base d.

The right wing does like drawing analogies between irrational religions and rational left-wing policies that that the right-winger's profess to find i rrational (in krw's case because he doesn't understand any of the process o f rational argument) but it's a cheap rhetorical trick. Only a dim-wit woul d try it on - and krw is as dim as they come.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

You did well, but you really should not have had to kill you id to do it.

Reply to
jurb6006

Please rewrite so I know what you meant. oh wait, I think I have it, "you really should not have had to kill yourself to do it" If that is correct, it was not difficult to present, I have a page under my keyboard with all my payments since 1-22-08 to the increase starting on 8-1-15. Also on the page are the yearly percentage increases and the yearly totals.

Mikek

Reply to
amdx

By that you mean part of the 52% of workers that actually pay federal income taxes are "completely idle"? Also why do they need to be smartphones? How many minutes do we buy for them to make that unlikely 1 or 2 calls a month looking for a job. In reality we should buy them internet service and a computer. I'm told, most job applications are done online. OK, maybe they can use that smart phone.

My sister has been trying (she tells me) to find work for over two years to replace her part time job. I think she's happy only working part time or she would have a full time job. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

Fuck.

I meant kill your Kid. You said off the plan and it cost less.

Sorry about the consufuion.

Reply to
jurb6006

The nanny state will save on your pension.

Eat dring and be merry....

--
umop apisdn
Reply to
Jasen Betts

completely idle taxpayers just as happily.

Beats me. When cell phones first came out, I kept running across people who had to carry them all the time so that their employers could get at them w henever they needed them.

How often do you check your e-mail? How often would you check it if there w as unlikely to be anything there? My wife's phone makes a noise whenever an e-mail comes in for her (which is quite often). These days, smart-phones p ick up your e-mail for you wherever you are.

Most people think that it's easy to get a job - until they have to do it. I t wasn't too difficult until I turned forty, but got progressively harder a fter that. At 72, it looks close to impossible (which doesn't stop me tryin g, though it probably ought to).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Try it in the US.

Reply to
jurb6006

I've never had a problem finding a job. It did take me me 11 weeks to find a greatjob, 3-1/2 years ago), and about five months in 2008 (I was working on a contract at the time). Hardware engineers are in demand, firmware types even more so. I did have to relocate, though. My wife has given up finding a job here, though. She's always done administrative work and they aren't looking to hire a sixty-something.

Reply to
krw

If paying less increases quality, why pay doctors at all for return visits?

Obamacare's 'increasing quality' and saving cost doing the same thing with hospital re-admissions--hospitals get penalized for re-admitting. Gruber speaks glowingly of it in his presentations.

To avoid penalty for re-admissions, hospitals are keeping everyone longer, needed or not. Just happened to Mom. And turn away people who *need* re-admission. (Which happened to her, also.)

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

That's true. Medical tests, supplies, and most of the care is actually incredibly cheap. It's the markup that's incredible, and the overhead is unbelievable. With Obamacare just greatly increased. (The gov't charges insures 3.5%--more than their previous profits--just to use the govt's crappy website.)

That's true, and Obamacare's contribution is to limit an insurer's overhead and profit to 15 cents for every 85 cents they spend on care. That means the easiest way to be allowed more profit is to increase one's expenses. The insurer, for example, is allowed 15 cents if they spend a dollar on care, but 30 cents if they spend two, which requires no more staff or overhead for the insurer.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

now

ven

he

y

tml

in

we

Yup.

formatting link
"According to a recently released study from Gallup, a whopping 33% of resp ondents noted that they were putting off some form of medical treatment bec ause of the expenses associated with that treatment. This marks the highest reading in the 14 years that Gallup has conducted this poll, and is up not iceably from the 19% that delayed medical treatment because of cost in 2001 .

What's so worrisome about these figures is that they would imply that even though consumers are purchasing health insurance as required by law, the ou t-of-pocket costs, such as co-pays and deductibles, are simply too much to bear for low-income and middle-class workers. "

Obamacare's really pretty simple: first and foremost, they charge everyone more to buy over-priced insurance for a very few. Of course, subsidizing over-priced insurance so that more people can over-pay for over-priced services, simply increases the demand for over-priced services.

Most of the rest of the law decides whose health care (money) is taken (e.g . Mike), to whom it's given (e.g., rickman), and the administrative 'how.'

The last of the law commandeers the practice of medicine, dictating who can do what, own what, prescribe what, how, etc., Jonathan Gruber telling doctors and hospitals how to practice.

That's it. It costs more, not less. Odd way to make something 'affordable ,' yes?

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

It is odd to me that two almost* identical plans from the same company cost $8,448^ (so called free market) and $13,508 from Obamacare. Then they call the $13,508 plan the 'affordable' plan. What exactly is the insurance company doing with the additional $5,060 that the Obamacare policy brings in? Providing reduced premiums policies for low income families? NO. There are no reduced premium policies from insurance companies, the taxpayers provide the subsidy, until it gets reduced away, because it is impossible to subsidize 50% of the population at $10,000 each. Mikek

  • The free market plan has reduced drug rehab and mental treatment payout. But, it also has a 25% higher family deductible.

^ This after nearly doubling in 5 years.

Reply to
amdx

d

Yet Barack Obama said we had to swallow O-swill to cut ER cost:

"And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden an d growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for s omebody else's emergency room and charitable care." --Barack Obama

formatting link

ER visit cost was an excuse to pass Obamacare, which made it worse.

"Proponents of the Affordable Care Act have consistently made the case that expanding access to health insurance would keep sick people out of costly and crowded emergency rooms, funneling them into primary care centers instead--and saving millions of dollars in the process.

New research, however, finds that extending health care to low-income individuals actually increases their emergency room visits--with no discernible improvement in their health.

As far back as 2010, President Obama cited decreasing emergency room visits as one of the main cost-saving goals of the health-care reform. "What happens is, you don't have health insurance, you go to the emergency room," he said. "You weren't getting a checkup; something that might have been curable with some antibiotics isn't caught. By the time you get to the hospital, it's much more expensive...We're a lot better off if we are making sure that everybody is getting preventive care."

--- /quote ---

The government is fully culpable. Plus, people resent being lied to.

"This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it 's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like you r health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." --BHO

formatting link
rs-on-health-care-plan/

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.