OT: Medical Expense

The deductable would have not been met, so the whole 2K ;)

I guess you have 5 chinese globes now? ;D

Cheers

:-)

Same here. I have $2600 deductible, followed by 80/20 up to $5800 max yearly, and essentially 100% after that. I have an HSA so I can put the deductible in it tax free. From what I gathered from my romp through the

healthcare.gov site to the MD site I should be able to get as good or better for about half of the $430/month I pay now, but in April I'll be eligible for Medicare and SSA benefits (which I paid for).

Remember, ObamaCare is not insurance. It just offers a choice among several providers and sets minimum standards and affordable prices. It would have been better with a single payer system but that had zero chance of passing due to insurance company lobbying efforts. And those actual costs on the

bills are inflated because health care providers want to get the most money from the system, and not really what is reasonable. Of course probably half the cost is malpractice liability insurance, which would be much lower if proper tort reform were enacted, and if we would "kill all the lawyers".

Give it time. It will work. If Romney had been elected and offered the same thing you (JT) right-whiners would be fawning over how great it is and would excuse the temporarily dysfunctional website. I think it was deliberately sabotaged by well-paid right-wing hackers. ;)

Paul "I Love ObamaCare!"

Notice that MOST of the charges were actually paid by Medicare. Aren't you glad that Uncle Sam is providing that for you? Be grateful for that! The

remaining pittance was paid by your "Medi-gap" optional coverage. How much are you paying for that? And how much have you paid for Medicare?

Besides, you should know better than to try to make love to yourself with a knife in your hand! :)

Paul

No globes involved... sliced hand while cutting up cardboard boxes... NEVER look up to answer wife while you have a box knife in your hand :-( ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

The same!

Larry

The combo of HSAs and major medical policies would let people save and pay for ordinary medical expense, would encourage competition and frugal consuming, and cover disasters. That removes the middlemen for most transactions too, saving tons of paperwork, time, labor, and cost.

Obamacare pretty well outlaws all the above.

O-care costs more. If your premium is lower it's because you're getting the welfare payments. It's a sad statement when Obama thinks engineers need welfare, and that subsidies make something "affordable" rather than more expensive in the long run.

You didn't pay for either one. You paid for the previous lot of retirees--you paid a tax, and the money you paid was spent the moment you sent it in, long ago.

And, the average Medicare beneficiary receives $3 in benefits for every $1 they put in--you definitely didn't pay for that.

Obamacare is a federal takeover of insurance by brain-dead federal bureaucrats, turning insurance companies into brain-dead feds.

There's nothing affordable about it. On average, Obamacare was estimated to cost 32% more.[1] That figure has come down a bit as Obama scrambles to (illegally) hedge and hide the cost hit until after the 2014 election. The lying is appalling.

[1]

That's why O's waiving all sorts of provisions for a year, like the out-of-pocket-caps

and the employer mandate, and SHOP, and others.

Which Obamacare now sets in stone by simply giving everyone an insurance policy to cover outrageously inflated prices, thereby reducing said fees. Not.

Estimates are a lot lower--more like 20%--but I think you're right. I think the combo of malpractice insurance and "defensive medicine" is a lot bigger than the estimates, maybe even half. Paperwork and middlemen are huge too.

Obamacare's solution is more of all the above.

There's zero chance of it working. It inherently costs more, eliminates competition, and replaces the wisdom of people who know with people who don't. It's far less efficient, less caring, less compassionate, and less affordable.

You have remarkable faith in the wisdom of the same geniuses who o couldn't make a website o with all the money on the planet o in three years--who gave - no end of lame excuses and outright lies about why--

to run everyone's lives, doctors, manage their care, and their finances.

Cheers, James Arthur

--

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to 
pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think 
that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, 
medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." 
--Thomas Sowell

Obamacare passed, barely, because people thought it would cost less and they could keep their plans. Neither is true.

That's why the President lied.

"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN" is PolitiFact's Lie of the Year

Democrats knew too; Obama wasn't alone. It's the biggest insurance fraud in world history.

Cheers, James Arthur

And those actual costs on the

Tell her to shut up politely: Be quiet!

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply 
indicates you are not using the right tools... 
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) 
--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm seeing about $1000 not covered by Medicare, statement says nothing abou t your private insurance coverage, that's why they have "This is not a bill " stamped on there. You can chalk all those exorbitant charges up to liabil ity insurance, hospital waste and mismanagement, overpaid people. Next time try SuperGlue :-)

out your private insurance coverage, that's why they have "This is not a bi ll" stamped on there. You can chalk all those exorbitant charges up to liab ility insurance, hospital waste and mismanagement, overpaid people. Next ti me try SuperGlue :-)

If it were just one doctor and one nurse for half an hour (like it should be) then it oughtn't cost more than a couple bills.

It's the twenty-seven other people in the feed bin that account for (literally) the other 90%.

Obamacare's pushing every tiny thing onto insurance is part of its insanity.

Cheers, James Arthur

You're not reading very carefully, see notes 1 & 2 on the first page. On the second page Medicare basically excluded the double billing. The "benefit" is what my supplemental policy, Mutual of Omaha, paid. I owe nothing... in fact, in the 11 years I've had Medicare, I've only had to cough up about $60 for a PSA test that got scheduled sooner than the allowed once annually.

Now Part D is a different story... $4 to $21 dollar co-pays... but still only about $100 out-of-pocket... plus the $28/month premium :-(

LOSE THE GOOGLE... why have you been, to borrow a current an ad phrase, SCOOGLED ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Okay, I saw that, did not realize it was a double meaning. That usually means the hospital strongly supports EEO hiring, staffing and promotions.

Well that "benefit" was practically nothing.

That's not too bad.

Haha- probably the "double"-billing department adds 25-50% overhead.

I don't see where PPACA has contributed anything to the costs listed. It's the exorbitant cost of doing business and the hospital bureaucracy.

According to the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romeny, plans like Obamacare are to get rid of free loaders. Oh wait, that was when they were for those plans. But when the black guy proposes the same plan, they are no longer good ideas. They were for it before they were against it.

The PPACA makes everyone buy insurance to pay all those charges, that was my point. Rather than question or shop, insurance pays all.

But now that you mention it, the costs of those websites alone-- such as >$300 million for Kentucky--plus the new billing codes, plus the HIT requirements (Health Information Technology), for starters. And the administration imposed by and on the exchanges.

All those are added costs.

Cheers,

James Arthur

Nope. Oft-repeated, but false.

Nope.

Black? I thought he was Irish. Is skin color that important to you?

Just about everyone's against it now that they've seen it.

Did you notice how gladly Massachusetts abandoned RomneyCare? Obailoutcare came just in a nick of time.

(Google the "BayState Bailout") (Oh what the heck, hereya go-- $4 billion ripoff, for MA:

MA: Most doctors per capita, longest waits in the US, skyrocketing costs. Yes We Can!

Cheers, James Arthur

e pieces of (very nice) tape to close the wound...

early, and essentially 100% after that. I have an HSA so I can put the ded uctible in it tax free.

y for ordinary medical expense, would encourage competition and frugal cons uming, and cover disasters. That removes the middlemen for most transactio ns too, saving tons of paperwork, time, labor, and cost.

he MD site I should be able to get as good or better for about half of the $430/month I pay now,

In large part because it offers better cover - for pre-existing conditions amongst other things.

. It's a sad statement when Obama thinks engineers need welfare, and that subsidies make something "affordable" rather than more expensive in the lon g run.

If engineers get the wrong disease, they need "welfare" too. Healthcare is about insurance, and the wrong disease isn't "affordable" for anybody.

id for).

s - you paid a tax, and the money you paid was spent the moment you sent it in, long ago.

An empty point. He agreed to pay for the previous lot of retirees on the ex plicit understanding that rising generation was going to pay for him, which they are doing. Most collective cover agreements work this way.

1 they put in--you definitely didn't pay for that.

Implying that Medicare is being supported by a 2:1 majority of participants who pay in but aren't - yet - beneficiaries.

eral providers and sets minimum standards and affordable prices.

crats, turning insurance companies into brain-dead feds.

Which is the way similar systems work in other advanced industrial countrie s, where they offer rather better health care (as judged by life expectancy and other population wide statistics) to everybody for roughly two thirds of the price per head.

The USA tops the international health-care-price per head league table, and sits a long way below the top in the quality-of-health-care league table

estimated to cost 32% more.[1] That figure has come down a bit as

e 2014 election. The lying is appalling.

y-Insured.aspx

James Arthur might - more honestly - have posted a link to the actual repor t

where the extra cost is referred to "the release of pent-up demand". More p eople will be insured, and they will start seeing their doctors when they s hould, rather than when they have gotten really sick. They will end up heal thier in consequence, and need less spent on them in the long term, but in the short term it's an extra demand on the system that is going to have to be paid for.

the out-of-pocket-caps

Sounds sensible. Rapid transitions always generate lots of noise.

chance of passing due to insurance company lobbying efforts.

oviders want to get the most money from the system, and not really what is reasonable.

policy to cover outrageously inflated prices, thereby,reducing said fees. Not.

Obamacare ought to be a step on the road to a more tightly regulated health insurance industry, like the one's other advanced industrial countries hav e, which deliver to everybody an essentially identical quality of health ca re to that enjoyed by the fully insured in the US, at about two-thirds of t he price per head.

The Tea Party idiots will see this as some kind of violation of liberty, so it may not happen as soon as it should.

ich would be much lower if proper tort reform were enacted, and if we would "kill all the lawyers".

nk the combo of malpractice insurance and "defensive medicine" is a lot big ger than the estimates, maybe even half. Paperwork and middlemen are huge too.

Canadian health economists place most of the extra cost in excessively expe nsive administration. "Defensive medicine" as an excuse for the medico's ch urning the system with more testing than is cost-effective certainly does c ontribute, but ti does pay off in better survival rates for certain cancers .

James Arthur certainly sees it that way, but his ideological blinkers do re strict his point of view.

It's more expensive to provide proper health care for more people.

As if the existing levels of "competition" hadn't left the US with a health care that cost half again as much as the - superior - equivalents in other advanced industrial countries.

By which he means the wisdom of the doctors who are doing very well out of the existing mal-administered system with it's penchant for churning. He do esn't think that more disinterested bureaucrats could do a better job, whic h is a trifle naive of him.

able.

Than the existing US system? Perhaps, but it's going to give many more peop le health insurance. Since the current system costs half as much again per head than the comparable health insurance schemes in other advanced industr ial countries, aiming at being more affordable than the existing system is also a worthy target, but it's not the one currently being tackled.

iners would be fawning over how great it is and would excuse the temporari ly dysfunctional website. I think it was deliberately sabotaged by well-pai d right-wing hackers. ;)

make a website with all the money on the planet in three years--who gave n o end of lame excuses and outright lies about why--to run everyone's lives, doctors, manage their care, and their finances.

James Arthur can't get it into his head that sub-contracting the job of des igning a web-site doesn't call for the same skills as tinkering with the ho rribly dis-functional US health insurance system.

hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doct ors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."

Less amazing when you know enough to realise that France and Germany pay fo r just that bureaucracy, and still get their - universal - health care for two-thirds of the price per head that the US pays for it's less than univer sal health care.

The current US system pays a lot too much for health care it gets. A better administered system can obviously be cheaper, and there are foreign exampl es of such systems which are cheaper.

The inhabitants of God's only country are happy to ignore this obvious poin t - they suffer from American exceptionalism, which also tells them that th e US constitution is perfect and that participation in the Tea Party confe rs a capacity for clear thinking that isn't evident when the members of the party are talking to people outside the charmed circle.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Apparently you are not aware of the way it works here, Bill. He did not agree - FICA is mandatory.

Ed