Health Care Thread

That chart is kind of a downer.

Trollface_sl said:

What the fuck are you talking about. That particular reply was towards your refutation against "fuck family,' which was stupid as fuck. get your shit together, tyrone.

Click to expand...

I was replying toALL of this.

Trollface_sl said:

If family did not have a young, you got old, you become a fucking begger. if you are a woman, you become a nun or work for some lord in some kitchen until you die.

middle class don't even have children anyways. they are too busy making careers and "fuck families"

Click to expand...

Elderly family members relying solely on generational care was a staple 80 years ago, NOT 40. Like you claimed, here.

Trollface_sl said:

No, it happened 40 years ago. Globalization, women entering the workforce enmass, greater competition, and so on. More supply? better for the government's coffer and corporation.

Click to expand...

.....

Trollface_sl said:

I am not smoking anything sir. you are putting words in my mouth. stop hodjing my face, faggot. Obviously when I said nun, I am talking about middle ages. Are you that dense, you faggot?

Click to expand...

In that whole thread I was talking about the generational shift from old to young. You added a bunch of conspiracy theory MRA stuff about globalization; ect. I just stayed on subject and was responding to your generational claims--which is what this ENTIRE thread has been about. So my replies were based on when people still required the young to shield them due to higher costs, combined with less wealth production and dwindling savings (IE 80 years, NOT 40--I pointed out the Nun thing because of what a damn tangent it was, but I did say in the response before it that the 60's was the first generation of independent retirees; hence me pointing out 1973)

I know your new shtick, or whatever, but just because I point out how ridiculously fucked your rambling, incoherent thoughts are--like drifting between a modern generational argument, globalization and then NUNS IN THE MIDDLE AGES; doesn't mean I'm "hodjing" you. Go take your Adderal and remain focused.

Arbitrary_sl said:

That chart is kind of a downer.

Click to expand...

It's worse when you consider COL for elderly people doesn't inflate near as much as the cost of keeping them alive, thanks to all the subsidies. I know that sounds terrible to say and I'm not advocating old people should be put down, or whatever. But it's depressing when they are SO much wealthier than the young and yet all the programs to "help" people, are almost centered on the elderly. But how is someone going to say "old people should really be footing more of their own bills" without sounding like the devil? It's political suicide, because we view the elderly like children.

Disp_sl said:

frqkjt, were you getting insurance through your employer? What state are you in? $150 for that coverage doesn't add up at all.

Click to expand...

Only because you have been brainwashed since ACA passed. If you were healthy and young, health insurance was very affordable pre-ACA. Best plan in my state was a little over $150/mo for healthy, late 20s. Catastrophic plans from $40-$50.

I say again, ACA is a wealth transfer from young, healthy, successful people to the poor and elderly.

Vaclav_sl said:

It's probably a catastrophic plan with a $5k lifetime max or some shit like that AZ and a few others allowed and aren't banned yet.
The kind he'd be complaining about the minute it really was needed. "Got cancer? Whoops over your limit, cancelled!"

Click to expand...

No, it is a comprehensive plan. That $150 ($157.86 in 2014) price? It was the second most expensive plan on ehealthinsurance.com and still under $150 in 2011. Catastrophic plans, at the time, were about $50. I chose the 0% co-insurance and $1500 deductible - the lowest available. **edit: my job offered no help whatsoever with costs - they did not even suggest a plan for us. I was a temporary/contract worker.

I will attach and provide what proof I can below. The attachments are SS of my profile at the anthem website, taken today, and a scan of my enrollment letter, which indicates the monthly premium for my Lumenos plan. I removed identity info.

**edit: I removed the attachments to clean up the thread. I think I have established that I do in fact have a comprehensive medical, pre-ACA plan for ~$150 with 0% co-insurance and $1500 deductible (accepted by all local doctors and hospitals). If any still wish to call me a liar, I will repost.

You have been brainwashed. For years I have heard the pro-ACA lobby telling the public that the plans that get canceled are only the exploitive ones. It is bullshit, but very few people ever bothered to check. The voices of us healthy people who had affordable comprehensive plans that were canceled, then replaced with shit that costs more than double, have been drowned out by the masses bullshitting politicians and gullible shmucks like yourself.

Name: Anthem Lumenos HSA+
Basic plan details are here:
Affordable Health Insurance Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield

Summary: $1500 deductible (incl rx), out-pocket-max $1500, no annual limit on coverage, PPO, no referral for specialist.

Full summary of benefits:
http://www.anthem.com/shared/va/f1/s...efer=ahpfooter
Summary: It is a comprehensive plan, not catastrophic. It may not cover maternity, but I don't have a vagina.

The Lumenos covers almost nothing before the deductible is met. However, I do not have a problem keeping $1500 in the bank, and even if I did have to spend the $1500 every year, equates to only $125/mo for all of my healthcare needs. Since I bought the policy in 2011, I have actually spent under $300. I probably should have taken a higher deductible and lowered my premium even more.

As for my claim that the best plans in my state now cost $350 post-ACA, do this.
Go to ehealthinsurance.com - enter DOB June 1, 1983, non-smoker, and view plans - sort to show only Anthem plans with < 10% coinsurance. You will find the new cost is $350.

ACA - wealth transfer from the healthy, young, moderately successful (i.e. middle class families) to the elderly and poor. The middle class might not be dead yet, rolling around on the ground and hardly breathing, so better kick them again, right?

Am I the only one who keeps reading "wealth transfer" and doesn't give a shit at all? Why do you keep repeating it as if it were some sort of revelation that should be met with gasps and shrieks? Lots of things are 'wealth transfers.' They're necessary for a functioning, healthy society. Who cares?

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Fucking photoshop that didnt happen. Obama PROMISED you could keep youre plan so clearly youre a fucking lying sack o fshit.

Click to expand...

Although my current plan offers better coverage than ACA plans from Anthem for less than half the cost, I still only get to keep it to the end of 2014. I only have it now because, after the rage of people losing their plans last fall, they extended the period we can keep our old plans until after the next elections, after which, they will resume fucking over the middle class.

Sebudai_sl said:

Am I the only one who keeps reading "wealth transfer" and doesn't give a shit at all? Why do you keep repeating it as if it were some sort of revelation that should be met with gasps and shrieks? Lots of things are 'wealth transfers.' They're necessary for a functioning, healthy society. Who cares?

Click to expand...

The middle class might not be dead yet, rolling around on the ground and hardly breathing, so better kick them again, right?

America's Sinking Middle Class - NYTimes.com
"In the new normal, the real wages of workers on the factory floor are lower than they were in the early ?70s."
" The incomes of these types of families actually rose by a fifth between 1990 and 2008, according to the report. They were more educated and worked more hours, on average, and had children at a later age. Still, that was no match for the 56 percent jump in the cost of housing, the 155 percent leap in out-of-pocket spending on health care and the double-digit increase in the cost of college.
So either we define the middle class down a couple of notches or we acknowledge that the middle class isn?t in the middle anymore. "

Literally, there no more to take from the middle class, unless you want to redefine the term to mean 'not as poor as those on the government dole'. What kind of society lacks a middle class? Would you want to live there?

Adebisi_sl said:

Can Amod run an IP chech on frqkjt and compare it to Tad?

Click to expand...

My claim: ACA is fucking over middle class, healthy, successful people by raising their healthcare costs significantly. TJT earlier in the thread posted about his experience (young families pay more, elderly less), and I post about my experience - ACA doubles my premium for inferior coverage. I have posted as much proof as I can, after being called a liar.

What is your counter-argument? None? O.K.

We should eliminate wealth transfer and just make everything free.

Wasn't that the point of making robots, so nobody had to work anymore?

frqkjt_sl said:

My claim: ACA is fucking over middle class, healthy, successful people by raising their healthcare costs significantly. TJT earlier in the thread posted about his experience (young families pay more, elderly less), and I post about my experience - ACA doubles my premium for inferior coverage. I have posted as much proof as I can, after being called a liar.

What is your counter-argument? None? O.K.

Click to expand...

You're using a very broad statement for a small segment of people. Here is the cost for a family of 4 earning $70,000/yr. with 2 26 year old adults and 2 children, on a Silver plan with a $2,000 deductible. Is this healthy, successful middle class family getting screwed by the ACA?

Sebudai_sl said:

Am I the only one who keeps reading "wealth transfer" and doesn't give a shit at all? Why do you keep repeating it as if it were some sort of revelation that should be met with gasps and shrieks? Lots of things are 'wealth transfers.' They're necessary for a functioning, healthy society. Who cares?

Click to expand...

The natural way of the world is for wealth to accumulate at the top. Look at trade theory, lowering tariffs only rewards like the top 5% of companies and hurts literally every other company. But its good because the benefit out weighs the cost, you just need that wealth transfer aspect to make sure the losers aren't totally fucked. Because if you let the losers become totally fucked then in a democratic society you can't pursue optimal policy because the #of losers almost always is bigger than the number of winners.

Frq probably does fall in a specific segment fucked by aca... a successful young person without employer health plans. The employer may shift to change to include coverage if they can't dodge mandate or it'll be priced into salary into future. All hail free market.

Disp_sl said:

You're using a very broad statement for a small segment of people. Here is the cost for a family of 4 earning $70,000/yr. with 2 26 year old adults and 2 children, on a Silver plan with a $2,000 deductible. Is this healthy, successful middle class family getting screwed by the ACA?

Click to expand...

$70k was middle class in like 1997. It is a harsh reality to face. Wages have been stagnant for a long time, while cost of living has sharply risen.
America??Ts Sinking Middle Class - NYTimes.com
" The incomes of these types of families actually rose by a fifth between 1990 and 2008, according to the report. They were more educated and worked more hours, on average, and had children at a later age. Still, that was no match for the 56 percent jump in the cost of housing, the 155 percent leap in out-of-pocket spending on health care and the double-digit increase in the cost of college.
So either we define the middle class down a couple of notches or we acknowledge that the middle class isn't in the middle anymore. "


Even if we redefine 'middle class' to include this family that would have been considered poor not so long ago, who is paying the $427 premium assistance? Other middle class families, who receive similar subsidies? It doesn't add up. If I give you $1, and you give me $1, we both can't buy more when we're done. Upper middle class entrepreneurs? Yes, they are taking another boot up the ass as we speak, but in case you haven't noticed, they're not doing well either, based on employment stats, and not the bogus unemployment rate. Large corporations? No, they hardly pay taxes.

Labor force participation rates: lowest since early 70's. Ain't no recovery here.
The non-recovery of the U.S. economy

Here's the answer:Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Future generations are paying. GWB left us with 10 trillion with debt in 2008, after his tax cuts and two wars. Since then, the debt rose to 17.5 trillion. We are spending at least 1 trillion more than we have every year.

Creslin_sl said:

The natural way of the world is for wealth to accumulate at the top. Look at trade theory, lowering tariffs only rewards like the top 5% of companies and hurts literally every other company. But its good because the benefit out weighs the cost, you just need that wealth transfer aspect to make sure the losers aren't totally fucked. Because if you let the losers become totally fucked then in a democratic society you can't pursue optimal policy because the #of losers almost always is bigger than the number of winners.

Click to expand...

I am trying to decode this. Yes, if you look at human history, you see a pattern of wealth accumulating at the top, while the masses remain poor as shit. Life was also pretty fucking hard for most people. I would not call this good.

And what is this 'let the losers become totally fucked; business. The number of losers is not necessarily more than winners. You sound like a socialist. Look at the wealth generated by the free market system of the United States post WWII. If there were always more losers than winners, please explain the mid-20th century American middle class; many had poor parents. If a business earns a profit from a customer who works in a factory, the business did not necessarily exploit the worker, depending on labor and market conditions. It's not worth explaining in depth - only look at relative wealth of the United States vs Soviet Union, 1945 - 1990.

What is your point? Are you saying things will be just as good without a middle class? It seems absurd - in that case, a lot more people are poor, living hard lives.

Picasso_sl said:

Frq probably does fall in a specific segment fucked by aca... a successful young person without employer health plans. The employer may shift to change to include coverage if they can't dodge mandate or it'll be priced into salary into future. All hail free market.

Click to expand...

I have a question for you: considering successful young people are in ever shorter supply, and small business are finding it ever more difficult to keep their doors open, and both of the groups are vital if we are going to remain wealthy, is it wise to fuck them over right now?

You just assume that any business can afford to include coverage for all employees, or increase salaries to compensate. Those that can't will either close, if they can no longer remain profitable, or hire fewer employees. Is this what we want?

The non-recovery of the U.S. economy

Frk: it's a HSA that's why, they're psuedocatastrophic... read the fine print and I guarantee there's an annual or lifetime limit on what goes past the HSA account's value.

They're actually to be banned under the ACA under the same thing as catastrophic if memory serves because of lifetime limits.

And regardless ACA are PPOs or better so you're comparing dissimilar things.

Vaclav_sl said:

Frk: it's a HSA that's why, they're psuedocatastrophic... read the fine print and I guarantee there's an annual or lifetime limit on what goes past the HSA account's value.
They're actually to be banned under the ACA under the same thing as catastrophic if memory serves because of lifetime limits.

Click to expand...

No, there is not. When I first purchased the policy, there was like a 2 million lifetime limit. After the ACA was passed, the lifetime limit was removed. Anthem sent me a letter about it. You are correct, lifetime coverage limits are now illegal, and the plan I showed you conforms to this law already, and it still only $157/mo this year.

The HSA is not a necessary part of the plan. It is just something that you can use if you want. I believe the deal is that you can reduce your taxable income. I never gave a shit, and never even set it up. Yet, when I used my insurance, it worked just fine.

I don't think you understand how HSA works - I never put a cent into one, nor was it necessary in order to receive the max. coverage on my policy. It's traditional insurance, I pay premium, they pay agreed share of healthcare after the deductible, including rx (brand name and generic), with an optinoal HSA tacked on. In this case, they agreed to pay 100% of my medically necessary healthcare costs at in-network providers (my entire state is in-network), after the first $1500. All for $150/ mo.

Want to make another unfounded assumption?

edit: You keep wanting to tell me I had only one of those bad 'catastrophic plans' you heard so much about on TV. I tell you again: this was the second most expensive plan available in my state, and coverage-wise, I think it was better than the more expensive option (I didn't want to trade rx coverage for free office visits).

That's what makes Obama's promise to let us keep our plans a complete joke. He knew it was going to cancel nearly all existing individual plans. If mine isn't good enough, and it's the best available, then none are good enough. And yet, the plan I had was better than I can buy at any price under ACA - there are no 0% coinsurance plans in my state post-ACA.

To cover this lie, we have been bombarded with propaganda about pre-ACA individual market plans. If you were healthy, good ones were available at low cost. If not healthy, yes, that was a problem. ACA was not a good fix for that problem.