Trading with a sane president... - Page 91
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 91 of 91 FirstFirst ... 4181899091
Results 1,801 to 1,819 of 1819
  1. #1801
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    You apparently have no problem funding your military and the amount is larger than healthcare would cost. Interstate highways get built and repaired. Who owns and runs international airports? I could keep on going but I’m sure you know better than I do what is run by your “government”.

    I’m not saying everything is perfect but surely something like healthcare for all could be managed without the USA going broke. Getting healthcare for all gets fought tooth and nail but some of you have to ask yourself why anyone would be against it?

    Living or dying in the USA simply can’t be a question of “How much money do you have?”. You want special treatment? First class accommodation? That’s where insurance comes into the picture.

    He won’t live forever but Bill Gates can afford the best attention money can buy. I’m fine with that. What I wouldn’t be fine with was if I had to rely on charity to have a chance.



    Your points are all well and good. But I"m just pointing out what many are afraid of, at least in the U.S. When our health care is in the hands of the barely trusted government, people just get nervous. Perhaps it's the nature of our government that makes it easy to go against the people? I dunno. But trust seems to be a big part of it. Also, many think the quality of care would go down. Not sure what their reasoning is, but I hear that a lot .

  2. #1802
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    gloucester ma
    Posts
    1,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    38
    Likes (Received)
    830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Hmm, that's pretty interesting.
    no not really

    concierge medicine, medicine for the wealthy, and healthy

  3. #1803
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    no not really

    concierge medicine, medicine for the wealthy, and healthy


    I never heard of it before, so, yes, it's interesting.

  4. #1804
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kolding Denmark
    Posts
    16,848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3320
    Likes (Received)
    5192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Your points are all well and good. But I"m just pointing out what many are afraid of, at least in the U.S. When our health care is in the hands of the barely trusted government, people just get nervous. Perhaps it's the nature of our government that makes it easy to go against the people? I dunno. But trust seems to be a big part of it. Also, many think the quality of care would go down. Not sure what their reasoning is, but I hear that a lot .
    Those that "doubt" should be asking themselves why your healthcare isn't better than it is. Can anyone seriously believe insurance companies care about their customers health. As long as they get paid that's what is important, not how you are.

    No country achieved good healthcare in one fell swoop. It takes time and it's never "perfect". Always room for improvement. Of course the USA could do it. All it takes is "removing" those (insurance companies) throwing money at opposing it. With private insurance they'll still survive but not be as large and rich as they are now.

    Trump certainly got it right when he said that it wasn't as easy as he thought

  5. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  6. #1805
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Can anyone seriously believe insurance companies care about their customers health. As long as they get paid that's what is important, not how you are.

    Again, great point, but can't the same be said by replacing "insurance companies" with "government"?

  7. Likes Mcgyver, Scottl liked this post
  8. #1806
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    618
    Likes (Received)
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Again, great point, but can't the same be said by replacing "insurance companies" with "government"?
    No, not really. It is a demonstrable fact that Medicare operates more efficiently than private health markets. See my post above for details. #1799

    Medicare, as an organization, cares not at all about profits, therefore they have no reason to cut corners on patient care.

    The current system is rooted in greed, and we have to remove greedy insurance companies from the field of play. The same can be said of Big Pharma. Do we want to continue to pay $157 for a 30-day supply of Lipitor when people in other countries pay as little as $4 for the same prescription! The United States has become a big, fat, Cash Cow as far as big Pharma and medical insurance companies are If you think it through, and examine the facts - not right-wing rubbish calculated to make the rich even richer - you will come to the same conclusion that I did. Medicare-for-all is the only way to go.

    Squire

    Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK

  9. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  10. #1807
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Medicare, as an organization, cares not at all about profits, therefore they have no reason to cut corners on patient care.

    Not sure I can agree with that. My parents are on Medicare, and there are certain medications that they won't cover. Why would they do that?

  11. #1808
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hatch, NM Chile capital of the WORLD
    Posts
    7,854
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    9916
    Likes (Received)
    8543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Your points are all well and good. But I"m just pointing out what many are afraid of, at least in the U.S. When our health care is in the hands of the barely trusted government, people just get nervous.
    Plenty of reasons to not trust the government. However I still have clear running water that won't kill me,
    the roads are "maintained".. When I dial 911 they answer the phone and even show up.

    There are things I trust less than the government.. Like rabid dogs.. A fart on May 6th.. Medium rare
    chicken.. A toddler that says "don't worry, my hands are clean", A guy named Guido that says "trust me"..

    And after all that... There is big business in general.. The ones that would screw their grandmother
    for a nickel..

    Then there are dentists that say "This won't hurt"..

    And then there are insurance companies.. They are all niceny nice when you are paying them...
    But the shit surely hits the fan the second they have to pay out a penny.


    I think its all bull shit anyways.. The insurance companies customers are the people that aren't
    really old and expensive to care for yet, the people that have enough money to pay for insurance, and the
    people that are healthy enough to work to afford insurance..

    The government already takes care of all the shitty customers.. The old, the poor, the sick.
    Taking care of the same stuff for the people that can actually afford it and are least likely to
    get sick should be a piece of cake.

  12. Likes JoeE., OldSquier liked this post
  13. #1809
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    618
    Likes (Received)
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Not sure I can agree with that. My parents are on Medicare, and there are certain medications that they won't cover. Why would they do that?
    Well, they certainly don't make a profit, that's for sure.

    As for your parents drugs, I don't know the circumstances. What I do know is that both Medicare authorized drug plans as well as every private insurance company have a formulary or list of drugs that are approved for prescription. This list of drugs is called the "formulary". There are many reasons a drug might not be on the formulary. It might be an experimental drug or it may simply be too expensive or it is being prescribed off-label and they substitute a different drug instead.

    What your parents can do is appeal the decision not to cover their drugs. I have had to do that personally three times in the last year. In every case my doctor explained why the drug prescribed was the only drug that would give the desired result. In all three cases my appeal was approved and I got the drug. This procedure is called "prior authorization" or PA for short.

    Medicare, you see, does not itself provide any drugs. In order to receive prescription drugs under Medicare, one purchases a private market prescription drug plan. These are the same companies that provide drugs for the private market. So, really, there's very little difference between Medicare and private insurance when it comes to prescription drugs. They work exactly the same way.

    If your parents are not getting the drugs they want get them to enlist the aid of their doctors in completing the prior authorization procedure. If they are still denied there are appeal rights that go further still if they are Medicare patients.

    Squire

    Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK

  14. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  15. #1810
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSquier View Post
    Well, they certainly don't make a profit, that's for sure.

    As for your parents drugs, I don't know the circumstances. What I do know is that both Medicare authorized drug plans as well as every private insurance company have a formulary or list of drugs that are approved for prescription. This list of drugs is called the "formulary". There are many reasons a drug might not be on the formulary. It might be an experimental drug or it may simply be too expensive or it is being prescribed off-label and they substitute a different drug instead.

    What your parents can do is appeal the decision not to cover their drugs. I have had to do that personally three times in the last year. In every case my doctor explained why the drug prescribed was the only drug that would give the desired result. In all three cases my appeal was approved and I got the drug. This procedure is called "prior authorization" or PA for short.

    Medicare, you see, does not itself provide any drugs. In order to receive prescription drugs under Medicare, one purchases a private market prescription drug plan. These are the same companies that provide drugs for the private market. So, really, there's very little difference between Medicare and private insurance when it comes to prescription drugs. They work exactly the same way.

    If your parents are not getting the drugs they want get them to enlist the aid of their doctors in completing the prior authorization procedure. If they are still denied there are appeal rights that go further still if they are Medicare patients.

    Squire

    Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK



    Well, they did figure it out, by doing exactly what you said, it's just that my point was, that if some drugs are too expensive, they won't cover them, which is exactly why insurance companies deny certain drugs, despite whether they're in it for profit or not. Under an NHS, not sure if those appeals or PA's will work the same as they do under medicare. Depends how our government would set things up, which is another scary thought. I don't know what the answer is. At times I think an NHS would be the way to go, just so we don't have to fork out these monthly premiums and pay these high deductibles.

  16. #1811
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    814
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    618
    Likes (Received)
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Well, they did figure it out, by doing exactly what you said, it's just that my point was, that if some drugs are too expensive, they won't cover them, which is exactly why insurance companies deny certain drugs, despite whether they're in it for profit or not. Under an NHS, not sure if those appeals or PA's will work the same as they do under medicare. Depends how our government would set things up, which is another scary thought. I don't know what the answer is. At times I think an NHS would be the way to go, just so we don't have to fork out these monthly premiums and pay these high deductibles.
    Yes , I see your point. I think you're right - the availability of drugs not ordinarily on a formulary would hinge on how they set the system up. At the least, I'm guessing that there will be certain classes of drugs that will require review before they are dispensed. This isn't necessarily a reduction of benefits, it's more a double-check against the prescription of drugs without sufficient reason.

    Course, there is also the fact that nothing is perfect. We don't want "perfection" to become the enemy of "good".

    Squire

    Sent Using Tapatalk - Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah OK

  17. Likes JoeE., Dave K liked this post
  18. #1812
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kolding Denmark
    Posts
    16,848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3320
    Likes (Received)
    5192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave K View Post
    Again, great point, but can't the same be said by replacing "insurance companies" with "government"?
    I honestly don't know how often I have to keep repeating this.

    Healthcare isn't and shouldn't be "run" by government. The only thing a government should be responsible for is FUNDING healthcare. Who in their right mind would want changing political majorities and parties running healthcare?

    I'm going to start a new thread and the title will probably be something like "Healthcare - American style" and try and stay out of it unless asked a direct question

  19. #1813
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cinci.O
    Posts
    479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    349
    Likes (Received)
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    ...I'm going to start a new thread and the title will probably be something like "Healthcare - American style" and try and stay out of it unless asked a direct question
    Awesome, I'm sure the entire forum is waiting with bated breathe for your next "America sucks, Denmark is better" troll thread.

    It will be the thread of threads, I'm sure.

  20. #1814
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kolding Denmark
    Posts
    16,848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3320
    Likes (Received)
    5192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gewehr 98 View Post
    Awesome, I'm sure the entire forum is waiting with bated breathe for your next "America sucks, Denmark is better" troll thread.

    It will be the thread of threads, I'm sure.
    Judge for yourself. IT'S POSTED Denmark isn't mentioned.

    I'm sure you'll find a way to fuck it up.

  21. #1815
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    7,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    686
    Likes (Received)
    1781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I honestly don't know how often I have to keep repeating this.

    Healthcare isn't and shouldn't be "run" by government. The only thing a government should be responsible for is FUNDING healthcare. Who in their right mind would want changing political majorities and parties running healthcare?

    I'm going to start a new thread and the title will probably be something like "Healthcare - American style" and try and stay out of it unless asked a direct question



    Well, even though that might be the better way, will our government set it up that way? As power hungry as they are, probably not. They'd end up wanting as much control as possible, would be my guess.

  22. #1816
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    3,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3186
    Likes (Received)
    2948

    Default

    Opinions vary about the "efficiency" of Medicare. The lower payment rate compared to private insurers is used as "proof" of the superiority.

    The alternative view is that Medicare, using the power of government, underpays the cost of care and the providers bill the difference to private insurers and those who pay for their own care. Medicare instituted the concept of fee for service, which many critics claim has caused health care costs to skyrocket thanks to "a la carte" billing practice.

    If you look at the change in how care delivery has changed since the 1960s you can see several drivers of costs, including restriction on supply, government subsidies of service, and consolidation of both insurers and providers in an escalating "arms race". The general public has been the losers and like a frog being boiled starting with cold water have not noticed the change until it became a crisis over the last couple decades.

  23. #1817
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Staten Island NewYork USA
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    868
    Likes (Received)
    1462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    no not really

    concierge medicine, medicine for the wealthy, and healthy


    That may be how it started...but in this program they have made healthcare affordable for all by paying direct into a pool then take what you need. Doctors and staff push for bargain cost on drugs and procedures so its a one stop affordable healthcare shop. I am not sure how it could be scaled up...but I find it a very interesting alternative.

    It would be great if doctors got a bit more, hospitals got a bit more and we as consumers paid a bit less.

  24. #1818
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Staten Island NewYork USA
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    868
    Likes (Received)
    1462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    A sizeable portion?

    your personal contribution is 6.2 percent

    it was never to be set aside in a fund, ever

    SS has never run dry, ever

    so everything in your post is a lie

    no, no gov't program is without flaws, but most of them work as intended.

    VA hospitals? A travesty, but how would vets be with zero care, as Republicans wish it, well, they would be dead, what is the wait time on that?

    This whole right wing bs that somehow private industry runs things better, is just that. BS

    Only 6.2%. 6.2% is a sizable amount to remove from my wage...also matched by employer, which is really removed from my wage...so 12.4%

    In any case its money removed from my wage.

    I say it was set aside...no its not locked in a vault...but the system is flawed and borrowed upon. It is almost a Ponzi scheme being it is not sustainable in present form.

    Is that a lie...no, don't think so.

    VA- A travesty no doubt. Our men and women who served should receive the best care possible, period.
    Republicans and Democrats have both been in office, both in the majority and neither have fixed the problem. They both do a great job pointing fingers...and at the end of the day the Vets are a minority that will not help a Dem or Republican get into office or line their pockets so lip service is paid and little gets done.
    Both parties wrong.

    Trump said he would take this on...I sincerely hope he does carry though on that promise. Call him whatever, I hope he does more then offer lip service.

  25. #1819
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    478
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    69
    Likes (Received)
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SIM View Post
    Only 6.2%. 6.2% is a sizable amount to remove from my wage...also matched by employer, which is really removed from my wage...so 12.4%

    In any case its money removed from my wage.

    I say it was set aside...no its not locked in a vault...but the system is flawed and borrowed upon. It is almost a Ponzi scheme being it is not sustainable in present form.

    Is that a lie...no, don't think so.
    I think if the Gov't calls it a "fund", then you can too.

    It's 7.65% if you count medicare, 15.3% if you're self-employed.

    For me, that's very significant.

    It is a Ponzi scheme.

    SSI went upside-down in 2011. That's when it began to pay out more than it takes in each year. The ~$4 Trillion in the "trust fund" has, as you noted, already been spent. Those treasuries have to be redeemed from general funds, meaning the money has to come from taxes.

    That $4 Tn will be exhausted in 13 years, at which point SSI benefits have to be reduced by 30%.

    That surplus was from the 1986 tax reforms that Reagan implemented. FICA taxes were raised, and the retirement age was pushed back. It was supposed to make the program actuarially solvent for 75 years. Instead we got 45 years if we're lucky.

    SSI needs to be reworked again, but we all know how the dems will cry and moan at any attempt.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •