Sad day for America

Are you referring the cancer patient referred to by BO in his last pep rally? If you are he LIED, as was the case with every other instance he referred! The truth is she did not loose her home and she was provided FREE treatment unto she died of her incurable cancer. Do a search for the truth once and a while before you comment, WBMA.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:59:04 -0500, dbu'' wrote:

My federal taxes are much less than my health insurance tax. I don't go uninsured because there's a chance that an injury or illness means wealthy doctors, hospital executives, medical device executives, drug company executives, and Wall Street shareholders of the above will split up the proceeds from the sale of my house. That will add to their wealth in true capitalistic fashion. Unfortunately for me and my wife, we won't have a house anymore. It's not a fancy or big house, but we like it. So I prefer to add to the wealth of insurance companies and keep my house. It's all simple economics. Determine who can confiscate your wealth, then pay the vigorish to prevent it. There is something called "wealth redistribution." It's a fact of life. The only question for most people is how to look at it from moral and economic perspectives in deciding the direction of the wealth flow in terms of health care. Personally, I decided where I stood morally long ago, when I was "highly compensated." It's morally repulsive for me see people go without health care. Back in the HWBush admin a young diabetic deadbeat without insurance was in the news. I think he was 18 years old and it was in Tennessee. He'd stiffed the hospital more than once, and walked in once more, going into diabetic shock. The hospital gave him a shot of insulin, then the billing boss told a couple of orderlies to take him to a nearby park, because he didn't want to admit him and get stiffed again. The orderlies propped him under a tree in the park. It was a pretty leafy tree and a beautiful summer day. Later that day passersby found him sitting there, dead. That's when I decided I was willing to be taxed more to provide health care for all. But I wasn't taxed more. Instead, as is normal in America, the problem was ignored in order to keep taxes down so the folks could spend more and get in debt more buying all sorts of toys. Looks like that's over now. The sad part is most of the health care is going to the boomers, and the younger people will pay for it. Medicare is a prime example. Those reaping its benefits are way ahead of what they paid in. And those are the same people who are most vociferous in being against health care for all. They got theirs, and they don't want a penny of it going to anybody else. Then there's all the political propaganda. The normal mess. In any case, I've saved enough to continue paying my health insurance vigorish, so I'll do fine. What I like most about the health care bill just signed is removal of caps, so a real health catastrophe can't bankrupt me. I won't lose my house even though I have insurance. A little peace of mind there. And that my wife is no longer locked into her job to keep us insured, though it's not clear to me yet how that will work out. What I see as a failure is not enough effort to rein in medical costs. The medical profession is expert at ripping off both Medicare and private insurance companies. That's the biggest reason for premium increases.

--Vic

Get real! If you were really a MD, dr_jeff, you would know that is NOT so. You would know Medicare only pays part of the cost for a pair of classes after Eye Surgery and never pays for preventive dental care. Can't you understand what your read? I said my Medicare Advantage Insurance PREMIUM went from $8 to $18, not Medicare Part "B," dummy.

No I'm not, the fact is the insurance companies that provide insurance plans for seniors make a profit (actually it is more like 4% to 5%,) because they are given the SAME quarterly Medicare reimbursement funds that would otherwise be paid to the hospital(s) in ones area....

The Insurance company then provide GREATER coverage for those insured by actually paying the hospital a lower agreed amount or each procedure provided for you. That is why they are called ADVANTAGE plans.

If you are only covered by MEDICARE there is NO actual bill sent to Medicare for you hospital stay. The hospital has already been paid a pre-determined quarterly amount for you, and everyone else over 65 or disabled that lives in your area even if one never goes to a hospital, the hospital simply sends a bill to YOU for YOUR portion of the hospital bill. not covered my Medicare.

The reason Medicare reimbursement rates are set much higher than the actual cost of the care by the government, is to reimbursement the hospitals and doctors that must treat the UNINSURED under the Hill-Burton Act. A Doctor or hospital that charged you LESS than the Medicare reimbursement rates would be Medicare FRAUD. Only an Insurance companies can legally pay lower rates for Doctors or hospitals.

Do some research and learn how Medicare actually works, WBMA

Only if it is an emergency. The only way a colonscopy would be provided is if the condition is such that it can't wait.

So what?

No, the law won't drive up the cost of health care.

Where do they live longer (life expetency)? England. WHere is there lower infant mortality? England. How about lower costs? England.

Because people want a better life.

Many.

Many like working there. My cousin stayed in for over 20 years practicing in the military.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion, particularly which statements.

Jeff

No, I am not referring to that particlular patient.

Jeff

So you're suggesting that your healthcare company only gets $18 a month from all sources?

Actually, my father gets preventive dental care from Medicare.

Please, I know what you mean. You don't need to remind us you are dummy. Or do name-calling like a 3 year old.

Jeff

Actually I think it's Medicaid. But to the ignorant news media, they are one and the same and facts don't matter, so you hear it reported as Medicare as often as you do Medicaid.

Good point. More accurately, there are over 50 Medicaid programs. Each state has a different one. Walgreens is not accepting new patients in Washinton state. Patients already using Walgreens will be able to continue to use Walgreens, as well as patients in other states.

The reason Walgreens gave is that the state reimburses less than the cost of the drugs for 95% of the drugs. In other words, 19 out of 20 times, they lose money selling Medicaid drugs to patients.

Jeff

Do I detect a contradiction there? You presently don't have a house anymore, but you like it? Did you not meant to say what you said, or are you having trouble keeping the story straight that you're trying to tell?

What the heck is "the vigorish"? You used the term twice. Never heard of it.

But you want to have mandated that your feelings get assuaged by the cost coming from my pocket? If it's you that the problem bothers, then you are free to pay what you can to alleviate the problem. I don't advocate mandating that you pay for things that I believe in beyond what the Constitution stipulates - that would be called theft.

That was awful if true.

The problem, again, is that your determination to alleviate the problem in the way you advocate violates many things. You are free to give whatever you wish to help fix the problem, but please don't take it from me - I just might have my own causes that I don't demand your property is confiscated for.

Have you notified hospitals of your choosing that if they have people that need help but that aren't able to pay to put you on a list of people who are of like mind to chip in - voluntarily, and not that they go door to door to confiscate property from people? Have you thought about doing that? If not, why not?

Forcibly, no. That would be a violation of principles.

Hah! That is a very astute observation on your part. People will not have incentive to work or do other things if it is guaranteed as a "right".

Actually, the Chicago mob has relocated.

Oops - on that one point, I misread what you wrote. I thought you said "...we *d*on't have a house anymore."

From the horses mouth. Please tell me what is incorrect or left out here?

When all of it kicks in, anyone with their own coverage will find out what's been "left out" by what they'll be losing.

1. No, the law won't drive up the cost of health care.
2. Because people want a better life
3. Where do they live longer (life expetency)? England. WHere is there lower infant mortality? England. How about lower costs? England.
4. ETC. ;)

Sounds absolutely *great*. Please check back with us in 5 to 10 years and let us know how utopiacare is working for you and the entire country.

I especially love the part about that there's no discrimination based on income level. That was really funny. You apparently haven't heard how they plan to try to pay for this pie in the sky. Key word: "Try".

Vigorish, 'the take' that a bookie rakes off of the money he gets. He must be from somewhere around Chicago.

Charles Grozny

OK - thanks.

You thing wrong, Walgreens is not longer accepting Medicare part "D" prescriptions. Call them and see for yourself.