healthcare made simple

very cool slideshow! thanks FF!

Didnt watch it all, but pretty neat presentation... I cant wait for someone to show up with their metaphorical AK47 and derail this thread :-)

Cute. So this is basically the thoughts of a doctor who is blaming the insurance industry. No surprise there.

Here's a neat thing to do. Watch that slide show again except substitute mortgage companies for doctors and house insurance for health insurance. So when will we see reform of the house insurance business?

Markwes wrote:Cute. So this is basically the thoughts of a doctor who is blaming the insurance industry. No surprise there.

Here's a neat thing to do. Watch that slide show again except substitute mortgage companies for doctors and house insurance for health insurance. So when will we see reform of the house insurance business?

Don't you know there's 47 quintrillion people with no health insurance.

LTRT wrote:

Markwes wrote:Cute. So this is basically the thoughts of a doctor who is blaming the insurance industry. No surprise there.

Here's a neat thing to do. Watch that slide show again except substitute mortgage companies for doctors and house insurance for health insurance. So when will we see reform of the house insurance business?

Don't you know there's 47 quintrillion people with no health insurance.

And they are all lower class folks who are out of work, have pre existing conditions, and have sick babies!

the ones with sick babies qualify for medicare. the adults under age 65 with no minor dependants are the ones who dont qualify..exception being retroactively 3 months..one can apply to have a specific surgery covered by medicare after its done and the billing is completed. it might and it might not eventually cover the expense. anyway thats the experience people i know have had in last several years.

by the end of sept i will fit into that category when i am laid off because when i have to choose to pay from my unemployment income to have cobra minimal coverage or pay my utility bills, cobra will not be what i pay.

but thanks for the effort at walking in my shoes and finding some humor there..i always appreciate a good laugh.

floridafun wrote:the ones with sick babies qualify for medicare. the adults under age 65 with no minor dependants are the ones who dont qualify..exception being retroactively 3 months..one can apply to have a specific surgery covered by medicare after its done and the billing is completed. it might and it might not eventually cover the expense. anyway thats the experience people i know have had in last several years.

by the end of sept i will fit into that category when i am laid off because when i have to choose to pay from my unemployment income to have cobra minimal coverage or pay my utility bills, cobra will not be what i pay.

but thanks for the effort at walking in my shoes and finding some humor there..i always appreciate a good laugh.

They don't get it Florida. They don't want to extend unemployment benefits either (the republicans, heck 26 weeks is enough). They also don't want univerisal coverage, they think you can pay the cobra charges on your unemployment wage (indiana MAXES out at $390 per week gross). Try feeding a family, paying for housing on $390 GROSS per week and pay for cobra coverage for your kids.

sorry, I hope karma bites you all in the ass.

floridafun wrote:the ones with sick babies qualify for medicare. the adults under age 65 with no minor dependants are the ones who dont qualify..exception being retroactively 3 months..one can apply to have a specific surgery covered by medicare after its done and the billing is completed. it might and it might not eventually cover the expense. anyway thats the experience people i know have had in last several years.

by the end of sept i will fit into that category when i am laid off because when i have to choose to pay from my unemployment income to have cobra minimal coverage or pay my utility bills, cobra will not be what i pay.

but thanks for the effort at walking in my shoes and finding some humor there..i always appreciate a good laugh.

I was poking fun at Obama's 47 million estimate, nothing to do with you. But then you knew that already.

I just googled republican's against health co-ops couldn't find one article on it. I found a lot of liberal blogs and moonbats but no news site. Of course several Dems have come out against co-ops like Rockefeller, Peloski, Schumer (actually he would be for it if it was federally run, funded and staffed ) of course Dean the former DNC chairman.

Bman wrote:

floridafun wrote:the ones with sick babies qualify for medicare. the adults under age 65 with no minor dependants are the ones who dont qualify..exception being retroactively 3 months..one can apply to have a specific surgery covered by medicare after its done and the billing is completed. it might and it might not eventually cover the expense. anyway thats the experience people i know have had in last several years.

by the end of sept i will fit into that category when i am laid off because when i have to choose to pay from my unemployment income to have cobra minimal coverage or pay my utility bills, cobra will not be what i pay.

but thanks for the effort at walking in my shoes and finding some humor there..i always appreciate a good laugh.

They don't get it Florida. They don't want to extend unemployment benefits either (the republicans, heck 26 weeks is enough). They also don't want univerisal coverage, they think you can pay the cobra charges on your unemployment wage (indiana MAXES out at $390 per week gross). Try feeding a family, paying for housing on $390 GROSS per week and pay for cobra coverage for your kids.

sorry, I hope karma bites you all in the ass.

Once again couldn't find one article where Republicans were against extending unemployment benefits this year. Found several where Republicans were supporting it. You're just becoming delusional Bman.....

You obviously did not look too hard now did you?

WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain is just one of dozens of Republicans abandoning President Bush to join Democrats who want to extend unemployment payments for people whose benefits have run out.
"We have to extend the unemployment benefits," McCain said Tuesday on CNBC. "We have to .... because we all know Americans are hurting, and hurting badly."

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, hasn't been shy about trying to separate himself from the unpopular Bush. And neither are a bucketful of Republicans in the House as they confront a vote this week on extending benefits for the longer-term jobless. The half-percentage point jump reported last week in the nationwide unemployment rate only cements momentum behind the idea.

If the White House prevails in getting the unemployment insurance extension struck from the war funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would consider bringing it up as a stand-alone measure, spokesman Jim Manley said. But Reid is skeptical that a dozen or so Republicans would join Democrats to achieve the 60 vote tally needed to break a filibuster.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Republicans probably would filibuster the measure as too broad — providing benefits in states with low unemployment — and too expensive, costing about $16 billion over two years.

"Apparently, the Republicans do not believe that people who are unemployed — now that we've reached near record increases (in joblessness) — are deserving of additional unemployment benefits," Durbin said.

Bman wrote:You obviously did not look too hard now did you?

WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain is just one of dozens of Republicans abandoning President Bush to join Democrats who want to extend unemployment payments for people whose benefits have run out.
"We have to extend the unemployment benefits," McCain said Tuesday on CNBC. "We have to .... because we all know Americans are hurting, and hurting badly."

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, hasn't been shy about trying to separate himself from the unpopular Bush. And neither are a bucketful of Republicans in the House as they confront a vote this week on extending benefits for the longer-term jobless. The half-percentage point jump reported last week in the nationwide unemployment rate only cements momentum behind the idea.

If the White House prevails in getting the unemployment insurance extension struck from the war funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would consider bringing it up as a stand-alone measure, spokesman Jim Manley said. But Reid is skeptical that a dozen or so Republicans would join Democrats to achieve the 60 vote tally needed to break a filibuster.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Republicans probably would filibuster the measure as too broad — providing benefits in states with low unemployment — and too expensive, costing about $16 billion over two years.

"Apparently, the Republicans do not believe that people who are unemployed — now that we've reached near record increases (in joblessness) — are deserving of additional unemployment benefits," Durbin said.

Can you find something during this administration/congressional session where republicans are against this? This is from 2002 or 2003 after 911. During a time when the economy was growing and unemployment was low.

Dude stop living in the past...... I haven't seen anything during this session of congress where they are talking about extending unemployment benefits and Republicans being against it. Actually just the opposite. Which is probably why you didn't provide a link thinking we wouldn't notice Bush in the story.

Scooby01_98 wrote:I just googled republican's against health co-ops couldn't find one article on it. I found a lot of liberal blogs and moonbats but no news site. Of course several Dems have come out against co-ops like Rockefeller, Peloski, Schumer (actually he would be for it if it was federally run, funded and staffed ) of course Dean the former DNC chairman.

so gop whip jon kyle doesnt count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJdrSik8Fz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UOXtd5LS4

or grassley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu-ygx_nsrk

or senator gregg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3uFxNQRsUk&feature=related

heres what mccain said 10 months ago..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxjL-YjT6U

and here is republican leader dr beck..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10&feature=PlayList&p=46A473D8D0214151&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

floridafun wrote:heres what mccain said 10 months ago..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfxjL-YjT6U

and here is republican leader dr beck..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10&feature=PlayList&p=46A473D8D0214151&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

You should have watched this week with George Stephanopolous where he could support it if it didn't meet Schumers style of co-op. i.e. not federally ran.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Bman wrote:You obviously did not look too hard now did you?

WASHINGTON (AP) — John McCain is just one of dozens of Republicans abandoning President Bush to join Democrats who want to extend unemployment payments for people whose benefits have run out.
"We have to extend the unemployment benefits," McCain said Tuesday on CNBC. "We have to .... because we all know Americans are hurting, and hurting badly."

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, hasn't been shy about trying to separate himself from the unpopular Bush. And neither are a bucketful of Republicans in the House as they confront a vote this week on extending benefits for the longer-term jobless. The half-percentage point jump reported last week in the nationwide unemployment rate only cements momentum behind the idea.

If the White House prevails in getting the unemployment insurance extension struck from the war funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would consider bringing it up as a stand-alone measure, spokesman Jim Manley said. But Reid is skeptical that a dozen or so Republicans would join Democrats to achieve the 60 vote tally needed to break a filibuster.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said Republicans probably would filibuster the measure as too broad — providing benefits in states with low unemployment — and too expensive, costing about $16 billion over two years.

"Apparently, the Republicans do not believe that people who are unemployed — now that we've reached near record increases (in joblessness) — are deserving of additional unemployment benefits," Durbin said.

Can you find something during this administration/congressional session where republicans are against this? This is from 2002 or 2003 after 911. During a time when the economy was growing and unemployment was low.

Dude stop living in the past...... I haven't seen anything during this session of congress where they are talking about extending unemployment benefits and Republicans being against it. Actually just the opposite. Which is probably why you didn't provide a link thinking we wouldn't notice Bush in the story.

Please this was from late 2008 John McCain was the presumptive nominee...we were in the throes of a depression and the republicans did not want to extend unemployment benefits ... yea, this is from 2002/2003 ... bury your head in the sand. You are the party of GREEDY and the RICH

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:I just googled republican's against health co-ops couldn't find one article on it. I found a lot of liberal blogs and moonbats but no news site. Of course several Dems have come out against co-ops like Rockefeller, Peloski, Schumer (actually he would be for it if it was federally run, funded and staffed ) of course Dean the former DNC chairman.

so gop whip jon kyle doesnt count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJdrSik8Fz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UOXtd5LS4

or grassley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu-ygx_nsrk

or senator gregg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3uFxNQRsUk&feature=related

I never heard in these where they were totally against them. Kyle didn't want certain things in the bill. So if those were not removed he wouldn't vote for it with co-ops. Which is basically the same thing as certain dems if they don't have certain items they are not going to vote for it. So if Schumer can't vote for a co op because it isn't federally run, funded, and staffed it is okay, but not okay for a republican to say if this and that is in the bill he can't vote for it?

I'm extremely pissed. I guess one could say it was made simpler for me today.

My wife carries our insurance through her employer because it was cheaper, and I was unemployed a couple years ago. I have not been to the doctor last year, and the year before I had a tooth pulled - ins paid about $150 of $270. No other claims from me in 08-09. The kids had some dental stuff, cleanings and a filling or two, lightly covered by health insurance. They had some Dr. office visits, check ups and stuff. We also had a health savings account, and the plan had a high deductible ($5000), through Blue Cross. We paid out over $3500 to BCBS, which doesn't include our HSA contributions, they covered about $1200 in claims - mostly from the kids. Nothing else was covered, close to $5000 out of pocket "extras". So we ended up paying out about $9000 of which they paid about 1200. This year, they changed Ins companies to Aetna, they dropped the lower cost BCBS. Now our deductible will be $2000, coverages don't change, had to drop vision coverage AND the monthly rate goes up $120/mo to $1440 over the entire year. Also, open enrollment windows are bullshit. My employer had ours in Sept, hers in Oct. so we didn't know the new offerings from her employer.

We're getting robbed. This sucks.

bummer meta. it will hit alot more folks in the next 2 years who are now looking down their nose at a public OPTION. guess i am a vindictive bitch because i think some need to experience the reality before they have any grasp of mainstream american issues.

my last employer had bcbs, my last year i thought it was a good idea to try a health savings acct. but it did have the 5K deductable too. the only options that didnt have the 5K deductable paid out much less and had lower dollar caps on things it did cover. and this is for single, not family coverage. i never had any symptoms of problems and certainly didnt have 5K available to spend on deductable. there were alot of free testing options which is great..general physicals, pap screenings, colin cancer screenings, numerous other screenings which were free....unless it turned out you were deemed in need of any treatment-even preventative-as result for any screening. then you are billed for the screening and whatever treatments are done. its only free if you are 100% in the clear for problems. that policy really broke the tidy retirements of a few folks i worked with. scarey. great something was found early, sad they had to pay for the free screening and spend 5K to actually get much less than the 80% paid because there were so many little things along the way the doctor insisted was needed but insurance refused to cover.

i recieved a generic letter from insurance a few days after my employment terminated, cheerily explaining they were cutting out the options we previously had. (company still in business, just moved from here to illinois) staying with bcbs now only 3 options instead of the 5 or 6 we had previously, and payout/ins coverage decreasing and premiums increasing, deductables increased. and for folks who carry the family coverage and have a spouse who also does so (hoping total combined payments will mean less out-of-pocket), there would now be a $50.00 per pay period penalty on their coverage..to cover the expense of the administration of determining which company (even if also bcbs) will get coverage and tracking meeting limits etc.

but thank you repubs for doing all you can to kill the public option!!! its so much better to focus on the insurance companies right to continue being the most financially successful venture in american businesses ever at the expense of those who dont get sick and pay their premiums--go bcbs!!!

i was happy to see the teabaggers came out with an insurance plan that actually has dollar figures in it this morning!! according to cbo

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/budget-monitor-questions-impact-of-gop-health-bill/#more-12235

would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and would leave about 52 million people uninsured, the budget office said, meaning the proportion of non-elderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, at roughly 83 percent.

The budget office has said that the Democrats’ health care proposal would extend coverage to 36 million people, meaning that 96 percent of legal residents.

The budget office carefully hedged its findings, writing: “Some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by enrollees in some states relative to enrollees in other states. As a result, some individuals and families within each market would see reductions in premiums that would be larger or smaller than the estimated average reductions, and some people would see increases. The estimates of changes in average premiums are very preliminary and are subject to an unusually high degree of uncertainty.”

“It will leave 52 million Americans literally out in the cold, does nothing to help low-income and middle-class families afford quality health care, and protects insurance companies’ power to deny claims and stand between patients and their doctors.”

Odd that you and other dems weren't this passionate about, er, should I say didn't even mention, a public health care option before this year. Now all of a sudden we're uncaring bastards and in favor of the greedy insurance companies if we disagree.

Markwes wrote:Odd that you and other dems weren't this passionate about, er, should I say didn't even mention, a public health care option before this year. Now all of a sudden we're uncaring bastards and in favor of the greedy insurance companies if we disagree.

If the shoe fits... LOL

I dunno, Dems (for all their faults) have been trying to fix HC since the Hillary Clinton administration...

Maybe. I never heard it before this administration, but maybe that's just me. I keep getting an old Oingo Boingo song stuck in my head:

If it ain't one thing
Then it's the other
Any cause that crosses your path
Your heart bleeds for anyone's brother
I've got to tell you you're a pain in the ass