Home Off Topic

Will we see a replacement Supreme Court Justice before January 20th?

15678911»

Replies

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    edited September 24 #302
    They don't require insurance (urgent care centers), they just need to know how much to charge for the deductible if applicable. You're not getting care if you don't produce a credit card/cash.  They'll refer you to a hospital ER.
    I could be wrong, but I think that all depends on federal funding.  Either way, my hernia surgery a few years back was over $15,000.  Not having insurance isn't a realistic/viable option.  Healthcare and insurance are directly linked.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 461 Deckhand
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    edited September 24 #306
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Not any more than being self insured. 

    How cheap do you think a doctor will see a patient for? Do you think doctors need new patients so bad they would reduce their rates more than they have, Many doctors are refusing to take cheap insurance plans now because there is no money in it, Since 80% of the cost of insurance must be paid out as claims for healthcare, where do you think this savings is coming from? Do you think there is that much profit for the insurance company? There is not. The insurance company still has to negotiate with each doctors group and hospital, None of these are going to see any increase in business and many don't want an increase, 

    To lower the cost of health care you have to pay doctors and hospitals less than you do now, Most are already at the bottom amount they will work for, So increasing the group size would not make a major impact. 

    Saving are from being self insured and using plans to encourage your employees to avoid doctors. Some companies are using  internet doctors and Teledoc which has your avoid a real doctor, Others have wellness programs to try and get you healthier so you don't go to the doctor. This is where the saving are, keeping the employee out of the hospital and out of the doctor's office.

    So, in answer, to your question, no raising the pool from say 100,000 employees to a million will not lower your rates, The insurance company has already dropped their overhead as low as it can to get the 100,000 employee company, There is little room for them to lower it further, The hospitals and doctors aren't going to take less pay since they will see these people anyways in or out of such a pool, 

    it isn't like Walmart employs 100,000 doctors and owns 5000 hospitals across the country that the insurance can negotiate with. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 461 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    It works for federal employees because the government doesn't have to worry about a budget and can have others pay for their benefits.  That system has nothing to do with a legitimate business.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • Gary SGary S Posts: 2,254 Captain
    Working in the school system didn't help with price, it actually hurt because most teachers work 10 months. It gave them 2 months off to do elective surgery and not miss work. 
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    does not mean it is any cheaper than a private employer pays for insurance. The fed is self insured and just uses a service agent. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    So that means single-payer would be hugely expensive and worse by all measure compared to even the mess we have now.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    does not mean it is any cheaper than a private employer pays for insurance. The fed is self insured and just uses a service agent. 
    Fed is drastically cheaper.  My father in-law retired from a Fed job.  He pays something like $100 a month (in retirement) for him and his wife.  And he owes $20 copay when he goes in.....  for anything.  His insurance is amazing compared to the private sector.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • YnotjaxYnotjax Posts: 329 Deckhand
    I just wonder if we have a federal government agency running healthcare how efficient will they be?

    I had some Estate tax questions, about the 1041 and K1 forms, no assistance from the IRS.

    My Dad tried to use his VA benefits only got a run around.

    Just like everything the Feds touch it is messed up.

    my Passport is expiring need to renew,  know that will be a pain.
  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 12,554 AG

    Just like everything the Feds touch it is messed up.

    That is patently false. They are very good at collecting money.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 9,027 Moderator
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    does not mean it is any cheaper than a private employer pays for insurance. The fed is self insured and just uses a service agent. 
    Fed is drastically cheaper.  My father in-law retired from a Fed job.  He pays something like $100 a month (in retirement) for him and his wife.  And he owes $20 copay when he goes in.....  for anything.  His insurance is amazing compared to the private sector.  
    The fed is cheaper? Who's paying for it?

    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    does not mean it is any cheaper than a private employer pays for insurance. The fed is self insured and just uses a service agent. 
    Fed is drastically cheaper.  My father in-law retired from a Fed job.  He pays something like $100 a month (in retirement) for him and his wife.  And he owes $20 copay when he goes in.....  for anything.  His insurance is amazing compared to the private sector.  
    Come on, that is just his share of the cost. That is not the cost of his insurance. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    edited September 25 #317
    So that means single-payer would be hugely expensive and worse by all measure compared to even the mess we have now.
    How do you draw that conclusion. It would not save any money nor cost more.

    The only way we will ever see a reduction in health care costs is when they start paying doctors and hospitals less. That or you stop people from going to either as much as they do.

    Remember though, you get what you pay for. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 6,356 Admiral
    edited September 25 #318
    kellercl said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    kellercl said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    jetmech said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I wonder if anyone here themselves, or someone they care about needs coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Careful what you wish for. 
    Why?
    Supreme court will decide pre-existing doesn't have to be covered?  Not sure.  
    Correct.

    It's fine to want change, just be honest about just what that means. This matter is currently before the court, and there is currently no plan in place to address this problem should the court side with the government.  

    So, like I said, I wonder how many here, or someone they love depends on coverage for a pre-existing condition?
    Only advice I have it to lead a healthy life style and hope for good genetics.  Because healthcare isn't in the business of helping.
    At least your honest, though I wonder if you would be so consistently callous should a condition befall one of your loved ones since these conditions can manifest at even a young age.  

    I'm sure you will just stand by and explain to them that you support your insurance company dropping them, and it's just too bad. 
    Before the meddling most insurances covered most preexisting conditions, for less money. 
        Now insurance has to cover your hysterectomy and it’ll cost you a fortune. Forever. 
     As a business model, ( one I’ve never cared for), insurance has been broken badly. I just don’t see how it gets better unless it returns to real capitalism and free choice.
       I say that as a guy with preexisting conditions, insurance didn’t cost that much before the one size fits all mandates.
    The question I have always asked is, why can’t the private sector have the same health insurance plan’s  as the federal government employees?
    You can. It depends on if you get insurance through your employer or on your own and how much you want to spend. 

    Most employers are going to cheaper plans to save money and most people look at price when buying. 
    No you cannot. 
     If you are a federal worker you can transfer from one department to another and also transfer to another state and there’s no change in your coverage. 
     Why can’t all paper companies for instance, pool all of their employees and families and do the same?? A Georgia Pacific employee has the same as a International Paper employee etc. 
     And can go from state to state. 
    You go from federal to state job your insurance will change. From state to state it changes. 
    That’s true. I meant as a federal employee you get transferred to another state and another department nothing changes. 
    So you want universal healthcare where coverage doesn't change regardless of employment changes?  
    That’s not what I said. 
     I am saying, why can’t all trucking companies for instance pool all of their employees together into one insurance pool. Those employees will be covered no matter what state they are in or company they work for. 
     If a driver or mechanic leaves company A in Florida and goes to work for company B in Colorado there is no change to his health insurance. 
    Because most of those guys self insure and it is of no benefit to the company to pool with another company. It won't save money. 
    You would have to create a universal insurance plan and force companies to buy it to get what you want. 

    Companies are going to go the cheapest route. 
    So you think that a insurance pool of around a million people would not get a decent insurance rate?
    Honestly, I do not.  I think insurance is going to be calculated on per person basis using actuarial tables.  The number of people will be irrelevant.  Insurance costs is going to be driven on statistical probability of requiring coverage.  Increasing replicates doesn't change probability.  
    Seems to work for the millions of federal employees. Everyone from the obese postal worker to the lean forestry service firefighter. 
    does not mean it is any cheaper than a private employer pays for insurance. The fed is self insured and just uses a service agent. 
    Fed is drastically cheaper.  My father in-law retired from a Fed job.  He pays something like $100 a month (in retirement) for him and his wife.  And he owes $20 copay when he goes in.....  for anything.  His insurance is amazing compared to the private sector.  
    The fed is cheaper? Who's paying for it?
    We are.  I love my father in-law, he has a great sense of humor.  Anytime he goes to the doctor, he texts me thanking me for my financial support.

    Edit
    As a point of clarity, I think many missed it.  I wasn't saying his care is cheaper, I meant his share is cheaper.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • jetmechjetmech On the coastPosts: 461 Deckhand
    edited September 25 #319
    cadman said:
    So that means single-payer would be hugely expensive and worse by all measure compared to even the mess we have now.
    How do you draw that conclusion. It would not save any money nor cost more.

    The only way we will ever see a reduction in health care costs is when they start paying doctors and hospitals less. That or you stop people from going to either as much as they do.

    Remember though, you get what you pay for. 
    When we let the free market and competition take over is when you will see a reduction in costs. 
  • FloridaODFloridaOD Posts: 3,880 Captain
    edited September 28 #320
    This just in....,, Nominee Doomed
    During High School, a party. Alcohol involved, or worse yet, no alcohol.
    She done did brushed up against someone’s crotch. Male or Female crotch not yet disclosed, however a Memorable Event.
    Considering how certain Religion and Societal Norms are about Genitalia, this will dominate “ News”.
    Or maybe not, if you think about it, or even if you don’t.
    Hunters are present yet relatively uncommon in Florida :wink
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 32,592 AG
    jetmech said:
    cadman said:
    So that means single-payer would be hugely expensive and worse by all measure compared to even the mess we have now.
    How do you draw that conclusion. It would not save any money nor cost more.

    The only way we will ever see a reduction in health care costs is when they start paying doctors and hospitals less. That or you stop people from going to either as much as they do.

    Remember though, you get what you pay for. 
    When we let the free market and competition take over is when you will see a reduction in costs. 
    You are completely clueless. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

    I am just here for my amusement. 

Sign In or Register to comment.