H.R. 3950 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

My point is that it's not designed to cover an unexpected or catastrophic event like all other forms of insurance are. How often are people expected to make claims on Homeowner's or Auto insurance policies? It's a fairly rare event for most people.

Such policies are available - if you want catastrophic coverage only, get something like HSA policy with a 5K deductible. And it's cheap.

Quote

Health insurance is expected to cover routine events, like a doctor's visit due to a common illness - an expected and likely event.

This is not really routine, as some people do not go to doctor when sick with common cold, and some people develop other illness, and go to hospitals or even die. A visit to a doctor due to common cold might also uncover other health issues (like AIDS).

Quote

How much would car insurance cost if the government said it had to cover oil changes and car washes?

Let's count. Regular carwash price here is $11.99 + tax. Assuming $5 copay, this is $7 direct cost to insurance. Since they can negotiate better rates because they bring customers, and since administering claims cost money, I assume those counter each other. For four car washes in a year, the direct cost would be $28. If there is $20 deductible, the direct cost would be $8.

Oil change is more expensive - around $30 here; let's say $10 copay and $22 direct insurance costs. Having it twice a year the cost will be $44 with no deductibles.

Now the insurance for my car is $700 a year. In the worst case I see 10% increase. This is not significant.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Such policies are available - if you want catastrophic coverage only, get something like HSA policy with a 5K deductible. And it's cheap.

Not for long, they're not. A catastrophic coverage policy won't meet the standards and HSA accounts can't be more than 2.5k under the HC bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Not for long, they're not. A catastrophic coverage policy won't meet the standards and HSA accounts can't be more than 2.5k under the HC bill.

Quote the bill, please.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good.

How do they feel about cost of their health care?

I pay just $103.20 a month in pre-tax dollars (which is like spending $64.70 of take-home pay) to cover both my wife and myself with no in-network deductible or co-insurance. Co-pays are up to $40 for specialists but that's usually pretty rare.

I like that just fine.

As a side effect of WWII wage controls, most private insurance takes the form of group plans where people don't directly bear the total cost or even become aware of it until changing jobs and getting a letter informing them of their rights under COBRA.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So what I quoted was charge (actual amount - I received it on "explanation of benefits"). My point was that ER charged significantly more for the same service, and it's likely because their costs are significantly larger.

Quote

His point was that the cost is essentially the same for the ER and the urgent care clinic.

No, they are not. UC clinics are not required to treat uninsured, or even to accept state insurance or Medicare, so every service they provide is paid for. This is not the case for ERs.

Writing more slowly.

The costs of taking care of your bullshit sore throat is the same at the urgent care clinic (whether it is part of the hospital or separate) and at the ER are the same. Doctors and nurses have similar salaries (you're not getting the top surgeon in the ER - they have the 'regular' guy for the BS stuff). Drugs, tests, and the paperpushers all run about the same.

The ER costs more because if it can, and if they didn't charge more they would be flooded with BS and have a harder time taking care of the real emergencies.

Having everyone insured should allow for better access to emergency care, though there would still be lots of people with sore throats showing up. But in terms of costs, they would increase. The cost to treat doesn't change, and there would be more office visits by those who previously didn't have coverage. Overall health is likely to increase, but not the costs.

You've written a number of times that only those making millions would see any cost increases. It's worth noting that the AMT was written to apply to only a few dozen families. Now it applies to millions of households, mostly in higher income/higher cost of living states to people who hardly qualify as tax dodging wealthy.

When the costs keep going up, and the debt picture worsens, far more people will be paying more taxes to keep this turkey going. It would be much better to tackle the cost picture right now rather than add trillions more in debt.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Not for long, they're not. A catastrophic coverage policy won't meet the standards and HSA accounts can't be more than 2.5k under the HC bill.

Quote the bill, please.

Didn't you read the bill? You keep asking everyone else that...
This is under the bill currently passed, BTW...no telling what the Senate bill will add.

Minimum requirements, Section 222 (b):

Quote

(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- Subject to subsection (d), the items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatments.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well-baby and well-child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies for children under 21 years of age.
(11) Durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and related supplies.

HSA, Section 532:

Quote

`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.

Under 3950:
Minimum requirements, section 1302:

Quote

(b) Essential Health Benefits-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall define the essential health benefits, except that such benefits shall include at least the following general categories and the items and services covered within the categories:

(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

HSA, section 9005:

Quote

`(i) Limitation on Health Flexible Spending Arrangements- For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I pay just $103.20 a month in pre-tax dollars (which is like spending $64.70 of take-home pay) to cover both my wife and myself with no in-network deductible or co-insurance. Co-pays are up to $40 for specialists but that's usually pretty rare.

Since the average health insurance premium in 2009 for a family is is $13,375 - ten times more than you pay, I would say your situation represents very insignificant minority.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The ER costs more because if it can, and if they didn't charge more they would be flooded with BS and have a harder time taking care of the real emergencies.

This might work if you pay cash for your treatment or if you're insured, but not for uninsured. If you're insured, you'll pay a larget copay - something like $100 instead of $20. This is a good reason for most people to wait for the morning, and go to urgent care instead. However if you're uninsured and not going to pay anyway, you don't care about this increase, and for you going to ER is _cheaper_ than going to UC, where you would have to prepay for treatment. And people with insurance are not flooding ERs which are closed for non-payment.

Quote

Having everyone insured should allow for better access to emergency care, though there would still be lots of people with sore throats showing up. But in terms of costs, they would increase. The cost to treat doesn't change, and there would be more office visits by those who previously didn't have coverage. Overall health is likely to increase, but not the costs.

The access to _emergency_ care does not change. Everyone had it before, and everyone will have it. What changes is that some of those who only had access to emergency care before, and therefore often used it for non-emergencies, now will have access to other options as well - therefore reducing load on emergency services.

Quote

You've written a number of times that only those making millions would see any cost increases. It's worth noting that the AMT was written to apply to only a few dozen families. Now it applies to millions of households, mostly in higher income/higher cost of living states to people who hardly qualify as tax dodging wealthy.

Yes, there is a chance that inflation might lead to 1M/year being minimum wage, and six-pack will cost $600, but I'd say we might as well discuss alien invasion.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Didn't you read the bill? You keep asking everyone else that...

I did. Just wanted to make sure you read it too. I have no desire to discuss a fox "news" article instead of actual bill.

Quote

(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatments.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well-baby and well-child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies for children under 21 years of age.
(11) Durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and related supplies.

BC/BS HSA plans in California cover all those items except maternity care (some even cover maternity too). Actually I would be interested to see any current HSA plan from a reputable health insurance company which does not cover something in this list, except maternity.

Quote

(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.

Note the bold. We discussed it before.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Didn't you read the bill? You keep asking everyone else that...

I did. Just wanted to make sure you read it too. I have no desire to discuss a fox "news" article instead of actual bill.

And we don't particularly care to have to counter the MSM talking points, but we don't require you to not regurgitate the blurb-of-the-day from them.

Quote

BC/BS HSA plans in California cover all those items except maternity care (some even cover maternity too). Actually I would be interested to see any current HSA plan from a reputable health insurance company which does not cover something in this list, except maternity.

From your own link:

Quote

These plans are PPO plans and HSA participation is optional.

It's also not a 'catastropic' or 'major medical only' plan as mentioned upthread.

Quote

Quote

(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, if a benefit is provided under a cafeteria plan through employer contributions to a health flexible spending arrangement, such benefit shall not be treated as a qualified benefit unless the cafeteria plan provides that an employee may not elect for any taxable year to have salary reduction contributions in excess of $2,500 made to such arrangement.

Note the bold. We discussed it before.

So? That has what to do with the language that imposes a cap?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

Quote

So what I quoted was charge (actual amount - I received it on "explanation of benefits"). My point was that ER charged significantly more for the same service, and it's likely because their costs are significantly larger.

Quote

His point was that the cost is essentially the same for the ER and the urgent care clinic.

No, they are not. UC clinics are not required to treat uninsured, or even to accept state insurance or Medicare, so every service they provide is paid for. This is not the case for ERs.

Writing more slowly.

The costs of taking care of your bullshit sore throat is the same at the urgent care clinic (whether it is part of the hospital or separate) and at the ER are the same. Doctors and nurses have similar salaries (you're not getting the top surgeon in the ER - they have the 'regular' guy for the BS stuff). Drugs, tests, and the paperpushers all run about the same.

The ER costs more because if it can, and if they didn't charge more they would be flooded with BS and have a harder time taking care of the real emergencies.

Having everyone insured should allow for better access to emergency care, though there would still be lots of people with sore throats showing up. But in terms of costs, they would increase. The cost to treat doesn't change, and there would be more office visits by those who previously didn't have coverage. Overall health is likely to increase, but not the costs.

You've written a number of times that only those making millions would see any cost increases. It's worth noting that the AMT was written to apply to only a few dozen families. Now it applies to millions of households, mostly in higher income/higher cost of living states to people who hardly qualify as tax dodging wealthy.

When the costs keep going up, and the debt picture worsens, far more people will be paying more taxes to keep this turkey going. It would be much better to tackle the cost picture right now rather than add trillions more in debt.

The costs are NOT the same. The overhead costs of a hospital and ER is MUCH higher than that of an urgent care clinic. Hospital ERs have to meet more standards, have to be open 24x7 where urgent care clinics are open less hours, don't get payed for everyone that walks through the door, have better equipment, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Believe it or not, some ERs are not that profitable, and a case of someone coming in when CTs / MRIs / X-Rays are required (again with equipment that is not cheap to run) and no payment comes in has to be recovered in some way. UC again does not have this problem.

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Let's count. Regular carwash price here is $11.99 + tax. Assuming $5 copay, this is $7 direct cost to insurance. Since they can negotiate better rates because they bring customers, and since administering claims cost money, I assume those counter each other. For four car washes in a year, the direct cost would be $28. If there is $20 deductible, the direct cost would be $8.

Oil change is more expensive - around $30 here; let's say $10 copay and $22 direct insurance costs. Having it twice a year the cost will be $44 with no deductibles.

Now the insurance for my car is $700 a year. In the worst case I see 10% increase. This is not significant.

So you assume 4 car washes in a year, and 4 oil changes, that's 8 claims for every car in america - or a total of 2.03 Billion claims annually. How many people would the insurance companies have to hire to manage those claims ? How much more fraud would there be in the system?

Would prices stay the same? Doubtful - if a third party is paying, people typically don't care how much something costs.

What our country considers health "insurance" isn't insurance.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Maybe it's time for you to stop listening to fox "news" and actually read the bill yourself.

Why don't you stop the BS? Your comment is stupid, rude, and not true.

I HAVE read a good portion of the bill, I don't watch FOX news... Don't blame ME since YOU can't have polite discourse with facts.

Quote

I also understand that you cannot really tax a couple making 40K a year, as there is not a lot of money.

So, no... you do not expect everyone to pay for it. Fact is your type have not been able to show how this would be any different than any other program.

How about you provide some facts instead of hype and BS?

Quote

This has been already addressed in legislation - being in country illegally is against the law. It doesn't make any more sense to address it from a legislative branch - it is already illegal, and they should not be there.

So you WOULD rather just ignore the problems and sit in a circle and chant. Your inability to answer these types of questions makes your position look weak. YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE PROBLEMS...... That just makes your position look all the weaker.

Quote

Have you read the bill?

Clearly I have read more than you.

Quote

So are you saying that delivering letters is what most commercial delivery companies do, and is the core of their business? Because if it's not, then your example is kinda irrelevant, right?

YOU were the one saying they are competitors.... *I* am the one saying that the USPS is BY LAW allowed to own a significant portion of business.

YOUR position is the one that is invalidated.

Quote

From what I know, majority of shipping revenue comes from packages, especially urgent packages - and this is where the main competition is.

Your information is incorrect. I have worked in this industry for 18 years..... You?

Quote

You need to read the actual bill, so your examples would represent what is being discussed in legislature, not what your pastor or favorite talk show host thinks about it.

You need to read the bill and be able to defend it from YOUR OWN EXAMPLES.

Quote

but then why should everyone subsidy your choice if they believe public option is better for them? You know, it's kinda socialist from your side to restrict other people choices by forcing them to do what YOU consider to be "the only right thing".

Why should everyone subsidize YOUR choice? You just want ME to pay for something for YOU since YOU don't want to pay for it. Your own sigline supports that opinion of you.

Quote

I see no facts introduced by your cite, and you did not provide a link, so there is nothing to discuss. If you expect me to go to a library to request 2004 Chicago Sun-Times, then think again.

I backed up my source and my numbers... You have lost. Don't blame ME for you being too lazy to provide data and YOUR inability to refute data.

Hint: Saying, "That's not true" in light of supporting documentation just makes YOUR position look weak.

Quote

You're saying VA is run poorly? Bring the numbers

I am and I have already done that... It is YOUR job to refute it with more than BS.

Quote

Because you're not discussing anything. You're trying to turn the discussion your way, pretty much as your talk show hosts do. As it doesn't work, you start your typical "avoided giving answer" drama.

Im trying, you just don't like looking foolish so you play stupid games. You asked for a cite, I provided it, then you claimed it was too much work to look at it. LAME.

Quote

Unfortunately you didn't read the bill, so everything you're discussing did not come from the actual law, and there is little value in such discussion anyway

Clearly I have read more than you. More importantly, I am willing to back up my arguements which is something you are unable/unwilling to do.

You are right about one thing.... There is little value in this discussion.... Simply because YOU are unable to have a discussion using facts.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And we don't particularly care to have to counter the MSM talking points, but we don't require you to not regurgitate the blurb-of-the-day from them.

huh?

Quote

These plans are PPO plans and HSA participation is optional.

Of course they say it is optional. First, insurance company cannot force you to open HSA account, but they want to sell you a plan even if you do not want to open HSA. Second, not everyone is eligible to fund HSA (you must have taxable income), but again it doesn't matter for the insurer.

Quote

It's also not a 'catastropic' or 'major medical only' plan as mentioned upthread.

Yes it is - look for "$0 after deductible" in covered services. It means the plan pays nothing for most things it covers until the deductible (which can be up to $10K) is reached. Then the plan pays for everything else this year which is covered (but still not for any possible medical expense - maternity is still not covered for most plans). If this is not "major medical only", then I do not know what is.

I also asked you to provide a link to ANY HSA plan which YOU would consider "major medical only", and which would not cover any of things listed in federal requirements, except maternity.

Quote

So? That has what to do with the language that imposes a cap?

This is a cap for cafeteria plans, not for your regular HSA accounts. As far as I know, HSA contribution limits are set up by IRS.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So you assume 4 car washes in a year, and 4 oil changes, that's 8 claims for every car in america - or a total of 2.03 Billion claims annually. How many people would the insurance companies have to hire to manage those claims ? How much more fraud would there be in the system?

Nobody. Note that this is not an insurance service, which requires risk calculation, adjustments, fraud checks and so on. This is basically prepaid service, which is not really different from getting a bunch of coupons for free oil charge/car wash. With a single case of fraud giving you $10 max (as you spend $10 on copay), I do not expect a lot of fraud either. If one is willing to commit fraud to make money, there are ways which pay much better than $10.

Quote

Would prices stay the same? Doubtful - if a third party is paying, people typically don't care how much something costs.

Third party is not paying. Third party is distributing money you gave them. Like a prepaid VISA gift card - don't you care about the price when paying by a gift card?

Quote

What our country considers health "insurance" isn't insurance.

Some plans are, some are not. You can buy true health insurance - a plan which pays nothing at all until you got, like, $5K in claims in a year. Or you can buy a "health service" plan, which covers everything including massages, chiropractors, urinotherapy and other crap with $5 copay. You have a choice.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why don't you stop the BS? Your comment is stupid, rude, and not true.

I HAVE read a good portion of the bill, I don't watch FOX news... Don't blame ME since YOU can't have polite discourse with facts.

Your post, in turn, is a good example of politeness, wisdom and infinite truth!

If you read the bill, then please when you talk about the bill, point to specific sections of it, so anyone can understand where you discuss proposed law, and not just speculating. This would also help to do a cross-check to make sure you did not misunderstood a specific section.

Quote

So, no... you do not expect everyone to pay for it. Fact is your type have not been able to show how this would be any different than any other program.

It would be naive to expect everyone, including people on disability, and people who live on Social Security benefits or receiving welfare, to pay for it. So no, I do not expect everyone to pay for it, not should you if you live in real world.

Quote

How about you provide some facts instead of hype and BS?

Facts about what? That I do not expect everyone to pay for it? What kind of facts you're looking for?

Quote

So you WOULD rather just ignore the problems and sit in a circle and chant. Your inability to answer these types of questions makes your position look weak. YOU WANT TO IGNORE THE PROBLEMS...... That just makes your position look all the weaker.

So you WOULD rather address every problem we have now, from immigration to wars to shrinking Social Security to housing market to unemployment in the healthcare bill? Why the heck would you discuss IMMIGRATION issues in a HEALTHCARE bill? You really want to have one 200,000 pages "Save America!" bill which should take care of every problem around? This would be crazy.

What you're saying seems to be a typical right-wing bullshit - "we should not fix healthcare until we fix all other issues" (most of which was introduced by Republicans, namely GWB). Of course, the same could be said about other issues - "we should not fix immigration until we fix healthcare" - and you're in a deadlock. You cannot fix everything at the same moment, and someone has to set priorities. Fortunately it's not GWB now who is setting them.

Quote

YOU were the one saying they are competitors.... *I* am the one saying that the USPS is BY LAW allowed to own a significant portion of business.
YOUR position is the one that is invalidated.

You sound so arrogant that you didn't even see you're fighting against yourself! If USPS by law has so significant advantage over other companies (and it is pretty obvious that USPS can do most of what UPS/FedEx does), this pretty much proves the point that government-run entities do not push competing privately run entities out of business - assuming they are run properly, and not like AIG or GM.

Quote

Your information is incorrect. I have worked in this industry for 18 years..... You?

Just a few lines ago you asked for facts. Where are your facts? Your personal statements are not facts - obviously you didn't work in UPS top management, so your understanding of the business cannot be full.

Quote

Why should everyone subsidize YOUR choice? You just want ME to pay for something for YOU since YOU don't want to pay for it. Your own sigline supports that opinion of you.

First. Just a matter of fact, I do not want you to pay for anything for me. I do not expect an apology for this misleading and arrogant statement, but I hope you at least would keep your tone down.

Second, the proposed bill still gives you a choice - you can keep private insurance, or go for public option. You may claim that this choice is limited, but you cannot argue the fact that the bill still gives MORE choices to a person than you do!

Quote

I backed up my source and my numbers... You have lost. Don't blame ME for you being too lazy to provide data and YOUR inability to refute data.

You are not the judge here, so please keep your conclusions to yourself and let others decide. The facts are that you did not provide any facts there, which could be verified using reasonable efforts.

Quote

Hint: Saying, "That's not true" in light of supporting documentation just makes YOUR position look weak.

This would be true if there WAS supported documentation. So far I only seen your statement that "this is true", and the more I talk to you, the less I trust your statements. So until you show the actual facts and can back them up with the link to the independent source, everything you said is considered your opinion.

Quote

Im trying, you just don't like looking foolish so you play stupid games. You asked for a cite, I provided it, then you claimed it was too much work to look at it. LAME.

This is extremely good example of politeness. At this point I'm ending my discussion with you, and not going to talk to you anymore. People like you WILL drive Republicans to non-existence - and this seems to be a good thing.

At least there was no disagreement anymore that the way Amtrak ran before government takeover was not better than after takeover, and that Social Security is managed much better than some top private industry funds.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 7]

Quote

Quote

If you read the bill, then please when you talk about the bill, point to specific sections of it, so anyone can understand where you discuss proposed law, and not just speculating. This would also help to do a cross-check to make sure you did not misunderstood a specific section.

Show me where in the bill your incorrect comments about FedEx and UPS are in there.

The point is that many of the issues we are discussing are not in the bill. The bill has so many glaring holes in it... AND THAT IS THE POINT!!!!!

Show me where in the bill this program is designed to run better than all the other social programs that just increase the deficit.

Quote

What kind of facts you're looking for?

How this program will run better than all the other programs that have failed.

Quote

So you WOULD rather address every problem we have now, from immigration to wars to shrinking Social Security to housing market to unemployment in the healthcare bill?

I want to handle the issue that will affect the HC bill since they will have a major impact. You want to ignore them.... that is akin to the ostrich sticking it's head in the sand and hoping the problem will just go away.....

Quote

What you're saying seems to be a typical right-wing bullshit -

Or the actual process you use to fix problems... you just want to pass SOMETHING no matter how little it actually does, or how much it actually costs. Typical liberal knee jerk reaction... You are more concerned with LOOKING like you are doing something that actually doing the right thing. And you are not concerned with the cost since you are not going to be the one paying.

It is pretty easy to make promises and write checks from others checkbooks. Much harder to actually fix problems.

Quote

Of course, the same could be said about other issues - "we should not fix immigration until we fix healthcare" - and you're in a deadlock.

Provide PROOF (with links) to politicians saying that.

Quote

You sound so arrogant that you didn't even see you're fighting against yourself! If USPS by law has so significant advantage over other companies (and it is pretty obvious that USPS can do most of what UPS/FedEx does), this pretty much proves the point that government-run entities do not push competing privately run entities out of business - assuming they are run properly, and not like AIG or GM.

You sound so ignorant about this. USPS has two major advantages:

1. They are allowed BY LAW to do things UPS and FedEx are not allowed... Using postal boxes as one example, an entire segment of service is solely owned by USPS, eminent domain...ect.

2. USPS can run a deficit.

Quote

Just a few lines ago you asked for facts. Where are your facts? Your personal statements are not facts - obviously you didn't work in UPS top management, so your understanding of the business cannot be full.

I also asked you to back your point and stated your experience... you have failed. You also made another claim you can't back... Do you know my job title? Do you know my position? Nope... you just made up another BS claim. Where is YOUR proof?

You keep demanding it, yet you keep making BS claims you can't back.

Quote

but I hope you at least would keep your tone down.

As soon as you do the same.

Quote

At least there was no disagreement anymore that the way Amtrak ran before government takeover was not better than after takeover, and that Social Security is managed much better than some top private industry funds.

This just proves you don't have any fiscal knowledge. Your statement is so ignorant it is beyond belief.

It is clear all you want is free HC, and sine you don't plan on being the one paying for it you don't care how much it costs.

Each and every one of your posts show this.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And we don't particularly care to have to counter the MSM talking points, but we don't require you to not regurgitate the blurb-of-the-day from them.

huh?

Thats the reverse of your "arguing with Fox News" bullshit.

Quote

Quote

These plans are PPO plans and HSA participation is optional.

Of course they say it is optional. First, insurance company cannot force you to open HSA account, but they want to sell you a plan even if you do not want to open HSA. Second, not everyone is eligible to fund HSA (you must have taxable income), but again it doesn't matter for the insurer.

Point is, it's NOT an HSA as you claimed.

Quote

Quote

It's also not a 'catastropic' or 'major medical only' plan as mentioned upthread.

Yes it is - look for "$0 after deductible" in covered services. It means the plan pays nothing for most things it covers until the deductible (which can be up to $10K) is reached. Then the plan pays for everything else this year which is covered (but still not for any possible medical expense - maternity is still not covered for most plans). If this is not "major medical only", then I do not know what is.

What part of 'major medical only' threw you?

Quote

I also asked you to provide a link to ANY HSA plan which YOU would consider "major medical only", and which would not cover any of things listed in federal requirements, except maternity.

Why do you keep saying "HSA Plans"? An HSA account is NOT insurance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Thats the reverse of your "arguing with Fox News" bullshit.

I didn't understand anything you wrote there.

Quote

Point is, it's NOT an HSA as you claimed.

If your "point" was that only a plan which requires you to open a HSA account is a HSA plan, then there are no HSA plans available now. It looks like you do not know the common terminology used by health insurers. They call "HSA plans" plans which are eligible for HSA.

Quote

What part of 'major medical only' threw you?

Because I do not know if this is a valid definition for the insurance policy, or something you just made up for argument's sake. That's why I asked several times, and yet again you ignored my request to provide a link to an existing policy, which as you said would be "a catastrophic coverage policy which won't meet the standards set by the bill". Of course the policy need to be from a reputable health insurer, and maternity may not be covered as we discussed that already. So far you did not provide any, which makes impression that either you're not really familiar with this kind of policies, or because such policy only exists in your imagination, and therefore the bill does not change anything at all.

Quote

Why do you keep saying "HSA Plans"? An HSA account is NOT insurance.

Because you must have a special HSA-eligible plan to be eligible to fund an HSA account pre-tax, and if you do not have such a plan, you cannot do it. Not every plan is eligible for HSA, only some high-deductible plans are which are commonly called (by the health insurers itself) "HSA plans".

As a side note, an HSA-eligible plan does not require you to set up or fund the HSA account - it only gives you the right to do so. But it is up to you whether to do it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Thats the reverse of your "arguing with Fox News" bullshit.

I didn't understand anything you wrote there.

That doesn't surprise me.

Quote

Quote

Point is, it's NOT an HSA as you claimed.

If your "point" was that only a plan which requires you to open a HSA account is a HSA plan, then there are no HSA plans available now. It looks like you do not know the common terminology used by health insurers. They call "HSA plans" plans which are eligible for HSA.

No, the point is that a HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT is not a HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY. If you can't get that point through your head, you really need to quit posting in these threads.

Quote

Quote

What part of 'major medical only' threw you?

Because I do not know if this is a valid definition for the insurance policy, or something you just made up for argument's sake. That's why I asked several times, and yet again you ignored my request to provide a link to an existing policy, which as you said would be "a catastrophic coverage policy which won't meet the standards set by the bill". Of course the policy need to be from a reputable health insurer, and maternity may not be covered as we discussed that already. So far you did not provide any, which makes impression that either you're not really familiar with this kind of policies, or because such policy only exists in your imagination, and therefore the bill does not change anything at all.

Catastrophic policies only exist in my imagination? Really?

Let me refer you back to post 151:

"Such policies are available - if you want catastrophic coverage only, get something like HSA policy with a 5K deductible. And it's cheap."

Care to look and see WHO wrote that?

Quote

Quote

Why do you keep saying "HSA Plans"? An HSA account is NOT insurance.

Because you must have a special HSA-eligible plan to be eligible to fund an HSA account pre-tax, and if you do not have such a plan, you cannot do it. Not every plan is eligible for HSA, only some high-deductible plans are which are commonly called (by the health insurers itself) "HSA plans".

No you don't some 'special sort of HSA plan". You have to have medical insurance with a deductible that is over a certain amount (for 2008, that was 1100 single / 2200 family).

Quote

As a side note, an HSA-eligible plan does not require you to set up or fund the HSA account - it only gives you the right to do so. But it is up to you whether to do it.

Well, you got THAT much right, at least.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That doesn't surprise me.

Nichego udivitelnogo.
Next time, please either use regular English, or you'll get a reply in Russian.

Quote

No, the point is that a HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT is not a HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY. If you can't get that point through your head, you really need to quit posting in these threads.

What about "HSA plan"? Do you see the word "plan"?
And please keep your advices to yourself.

Quote

Catastrophic policies only exist in my imagination? Really?
"Such policies are available - if you want catastrophic coverage only, get something like HSA policy with a 5K deductible. And it's cheap."
Care to look and see WHO wrote that?

Now look on the context it was said on, and read again:

Quote

That's why I asked several times, and yet again you ignored my request to provide a link to an existing policy, which as you said would be "a catastrophic coverage policy which won't meet the standards set by the bill". Of course the policy need to be from a reputable health insurer, and maternity may not be covered as we discussed that already.

What I consider "catastrophic policy" is a high-deductible insurance plan - and my considerations are based on facts. I even provided an example of such policy provided by the reputable insurer.

Now let's see what you posted - and it's obvious you're in your main "answer avoidance" mode. You did not explain what does "catastrophic policy" mean to you. You did not back your thoughts by any facts. You did not provide any example of such policy. Nothing.

Quote

No you don't some 'special sort of HSA plan".

I didn't say that you do. You're arguing with yourself.

Quote

You have to have medical insurance with a deductible that is over a certain amount (for 2008, that was 1100 single / 2200 family).

This is common misunderstanding that all you need is any high-deductible plan with certain deductibles. I suggest you read the IRS publication before confusing others.

Important things you missed regarding HSA eligibility include: not having any other coverage for you besides high-deductible plan (including Medicare), and not being claimed as dependent on someone's last year tax return.

Extremely important thing you missed about the plan is that the plan must not cover anything, besides some preventive care, until the deductible is met. This means a health insurance plan with 3,500 deductible, which covers office visits with $40 copay is NOT a HSA-eligible plan. Another important thing is that the maximum deductible cannot exceed 5,800/11,600 for the plan to be eligible for HSA. Also read the "Family plans that do not meet the high deductible rules". There are even more rules, but those seem to be the most misunderstood ones.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *