Today's conversation with my 22 year old Nephew, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 29-6-2012 @ 07:59 PM by g146541
reply to post by RKWWWW



Yeppers!!
As you can see by my signature, I used to be young AND dumb, I'm not young anymore.
I'd bet your Nephew will gain a bit of wisdom the second that first tax,...err penalty err whatever they are gonna call the bill, gets to him.


reply posted on 29-6-2012 @ 08:13 PM by loveguy
reply to post by RKWWWW



Shucks,
I was hoping it'd go something like this;

you; What were all you hoodlums yelling about at the Mayor's Office last night?

him; We're pissed dude. I spent 4 years in college and there's not a job left in the city...



edit on (6/29/1212 by loveguy because:



reply posted on 29-6-2012 @ 08:40 PM by LanceCorvette
Originally posted by II HAL II
I dont really understand the American health system... can someone please let me know the following -

- What is/was the old system? did you pay for health insurance to cover any hospital bills?
- What is this new system proposing?
- How much did it cost you guys a year if you have to pay for insurance? (approx)
- What will it cost under the new system? (approx)

Obviously don't give any personal details, just a rough guide would be good to help me understand what this is all about... thanks in advance.



1. Many people (but not all) have health insurance that pays for part or all of MD visits, medical tests, prescriptions, and hospital care. It could pay 100%, 80%, or some other percentage depending on the policy and deductible (that is, how much the insured pays out of pocket before the percentages kick in). Each plan is a different variation on this. This insurance can be paid for by the insured individual, or by the employer, or both. It is a private contract between them

2. The new system is requiring everyone (with some exceptions) to purchase insurance coverage as mandated by the federal government, or else pay a penalty to the government. If your employer doesn't provide it, the employer pays a penalty and you still have to go out yourself and get the coverage. The coverage is no longer by contract, but is going to be set by the government, and the coverage (what ills or injuries it pays for) is set by the government.

3. I pay about $190 / month for insurance for myself, with a $3000 deductible (my costs before the insurer has payment obligations) but others, families, older people etc. can pay more or less.

4. Nobody knows. But it doesn't' matter, we have to buy it no matter the cost, or pay the penalty.

5. I should note, it's #2 that's causing all the commotion: if a person *doesn't* buy insurance, they are being taxed on *not* buying the insurance - it's a tax on doing nothing. This is unheard of in the US system. This is where the flames on this thread will begin ...

Hope this helps. Obviously, this is the simplified version of a 2500 page statute.

Mike
edit on 29-6-2012 by LanceCorvette because: Edited to add #5
edit on 29-6-2012 by LanceCorvette because: make #5 more clear



reply posted on 29-6-2012 @ 09:24 PM by cenpuppie
reply to post by RKWWWW



Keep preaching! I don't know what i like more, what you said or this post.

This is only going to drive health care up! And increase the amount of people on Medicare.

It's a con game, kinda like college books


reply posted on 29-6-2012 @ 09:53 PM by LanceCorvette
Originally posted by II HAL II
Originally posted by RKWWWW

The thing that would get to me is if I paid all this insurance but hardly ever used the medical services. Mind you that's the same with any type of insurance I guess.



Man, you're from England - you should understand insurance because it mostly started there! It started with the shipping companies figuring out a way to recover something when ships are lost at sea. Lloyds of London?

In it's purest form, it's risk allocation - who is going to pay for a known, potential loss - me? or the insurer. If the ship returns, the insurer keeps the premium and makes a tidy profit. If the ship is lost, the insurer pays for the cost of the ship and cargo, and loses money. But it's all a calculation of potential risk (e.g., 10% of ships to India were lost, so what is our potential loss and what should our premium be?)

Personally, If I never spend more than $3000 / year in medical expenses, then I lose for having paid all that money to the insurer in premiums because they've agreed to pay 80% of any medical expense I incur over $3,000.

But if I spend $25,000 in five days,(which would be catastrophic financially to me) the insurer loses that bet because I only paid $190 to them for them to assume that risk that month. I will pay the first $3,000, and they will pay 80% of $22,000.

Trust me, the insurance companies have hundreds of actuaries over hundreds of years doing these calculations - they know better than anyone (like bookies!)

Single payer (like you have in Britain) OTOH is not risk allocation, it's resource allocation. We have $10,000,00 (or Pounds) to spend every year on health care for everybody, now, how do we allocate it?

To me, that's a scarier proposition - having some bureaucrat determining what health care expenses will be paid for, and which won't.

Mike


reply posted on 30-6-2012 @ 09:11 AM by Ookie
reply to post by TrueBrit



Because that would make too much sense. Can't have sensible things in government. That would kill them to do something that makes sense. It has to be too complicated and have loop holes so the rich won't have to pay. Otherwise the idiots in congress can't understand it.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags
Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags