Posted on 11/11/2013 5:28:25 PM PST by xzins
“Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women”
Does this include telling them to stop hitting or attacking men?
I agree; there’s a huge difference between a child and an auto being covered. (Some overlap in terrible auto accidents, but that’s not the point here.)
However, a catastrophic plan generally is a matter of the out-of-pocket cost before one receives coverage and is not a matter of the type of illness covered. They probably write policies based on particular illnesses, but I’d think a family would be more interested in the budgetary approach rather than trying to guess the illness that might accost their family at some point.
I have a friend whose policy from work is 7,000 out of his pocket first. It’s not an 80/20 or 70/30 until he reaches 7,000. It’s a flat 7,000, and after that EVERYTHING is covered up to a very high maximum. His employer gives them something like 3,000 of that 7,000 in a medical account that they can accumulate year to year. So, if they don’t use it, they’d have 9000 in it after 3 years, and by the time they got finished with that 9,000, their 7full coverage would have kicked in.
If a kid breaks a leg, they’ll probably get by on that 3,000 bucks. For the first year, they risk 4,000; for the 2nd year, as low as 1,000.
What is the insurance company saying? Surprisingly, that it’s the low level costs that really represent their expense. They are gambling that most people don’t come up with some really big ticket item. It’s the bottles of aspirins, the silly visits to the doc that end up with you being sent home with a bottle of Tylenol, the xrays because your wrist aches. The insurance companies were saying they were nickeled and dimed to death.
THIS is what will make the cradle-to-grave big brother state go broke, too. All the stupid emergency room visits won’t decrease; they’ll increase. The Tylenol visits to the doc will increase for those who are subsidized by the government, so rather than the poor being provided coverage the way others have had it, the formerly covered, but now unsubsidized will not be able to get an appointment. The subsidized will have nothing holding them back from going for the most minor complaints.
“Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65”
This seems I appropriately discriminatory.
Nope, that would be the part that enrolls them in hand-to-hand combat with trainer Demi Moore, who as you know played a Seal in the movies, thereby proving that a woman can beat up any man.
This sounds like a death panel decision to me. 66 appears to be the cutoff for when they need to have their palms greased to keep your loved one alive.
“Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65”
This seems inappropriately discriminatory.
I was just agreeing with you all three times. :)
I know where the author is going with this, but he really needs to revise this point. It's not showing up "without health insurance" that would be the problem, it's showing up "without the ability to pay". With the latter, you include health insurance but also leave open the possibility of someone paying their own bill without insurance.
I do agree if that you are a deadbeat case, there needs to be some form of restitution to prevent "free riders" from taking advantage of the system.
“Those 72 items (demands) are specifically included, to drive private insurance companies out of the pool of health care insurers.
You can’t provide all that and stay in business. You’ll have to raise your rates so high, most folks will have to drop out, you will be unable to sell your policies and single payer becomes the only thing left.”
This is it, plain and simple.
GOP is too stupid to think for themselves. They go along to get along in the elite world.
The problem is, the monthly premiums are very NON-affordable, but once you get sick, the cost for care is manageable for most people. What is upsetting to many Americans are the very high premiums, which will have a devastating effect on many peoples’ budgets. These unaffordable premiums are ironically the cost of providing all that “affordable care” mandated by the law.
Yeah unless there is an enforcer entity in the ER I don’t see hospitals doing this. Not just because it goes against their mission of healthcare but it would cost them too much to monitor that component.
I join you in saying, "Doom on this crap and it's handlers."
I was reading an article the other day that said the government employees just for the Executive branch exceed the entire population of the US in 1776. This isn’t a government anymore - It’s its own country with the sole purpose to oppress the people of the United states.
There’s no menu option. All or nothing.”””
More of Obama’s ONE SIZE FITS ALL attitude.
We have a growing problem with “Roundabouts” where I live.
We don’t need them here in N Nevada, and they are a downright hazard for the truck/trailer/trail ‘triples’ combinations that are common here on our roads.
There’s no menu option. All or nothing.”””
More of Obama’s ONE SIZE FITS ALL attitude.
We have a growing problem with “Roundabouts” where I live.
We don’t need them here in N Nevada, and they are a downright hazard for the truck/trailer/trailer ‘triples’ combinations that are common here on our roads.
Libs are insane! Period!
Why shouldn't honest people in the middle class be forced to pay for a bunch of liars who lie their way to free health care ... and not just those who need the help?
Isn't that the essence of the democrat lowlife underclass? I've got a James O'Keefe video of Navigators in Texas telling people to lie to get ObamaCare paid for by some honest person.
From LINK:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363699/truth-about-navigators-john-fund
“..........The events of O’Keefe’s video of a Texas navigator site run by the National Urban League are a familiar sight to viewers of his past efforts exposing Medicaid and voter fraud. Government-paid workers supposedly trained to uphold the law advise clients on how to lie on government forms, evade legal requirements, and ignore proper procedures.
“You lie because your premiums will be higher,” one navigator advises an investigator for O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, who tells the worker he sometimes smokes. “Don’t tell them that. Don’t tell ’em.”
The investigator then poses as a low-income worker at a university who has unreported cash income on the side, worrying about how that might affect his premium subsidies. That’s no problem for a navigator, who says, “Don’t get yourself in trouble by declaring it now.”
“Yeah, it didn’t happen,” another navigator says. One more chimes in: “Never report it.”
Records show that the National Urban League was paid $376,000 by the federal government for its Obamacare outreach in Texas.
O’Keefe’s cameras then visit Enroll America, a nationwide nonprofit group that has launched a multi-state grassroots campaign to help millions of Americans sign up for health coverage. Daniel Clayton of Enroll America says the group is “purely nonprofit. It’s not partisan, non-political.” But when Brian Pendleton of Enroll America is introduced at a speaking engagement, Enroll America is described as “the official group for the DNC [Democratic National Committee].”
Enroll America, O’Keefe reports, appears to be sharing data and working directly with an explicitly political group called Battleground Texas, activities that he notes “are prohibited unless certain conditions are met..........”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.