jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (82 posts)

Health care and entitlement

  1. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    What is entitlement anyway? The right to something? Why does socialized health care have to be considered "bad" when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?

    Good health would certainly be a benefit to society as a whole. People are able to work more and better if they are healthy.

    Why not socialize health care, like education is socialized in America? It could be paid for in taxes like everything else that is important is.

    Take away unfair taxes such as the Earned income credit, where people get up to $6000 a year for free.

    And I have another idea. What about some kind of civil service? If someone can't pay for their share of taxes, why not have something like civil service program, where people can put in work according to their skills, on their own time to help defer the costs of things like health care. You want health care, you help the country in your own way.

    1. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What is an entitlement?  An irrational decision that you have an innate right (because you say so) to the belongings of someone else, usually in the form of cash.  Only because "might makes right" is a workable hypothesis does the concept hold any truth at all - ethically and morally it is a total failure.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        So what about the rest of what I said? How about the thought of civil service? What do you think about something like that? Could it be workable?

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I would have no problem with civil service, whether for food stamps or health care.  Problem is, is that it seems to be "demeaning" to have to work for what you get to a great many people.  At least to those that take it; those that give it don't mind for the most part.

          Although I do not believe the citizenry is required by some moral, ethic or supernatural law somewhere to provide health care to anyone at all, it could be done through taxation just as the rest of the entitlement program is; just more Robin Hood games taking from the "rich" (middle class and down) to support the poor in their wants.  We just can't begin to afford it PLUS provide huge profits to hundreds of independent insurance companies while providing anything but absolutely minimal care.  As in "You get sick, you die but if you want an aspirin come see us".

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No one is entitled to health care.  This is what's wrong with this country, people believe that they should receive health care.   I believe that if one has the money, then he/she should receive health care.    I am totally against socialized medicine, the idea of socialized medicine is going to socioeconomically bankrupt the nation.     The American health care system was fine before Obummler and his cronies wanted to implement the fiasco called Obama"care".     America doesn't need socialized medicine; however, unfornately, this fiasco will came to pass but hopefully the American people will rebel against Obama"care".   Socialized medicine is one step towards socialism!

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Did you even read my post? You didn't even address any of the issues in detail. I think I might have a case for a new approach, and you didn't even mention any of that in your response.

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        There is nothing socialist about Obamacare.

        1. gmwilliams profile image86
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Yes it IS.  Obama"care" should not have been implemented in the first place.  Americans are mandated to take this insidious plan.  Obama should have mind his own business and left our health care the way it presently is.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry no, it's pure capitalism, designed to pump money into the pockets of capitalist insurance companies.
            For it even to begin to be socialist it would need to be removed from the dead hand of the capitalists and put in the hands of the people and be available to all without exception - which your system isn't.

            You're falling into Wilderness's way of thinking, if you don't like or approve of something it must be socialism,

            1. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Nothing's wrong with Wilderness, he represents intelligence, reason, and logical thinking.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Except when it comes to something he doesn't either like or approve of and then logic goes out of the window and the bogey man  of socialism comes in! I don't think he'll disagree that many times he's claimed something is socialist I've disagreed with him.

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  No, John - that isn't true and you are very well of it.  I only consider the "share the wealth" concept, when actions fall into that entitlement philosophy of robbing Peter to give to Paul, to be Socialistic (from an economics standpoint).  Whether I like a specific program or not, if it uses the tax base to give money to those that haven't earned it, it is socialism in action.

                  Sometimes it's a good thing.  Our food stamp program is often good.  Free education, through 12th grade, is always good.  Although it is painful to say, bailing out our banking system (and probably GM as well) seems to have been a good thing for the country.  There are times when socialism is the right thing to do.  Giving money to insurance companies in the guise of providing health care (that doesn't even exist) to the poor is NOT one of them, and taking from Peter to give Paul "free" medical care isn't either.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    So the bank bail out was an act of socialism!

                    Giving money to insurance companies is not socialism, not by a long way.

                    I'm afraid neither have the slightest whiff of socialism about them.

      3. Zelkiiro profile image93
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        So, the poor can just starve and die, then?

        What a good Christian you are! Jesus would be proud--oh, wait, no...he'd be pretty pissed at you.

    3. profile image74
      Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Why does socialized health care have to be considered 'bad' when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?"

      The government is a necessity, but it doesn't function efficiently in most instances.  "The federal highway trust fund will run out of money by 2015."  "A global education survey released Tuesday shows when it comes to math, reading and science, teens in the U.S. rank 36th in the world."

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/25/2 … rylink=cpy
      http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.as … 0c-XP3jhjo

      Based on current government inefficiencies, we shouldn't expect socialized health care to be efficient.  If the government were a business, it would be bankrupt.  It has little financial accountability or interest in being efficient. 

      "And I have another idea. What about some kind of civil service? If someone can't pay for their share of taxes, why not have something like civil service program, where people can put in work according to their skills, on their own time to help defer the costs of things like health care. You want health care, you help the country in your own way."

      These people could just as easily find another job that wasn't government-provided, IF there were more jobs available. . . .  Why does the government need to come in and offer something that the market could offer?  People can negotiate a payment schedule with the hospital, something that millions of people do, and start making payments.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Now SOMEONE besides Wilderness who MAKES SENSE! +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement.  Goverhment has NO PLACE in terms of health care!  The less government the better but the socialists and communists among us refuse to acknowledge this!

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Government has its place but that place isn't drumming up profit for private businesses.

      2. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Ever tried to work out a payment plan on debt that totals 5 time your yearly income?  And still living off that income?  It's almost like making the minimum payments on a credit card....especially if you continue to incur that same debt with no alternative but...maybe death.

        Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine.  It's government regulated insurance.  And it won't work any better than before for those of us who aren't solvent enough to be middle class but are just too solvent to be poor.

        1. profile image74
          Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, I have struggled to pay hospital bills, even recently.  I just negotiated a bill with the hospital.  Not only will they allow you to set up a payment plan, but they will also discount your bill if you tell them that you are paying out of pocket rather than using insurance. 

          I negotiated a new bill even though I have insurance.  All I had to do was ask, and they were all too willing to reduce the bill by 30%.  I wonder how many people know they can do that.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I'm glad that after my stroke and still with problems of mobility and speech, I din't even have to think of the bill, let alone start negotiating it down.

          2. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Have to wonder how many hospitals will do it, too.  That your's did is no indication others will.

          3. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It's not necessarily about whether or not doctors and hospitals will work with you.  MANY will.  It's about the sheer size of the debt and the fact of catastrophic illnesses that continue as chronic and must be maintained, often through days long hospital stays.  It's debt that piles on and piles on with no dramatic upswing in income and no end in sight.  That's the legacy of America's "best health care in the world," and Obamacare is not going to make it better.  All those unpaid bills and taxpayer funded hospital and ER visits will remain unpaid or never be paid while we funnel tax money into a useless INSURANCE (not health care) reform.

            Those supporting socialized medicine are saying that could have been-or might be-avoided by making preventive health care free or very low cost in the first place.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              +1

              You've nailed it down tight.  Obamacare is not health care reform, just insurance reform and not much of that.  Mostly a way to funnel huge amounts (trillions) into insurance companies for policies that cannot be used by those who own them.

              I can't say I would support socialized medicine, but anything - anything would be better than the boondoggle that is Obamacare.

              1. profile image74
                Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                I think you're making a great point.  The Left talks about how insurance companies are taking us for a ride.  Then, the Left turns around and mandates health insurance for everybody.  It's bound to increase profits for the very companies for which the Left complains.

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  +1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!   Obama was hellbent in pushing Obama"care" above all odds.  He really does not care about the socioeconomic ramifications of Obama"care"-his main impetus that Americans need medical care and they WILL HAVE IT!   Obama proclaimed that Americans are on his side and that mandating Obama"care" is the MORAL thing to do.   His supporters vehemently sing the praises of Obama"care" and how "necessary" it is!   Obama maintained that America ought to have nationalized health care.  C'mon, the health system was fine before Obama TOOK over the health care system.   The SOONER he gets out of office the better.  Maybe the next president will have an overhaul of this Obama"care".    Who cares about Obama"care"-there are MORE important things on the agenda such as job creations.   Told ya, this man is a bona fide socialist or rather yet COMMUNIST!

              2. Quilligrapher profile image87
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Hi Wilderness. I hope I can interupt a bit at this point just to insert an element of truth. 

                The often repeated claim that insurance companies are issuing policies that cannot be used by those who own them is utter nonsense. This statement is untrue. It is not even remotely close to being true. It is an imaginary fantasy having no basis in reality.

                Not everyone is unhappy with the ACA or with the policies they purchased on exchanges. It is the nature of insurance that some fare better than others.

                According to Scott Harrington, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, at least 80 percent of all premium dollars, maybe more, he says, go directly towards paying medical claims of enrollees {1}

                Close to 182 million people are covered under group and individual healthcare policies in the US. Of the 182 million now insured, an estimated 169 million have had healthcare policies before the ACA took effect and another 13 million have enrolled in healthcare policies since. A very large segment of them have or will have an occasion to use their policies on an ongoing basis. Most of them recognize that their policies will limit their financial risks from costly illnesses. Contrary to the claims quoted above, many probably wish that they did not have to use their policies too often but are still grateful to have the benefits when they are needed.

                Wilderness wrote:
                “Obamacare is …mostly a way to funnel huge amounts (trillions) into insurance companies,”

                Really? Those dollars will cover the cost of premiums for millions of citizens who need the help. More than 80%, as noted above, will be paid out for medical costs. The ACA is expected to provide $43B this years and perhaps $90B next year for subsidies. Last year, before the ACA startup, the eleven companies on the Fortune 500 list in the Healthcare Insurance and Managed Care industry had combined revenues of $319B. Government subsidies are not likely to even make it down to the bottom lines of these insurers. Of the eleven, only two saw profits exceeding 4.9 % of revenues.{2}

                Under the ACA, by the way, the insurance industry must absorb nearly $11.4B in additional taxes that flows back to the government.

                Those who claim the ACA is a boondoggle know little or nothing about the impact of the bill on those already insured. Most of the criticism comes with anecdotes but rarely with nationwide data.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … llion-ins/
                {2} http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ … full_list/

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sorry, Quill, but you are far, far off base this time.  I've talked about this before, you've read the posts and understood them.  Bronze packages are intended for poor people that can't afford any better, that's who buys them, and the deductible is far beyond what most of those people can ever pay.  My own deductible is over $12,000 - at least quadruple what I can afford to put into health care. 

                  The policy is thus worthless to me, and will never pay anything outside of a catastrophic illness/injury, whereupon I'm bankrupt with or without insurance, the same as all the others "buying" these crap policies.  These are the very people that were touted as needing insurance so badly the rest of the country had to give it to them; well, they have done just that, but the policy is of zero value to the insured.

                  And the insurance companies are eating up the $700 per month that govt. is giving them for my policy.  I can't use it, won't use it, and that leaves that $9,000 per year as pure profit.  Or do you mean to insinuate that that money well be used to subsidize the gold/platinum plans?  I don't think so - every plan is to stand on it's own, without being subsidized by another set of plans.  Nor is the money being used to cover premiums for other "insured"; insurance companies do not give people money to pay them for premiums. 

                  Yes, it is an anecdote, but do you really think that the poor, being subsidized for the cheapest premiums, can afford $10,000 deductibles?  You're living a dream, listening to the politicians selling you a lie and providing carefully prepared "statistics" and numbers that prove nothing.  Sometimes anecdotes are what needs looked at: this time it is a very common occurrence but one the politicians don't want to discuss or allow to see daylight. 

                  You want to provide facts?  Useful facts?  Find out how many bronze packages were sold, and who bought them.  Find out what the medium income for those purchasers is, and how much disposable income they have available to pay the enormous deductibles.  Put that together, and look carefully at just how useful those plans are.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image87
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Wilderness. I hope you are well.

                    I actually think that I understand your situation a little better than I did before. Never the less, my comments are not intended to change your mind about the ACA only to correct false and misleading statements.   

                    Each of us is responsible for our own medical bills. However, not everyone is aware that the objective of healthcare insurance is to allow some of us to spread the risks of extraordinary medical expenses among a large pool of insured. Our individual policies are intended to share above average bills but some of us are complaining because they do not pay ALL of our medical expenses. The real problem here is not actually caused by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at all. The real problem is that some of us are unable to pay for our own typical medical bills. We should not blame the ACA for our situation nor should we falsely proclaim that the insurance policies we chose are worthless or worse, that millions of insured citizens will never use their policies. Most of us recognize the that the most important benefit of healthcare insurance comes from having it and not from using it.

                    Wilderness wrote:
                    “Bronze packages are intended for poor people that can't afford any better, that's who buys them, and the deductible is far beyond what most of those people can ever pay. My own deductible is over $12,000 - at least quadruple what I can afford to put into health care.

                    Income level does not matter. Bronze plans are designed so enrollees will be responsible for 40% of their own projected healthcare services. These plans tend to have the lowest premiums of the four metallic categories of plans but they also have the highest out-of-pocket costs for healthcare services. {1}

                    Those who find they can not afford to pay 40% their own anticipated medical bills should not be blaming the ACA or the insurance companies for their dilemma. Those with inadequate income should explore the other alternatives included in the ACA such as opting to pay an annual penalty which is a fraction of the typical insurance premiums or applying for extended Medicaid.

                    For guidance with the tax penalty see “Should I Pay the 'Obamacare' Tax Penalty?”  {2}

                    In states that have not expanded their Medicaid program under the ACA, citizens in need should be asking their governors why those in need are NOT receiving the expanded Medicaid benefits that are going to more than half of the country. {3}

                    An important thing to remember is that the insurance coverage provision of the ACA is not intended to eliminate poverty. Rather, it attempts to ease the cost of premiums and to provide access to healthcare insurance for millions who had been denied insurance before the bill was enacted.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.healthpocket.com/individual- … 0wtsVVdVA2
                    {2} http://health.usnews.com/health-news/he … int=2d2e1b
                    {3} http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … -medicaid/

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image87
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Wilderness.

                    The statement “that leaves that $9,000 per year as pure profit.” appears to reveal a disconnect from the real world.

                    Nearly 80%, some times more, of ALL premiums, that is ALL premiums, pass through the insurance companies to pay for healthcare services. It does not matter if the money pays for one family’s treatment or for another’s. The mindset that some premiums are “pure profit” is actually pure fiction! This false statement then leads to another:
                    “Or do you mean to insinuate that that money will be used to subsidize the gold/platinum plans? I don't think so - every plan is to stand on it's own, without being subsidized by another set of plans.”

                    I am afraid that this statement is also untrue! Risk pools under the ACA are defined as ALL the insurance company’s policy holders in a state and NOT as the different type of plans they have. Bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans represent different premium vs. out-of-pocket structures but not different risk pools.

                    “The adjusted community rating rule in the ACA requires that issuers must consider all members of their small group and individual plans part of a single risk pool, including members in small group and individuals plans both inside and outside the exchange. The premiums for each group in the insurer’s pool will be based on the average experience of that insurer’s entire pool, adjusted for the rating variation factors that the ACA permits”   {1} [underscores added for emphasis.]

                    As a result, ALL premiums are applied to reimburse ALL valid claims received from ALL policy holders in ALL metallic groups in the company’s state wide risk pool.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://pioneerinstitute.org/wp-content/ … -Final.pdf Sec.4.4

                2. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "Really? Those dollars will cover the cost of premiums for millions of citizens who need the help. More than 80%, as noted above, will be paid out for medical costs. The ACA is expected to provide $43B this years and perhaps $90B next year for subsidies."

                  You're just not getting what I'm saying.  Absolutely, those dollars will cover the cost of premiums, they just won't buy any actual health care.  Just an insurance policy.  The people that have those worthless, bronze plans with super high deductibles (the only plan they can afford even with a subsidy) can't pay the deductible, and will very seldom have any illness that runs their health care cost beyond that deductible.  The insurance company thus pays out nothing - keeping nearly all the premium as profit.  80% will NOT be paid out for health costs - not unless you think half the people insured are going to have a catastrophic illness such as a heart transplant.  That the ACA is going to increase their subsidies next year does absolutely nothing for the poor - just add profit to the insurance companies.  It looks very good to the entitlement crowd, it sounds wonderful to the high school dropout that thinks they can now see a doctor without losing their home, but it does nothing for anyone but the insurance company.  And, of course, the politician raking in the brownie points with their lies.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    And right there is the truth of the entire debacle.

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image87
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi again, Wilderness.

                    Yes, I do understand what you are saying. Again, I really have no interest in what you believe about the ACA. I only post facts whenever I come across false claims and statements that distort the truth.

                    Yes, a bronze "plan is just an insurance policy" but it is far from being worthless and such hyperbole is untrue in a practical and legal sense. Figuratively speaking, they may appear worthless in the minds of some but they have real value in the real world. The inability to pay the full deductible amounts DOES NOT render the policies worthless. They are legally binding contracts as long as the premiums have been paid without regard to the solvency of the policyholders. The insurance companies must and will pay major claims minus the remaining deductibles and they do not care if the policyholders can satisfy their out-of-pocket responsibilities. The deductible amounts are responsibilities that exist between the insured and the providers. Therefore, the insurers are not concerned at all with the abilities of the insured to pay the remaining out-of-pocket deductibles.

                    Those plans, my friend, are not worthless policies. Furthermore, you will not consider your policy worthless if you should have to submit a major claim.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            2. profile image74
              Education Answerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              We agree that health care is really expensive.  We both agree that Obamacare won't make it better.

  2. Moon Daisy profile image85
    Moon Daisyposted 3 years ago

    "Why not socialize health care, like education is socialized in America?"  I agree, healthcare should be socialised, just like education.  Why do one without the other?  Surely a healthy population is as important (if not more so?) than an educated one?  But then I'm British, so I believe that it's normal that everyone should be entitled to healthcare.  Why should people who are already disadvantaged because they don't have money also be disadvantaged because they can't get medical treatment?  Should we just let poor people die?  Our health system is far from perfect, but it's unthinkable that this should happen.

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    Are you entitled to vote?

    Move freely from one state to another?

    Have the career of your choice?

    Free education?

    If you have some "rights", why not others?

  4. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    Americans are overly taxed as it is.  Now this president is pushing Obama"care".  Why, no one is entitled to health care.   We had the best health care in the world before Obummler took over with his socialized medicine.   Poor people in America had free or very low cost health care, it AIN'T broke, so DON'T FIX IT!  Oh no, our dictator in chief wants to revamp the health care system much to the WORST!  Can't wait for him to get out of office!
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8879410.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You didn't have the best health care in the world either before or after Obama care.

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Not true. I wasn't able to get any affordable health care before Obamacare. I could get some things, like low cost medical care, but nothing "expensive" like...bloodwork, tests etc. I could see a doctor to tell me what was wrong with me for around $20 (if I could afford tests, which I couldn't) but treatment? No way. Some meds I could afford, some not. My psych meds were a gift from the pharmaceutical company that made them.

      I could get to see my med doctor for $11, so that was affordable. If I could get the meds, that is. Otherwise, there would be no point.

      Dental...don't even ask(and I had problems that could kill me if not taken care of. I got my dental work done in emergency rooms, at your expense). Vision? I got free cataract surgery from OHSU hospital, funded by donors.

      Now, with Medicaid (Forced onto the states for low income adults, by Obamacare) I can get dental, medical, necessary vision, and mental health care for low cost(not free, but close). My meds are better, and I am starting to feel like a human being again.

      I am thinking about getting a job now (through a program at my mental health facility) and becoming a tax-paying member of society again, because I am getting healthy and feel I might be able to handle it again.

      1. Moon Daisy profile image85
        Moon Daisyposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Medicaid sounds amazing.  When you have socialised healthcare, you do take for granted that you don't have to pay for medications, as well as medical visits.  So we have been spoilt.  And being ill in another country is always a shock, as it always ends up being so expensive.  I don't know how the normal person affords all of that.

  5. profile image0
    calculus-geometryposted 3 years ago

    When I was a legal resident of a country with socialized medicine, I appreciated the fact that people with health problems could get the treatment they needed, rather than languish and cause a further burden on society by remaining untreated. Even though I rarely availed myself of cheap healthcare, I indirectly benefited from it. 

    But like many things, if people have never experienced it, they can't easily see the value in it.

  6. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    Socialized medicine is a waste of taxpayer's money.  There is no point to socialized medicine.  If one wants health care, there are ways that he/she can obtain such care without the added impetus of so-called socialized medicine which decreases the overall quality of health care. Remember, one gets what one pays for!

  7. jenniferrpovey profile image93
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    I don't understand why people here are saying people should have a right to an education...

    ...but not a right to stay alive.

    "Oh, we'll give your kid this great free education until the cancer kills her. But you'd better pay for the cancer treatment yourself if you don't want to watch her die in agony."

    Can't anyone else see the disconnect here?

    1. Moon Daisy profile image85
      Moon Daisyposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I can!  (It seems fundamental and obvious, doesn't it?) 
      But I'm really not sure that anyone else can...

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        What's obvious is there is no such thing as a free anything when it comes to either education or healthcare.
        The problems arise from the question how much will healthcare cost? And it seems no one actually knows.
        So where you can easily equate the cost of your education its not so easy to do so for your healthcare costs.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Insurance companies might know. Seems they have costs of medical care sown to an exact science.

  8. aware profile image69
    awareposted 3 years ago

    affordable health care will never happen until we address the 9 dollar asprin .

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What $9 aspirin?

  9. aware profile image69
    awareposted 3 years ago

    the cost of a aspirin at the hospital..

    1. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hospitals don't sell $9 aspirins.  Doubt they get more than 25 cents, PLUS the cost of the paperwork, the extra malpractice insurance, the doctors time, the nurse's time, the paper cup, the pharmacist's time and the janitor's time to properly dispose of materials (cup) with your (contaminated) bodily fluids on it and likely another dozen associated costs.  It DOES add up, doesn't it?

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        You forgot the shareholders dividends!

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Yep - for profit hospitals (rare but still around) must have profit added in.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Not for profit hospitals are allowed to make a profit, there are restrictions on how they use that profit though.

  10. aware profile image69
    awareposted 3 years ago

    recent billing statement from a hospital stay. charge to to ins comp . for comfort items . a blanket and a coke.150 dollars. dose that seem like a fair amount to pay?

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hospital things are ridiculously expensive.

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      They charged for a blanket? That's weird.

  11. aware profile image69
    awareposted 3 years ago

    a extra blanket.

  12. jenniferrpovey profile image93
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    Actually, it does. Being insured means, even with a higher deductible, that you get the insurance company's negotiated rates, which are a fraction of what they charge people with no insurance.

    But, I still feel the ACA is a bandaid on a gaping wound.

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are only "technically" right.  Although insurers do negotiate reduced rates for providers that participate in their network, there is a lot of real life anecdotal evidence that providers do reduce rates to cash customers based on ability to pay - with the "ability to pay" being the key phrase.

      It is common practice in many doctor's offices to use a "professional courtesy" discount to financially challenged patients. They might bill the office visit or medical service at the going rate, but when asked by a self-paying patient, they very frequently will discount the charges.

      I offer this anecdotal evidence from two perspectives; I have benefited from this discount personally, and my wife has worked in doctor's offices for 20+ years. She confirms this as a common practice.

      GA

 
working