It is harder for some folks than for others to understand the inherently mutual aspect of insurance.Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
It is harder for some folks than for others to understand the inherently mutual aspect of insurance.
Maybe you can afford 6k out of pocket a year every year in addition to premiums. It doesn't change the fact it's not at all realistic on many people's real budgets. It's easy to assume 6k "isn't that bad" if you have it AND/OR if you see it as a one time thing, but even the budgets that could afford it as a one time thing could easily get blown out of the water if they got really sick and saw a few years in a row of that.
Trees don't grow on money
So what you're saying is that it improved things for some folks, but not for everyone.
I agree.
[QUOTE=Yossarian;180486]I love irony, but hypocrisy not so much. Funny, the one who brags about hiring foreign workers because they cost less is... you.[/QUOTE
The only problem I see with your post here is that if medical care ( for the most part, now that I have Mediciad this has changed somewhat), dental care and optical care were priced within reach of the masses there would be no real need for trips to Mexico. It's too bad you are not in Arizona as if we had a few hours and some receipts you might just walk away with a different take on America. Who knows? At any rate, since I love and respect myself my trips to Mexico will continue. And something that I think is really cool? We have started a neighborhood survival pool/ regular trips to flee to Mexico for scrips, dental, etc. (survival by the way was not my suggestion but the idea of the one presenting the idea at the neighborhood meeting here). Rob
Maybe the wisest choice with health care, for those of us who can? To become permanent travelers - making sure one never sets down in any country with nightmarishly priced health care. I can see where this choice is not for all but there are those who do it and it seems to prevent some stress and grief in their lives. And another reason for me to remain single when you get right down to it! Rob
haha I think I'm reasonable for my assumption that the makers of the bill placed the deductible at $6,000 as do-able because that's what the bill says, ya know?
Next you'll be saying that the makers of the Obamacare bill want citizens who buy insurance through the federal exchange (not through a state exchange) to earn tax credits even though the bill clearly states otherwise.
Say one thing, mean another. That's hardly great bill writing and I think in this age of "we've got to pass it to know what's in it" our legislators fail big time. Vote the monsters out.
No, it isn't. The bill doesn't provide any reason why $6,000 was chosen. You're simply wrong.
Read something that isn't there.
Ah, then you must believe that the makers of the bill thought a $6,000 deductible to be not do-able by those insured (?) How odd of the makers of the bill to codify this concept in the bill, then.
You mean like the Virginia appeals court that read something that isn't there? That court read section 1401 of the ACA where it states that the only people eligible for financial help are those who are "enrolled ... through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" to mean that of course, people enrolled in the Federal exchange NOT established by the State can get subsidies.Read something that isn't there.
I am kidding here, a little. Whether making a close literal reading or interpreting the thing, this ACA bill is a massive cluster-f**k.
You are incorrect. That had nothing to do with how that number was arrived at.
Naively or intentionally refusing to acknowledge the political realities of the world we live in will never lead to a clear understanding about what's going on.
The Virginia court didn't say anything about what we were talking about, the $6,000 number.
A necessary reality of our divided nation. For the foreseeable future (and really going back almost 15 years), there will be (has been) very little, if anything, that there will be such ubiquitous agreement about such that the result won't reflect a compromise on the merits, in some way.
I haven't read all the posts. In response to the original post, it sounds like this was an expensive lesson for your son. When I was his age I also didn't have health insurance, either. You do learn from these experiences, though. My brand new car was totalled by an uninsured driver when I was in my twenties, and I needed to drive to work. I had to start selling things. (I owed more on the car than it was worth. I had just bought it.) Let's just say I've never bought a new car since!
I don't know how many people have savings accounts with their deductibles saved. I do, now, but I didn't get to that point until I was in my late 40's. As you get older, and you see what can go wrong, many people try to protect their assets and themselves. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's important to be responsible and have your insurance in place, and your deductibles in an account. Otherwise, you're taking a huge risk and can lose everything. 29 is pretty old. I'm sorry this happened to your son, and I'm sure it was traumatic. I hope he can sell some stuff and prevent something like this in the future.
And yes, I have avoided doctors and doctor visits because of the cost. I do all kinds of self care, daily. But, if you break a bone, or hit your head, you have to go. It is very expensive, and complicated.
For me, part of maturing was spending money on things that aren't fun, but are necessary. I used to hate buying home insurance. Now I have a different attitude. But, that's after years of listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, and finally paying off debt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote