View Full Version : Health Insurance: "Shart Term" aka "Junk" Insurance
dado potato
12-6-19, 12:06pm
The open enrollment period for coverage under the Affordable Care Act has a few days more before December 15.
In opposition to coverage that is compliant with the Affordable Care Act. "Short Term" (up to 365 days) Insurance has a lower premium, but denies coverage for
pre-existing conditions,
pregnancy/maternity care,
emergency room visits,
prescription drugs,
mental health treatment.
At the end of a one-year term it would be necessary to re-apply for the next term. So any health problems that arose during the first one-year term would then be a pre-existing condition (not covered in the new term policy).
There may exclusions and coverage limits in the written policy.
The marketing of Short Term Health Insurance plans has attracted criticism by Senator Tammy Baldwin and others. For instance, the government website Healthcare.gov contains links to third party on-line insurance brokers who sell the short term plans. Robocalls (telemarketing) pitches are coming thick and fast.
Consumers, in some cases, may be confused about the coverage they are buying.
iris lilies
12-6-19, 12:28pm
So?
ApatheticNoMore
12-6-19, 12:40pm
Yes they are bad policies. Yes consumers may not navigate short term policies well.
If you think ACA policies are working to give people coverage though, you don't know all that is going on. It's not just that ACA policies are not very good (although ACA policies are mostly not very good), but it's that this system is not covering people.
dado potato
12-6-19, 1:58pm
So, as Trudy Lieberman stated in her opinion piece, anyone buying a policy by shopping on-line had better watch out.
http://tarbell.org/2019/11/beware-of-health-insurance-scams-especially-when-shopping-online
iris lilies
12-6-19, 2:02pm
So, as Trudy Lieberman stated in her opinion piece, anyone buying a policy by shopping on-line had better watch out.
http://tarbell.org/2019/11/beware-of-health-insurance-scams-especially-when-shopping-online
ah, so buyer beware. Ok.
So, as Trudy Lieberman stated in her opinion piece, anyone buying a policy by shopping on-line had better watch out.
http://tarbell.org/2019/11/beware-of-health-insurance-scams-especially-when-shopping-online
Caveat Emptor has long been a major component of contract law.
Edited to add: Iris Lilies beat me in stating the obvious.
flowerseverywhere
12-6-19, 6:18pm
Where is the health insurance Trump promised would cover more people, be more comprehensivr and be cheaper?
or ten years of republicans saying repeal and replace?
Over and over they blasted Obamacare (which was far from perfect) and promised they would fix it.
just wondering.
iris lilies
12-6-19, 6:29pm
well, ya know Congress battled endlessly about various plans but couldnt agree on stuff.I do not blame that on Trump, and the fact that his campaign hyperbole came to naught is just politician stuff. He did lift the penalty for not having insurance and that makes my constitution loving soul happy, even though it is all part of the ACA cluster-fk.
So, as Trudy Lieberman stated in her opinion piece, anyone buying a policy by shopping on-line had better watch out.
Well.
Under my State's implementation of the ACA, I have no choice but to shop online, and, due to redlining of my county, there is only a single selection of vendor. Yay.
Perhaps someone could explain to me why medicare for all would be worse?
Teacher Terry
12-7-19, 2:08am
Jp, I think it would be a improvement.
flowerseverywhere
12-7-19, 3:40am
well, ya know Congress battled endlessly about various plans but couldnt agree on stuff.I do not blame that on Trump, and the fact that his campaign hyperbole came to naught is just politician stuff. He did lift the penalty for not having insurance and that makes my constitution loving soul happy, even though it is all part of the ACA cluster-fk.
if any republican had a decent plan it would have passed those first two years. The only plan was to destroy anything the evil Kenyan Muslim did and keep their money to themselves.
There never was and their never will be a Republican plan. Our politicians don’t care about the American people. They care about re-election and positioning them and their cronies to get richer.
If Kasich ran I think he would care and come up with a plan. He supported Medicaid expansion as governor.
iris lilies
12-7-19, 11:11am
.. .
There never was and their never will be a Republican plan. Our politicians don’t care about the American people. They care about re-election and positioning them and their cronies to get richer.
There’s any number of plans at any time. The one below is one. Progressives keep reminding us that the ACA was based on a Republican plan.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/a-group-republicans-have-a-new-healthcare-plan-here-what-new-and-what-isn-t (https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/a-group-republicans-have-a-new-healthcare-plan-here-what-new-and-what-isn-t)
There is no “plan “ that will go forward without spending more money. There are no new ideas, the tenets are all the same, and it is all about spending more taxpayer money.
I would like to know why Americans who did not embrace the ACA do not have health insurance. President Obama promised everyone that they could afford it due to subsidies. Is that not true?
The percentage of uninsured Americans is 8% to 9%. That seems remarkably low to me. I mean it’s less than 10% of our population. What a lot of hoopla we are making about this population. My guess is is that of that 8% to 9%, a few percentage points could in fact afford it under subsidized ACA if they would cut their cable tv, eat beans and rice more often, stop shopping at Amazon, take one less vacation a year, etc.
Then there is another a few percentage whose lives are so chaotic due to Substance abuse and mental illness and family violence and low IQ and a myriad of factors that they are unable to participate in a stable way in societal programs. For them, “Medicare for all “literally means they would still have to pay premiums and choose plans and enroll in specified times and etc. and they cannot do that.
I tire of hearing how the next big thing will fix everything. All we heard about was how great the ACA was and how that will solve the problem, well guess what y’all are still complaining about the problem of healthcare not being solved.
And “the Kenyen Muslim “? Really?
There are plans that will cost less money, but the costs will be shifted from employers and employees to the government. We spend double what similar countries do. There are great savings to be had.
Americans do not have coverage post-ACA because the subsidies are insufficient in some cases and some are philosophically opposed to the mandate. Some are cheap and would rather wait until they are sick since you can no longer be turned down for pre-existing conditions.
More than 10% of the population is affected. The current system is burdensome for those with insurance due to skyrocketing out of pocket costs. Some pharmaceutical companies in particular are price gouging.
To help those unable to navigate the system you would need improved Medicare for all eliminating all the parts A, B, D, F and whatever other letters of the alphabet are used. My parents struggle with this even though the organization my father retired from provides them with a professional ombudsperson to help them navigate through it.
People face joblock and marriagelock to stay insured at a price they can afford. Companies are less competitive with employers in other countries. Joblock limits entrepreneurship.
Health care is a mess in the US.
And “the Kenyen Muslim “? Really?I know. I shook my head at that too.
ApatheticNoMore
12-7-19, 12:56pm
I would like to know why Americans who did not embrace the ACA do not have health insurance. President Obama promised everyone that they could afford it due to subsidies. Is that not true?
The percentage of uninsured Americans is 8% to 9%. That seems remarkably low to me. I mean it’s less than 10% of our population. What a lot of hoopla we are making about this population. My guess is is that of that 8% to 9%, a few percentage points could in fact afford it under subsidized ACA if they would cut their cable tv, eat beans and rice more often, stop shopping at Amazon, take one less vacation a year, etc.
no. the subsidies do not work with an unpredictable income, if you can't predict your income they are little use because your income could either exceed or be too low to get them. I didn't collect a single ACA subsidy when I was unemployed. Well why not? I could not predict my yearly income as work was unpredictable and thus I could not predict my level of subsidy under a silver plan. But if I went off ACA with an ACA-EQUIVALENT plan it was $100 less a month right off the bat (and again this was an ACA equivalent plan not one of the "junk plans" being discussed). A bird in the hand, so I took it. So how much was $100 less a month, well it was still over $400 a month. How many beans and rice and Amazon shopping do people really think add up to > $400. A coworker I had also doing contract work, said sadly they had to do without coverage for awhile between contracts. What does anyone really expect it's called being between work, the ACA is useless for such things, completely useless. I didn't collect a single subsidy when I was doing contract work either and again paying for healthcare entirely out of pocket. Well why not? Because I couldn't predict my income, noone could even tell me when the contract would end, and figured my yearly income might be too high (it the contract continued etc.). Turns out it was. To make optimum decisions around subsidies one needs a crystal ball, the problem is noone has one.
If I'm unemployed again, oh inevitably at some point I'm going to go without health insurance, if it's > $400 a month in one's early 40s, no it's not going to be affordable in one's 50s or something, not a chance.
Then there is another a few percentage whose lives are so chaotic due to Substance abuse and mental illness and family violence and low IQ and a myriad of factors that they are unable to participate in a stable way in societal programs. For them, “Medicare for all “literally means they would still have to pay premiums and choose plans and enroll in specified times and etc. and they cannot do that.
There isn't any of this under improved Medicare for all, no premiums etc..
Teacher Terry
12-7-19, 1:48pm
Doctors are being micromanaged by the insurance company. I am on Advair for my asthma. My copay is 32/month. So I go to pick it up and my copay is 318. So I asked if there is generic. Yes but doctor has to request it. Well it’s been 2 weeks, my doctor has requested it twice, the insurance wants my doctor to justify why I need the generic which should be cheaper. Meanwhile now instead of my maintainability medication I rely on my rescue inhaler.
flowerseverywhere
12-7-19, 1:50pm
Obamacare, as it is incorrectly known is deeply flawed. I doubt many would dispute that. The majority of Americans would indeed jump for joy if the flaws were corrected. Any one below the age of 65 at any time could lose their health insurance and face enormous costs under our current system. And lose everything they worked their whole life for.
And yes, many still believe Obama was not born in the US and is a Muslim. The Kenyan theory was widely promoted By the chosen one.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/eight-years-of-trolling-obama/
Crazy articles like this exist on the internet, on people’s blogs, on opinions of news articles on fox today.
https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim
shake your head all you want, but instilling fear that white people will be the minority, there is a deep state controlling everyone, democrats are going to take all your money and give it to others and are eager to take your guns away profoundly affect people.
I don’t see the environment improving, gun violence subsiding or health improving under our current administration and I am I never was a never Trumper.
White people will be a minority someday, but it's nothing to be afraid of.
shake your head all you want, but instilling fear that white people will be the minority, there is a deep state controlling everyone, democrats are going to take all your money and give it to others and are eager to take your guns away profoundly affect people.
White people will soon be the minority, there is a deep state, democrats do want more of our money and also want to take our guns away, those aren't idle fears because you guys tell us exactly what you want, but we don't lose sleep over that. We have faith in our ability to vote those damn democrats out every time they start getting giggity. :+1:
Doctors are being micromanaged by the insurance company. I am on Advair for my asthma. My copay is 32/month. So I go to pick it up and my copay is 318. So I asked if there is generic. Yes but doctor has to request it. Well it’s been 2 weeks, my doctor has requested it twice, the insurance wants my doctor to justify why I need the generic which should be cheaper. Meanwhile now instead of my maintainability medication I rely on my rescue inhaler.
Exactly the same thing happened to me, plus they had me on another 300 dollar plus inhaler, so my medication copay was going to be around 700 dollars.
So I don't take it.
flowerseverywhere
12-7-19, 6:30pm
White people will soon be the minority, there is a deep state, democrats do want more of our money and also want to take our guns away, those aren't idle fears because you guys tell us exactly what you want, but we don't lose sleep over that. We have faith in our ability to vote those damn democrats out every time they start getting giggity. :+1:
democrats need more money to educate and pay medical for all the residents on the deep red states. To alleviate the deficit the Republicans ran up, to pay for farmer bailouts and Trumps weekend golf trips. It costs a lot to rent golf carts and rooms and food for all the secret service agents you know at those ritzy resorts.
I have heard and read very very few people say they want to take all guns away. What they would like is To quit seeing all the gun deaths reported, particularity of children. Restrictions especially on the kinds of guns no one would use for hunting, the military type weapons designed to kill as many people at once in the shortest period of time, especially out of criminals and mentally ill hands. And terrorists, including white supremacy groups, antifa groups, you know the extremely far left and extremely far right brainwashed by media and others of their ilk.
and of course to figure out why our drugs and healthcare costs so much when other countries seem to be doing a much better job at it. I don’t think people like Tybee need to live with difficult breathing, do you? It is shameful n a great country like ours.
that wouldn’t be so bad to see fewer children killed by guns each year, would it?
Teacher Terry
12-7-19, 6:33pm
So they finally get permission for the generic and they want 162 for the copay. Why has it been reasonable for years and not now. I am on the generic for singular so that will have to be fine.
happystuff
12-7-19, 6:52pm
Exactly the same thing happened to me, plus they had me on another 300 dollar plus inhaler, so my medication copay was going to be around 700 dollars.
So I don't take it.
I blame both the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. My med used to be 27.00 a month out of pocket. Apparently the med was sold to a different company and the price went up to over $125 a month. Spent three years trying to find a different brand - including generics I can't take because of bad reactions to the fillers in those. Finally gave up and am back on the expensive med. Biting the bullet, but since I already cut cable tv over a year ago, have been eat beans and rice way more often anyway, don't shop on Amazon at all, and my last vacation was actually a "stay-cation" at home, I'll just figure out where to cut something else out. Oh, and, yes, if I don't take the med I will die (slowly, but will eventually die) and, yes, we do have insurance and those are the costs WITH insurance.
And, P.S. EVERYONE wants more of our money. Not always - and there are exceptions, of course, - but way too often, the stingiest people I see and hear complaining always seem to be the ones with a lot money.
Teacher Terry
12-7-19, 6:58pm
Happy, it really sucks and many people are on multiple medications myself included. A fourth of our gross income now goes for HI.
that wouldn’t be so bad to see fewer children killed by guns each year, would it?
No it wouldn't, I don't know why people are so violent and emotionally hateful but I'm pretty sure taking away the hated weapon du jour won't solve that problem.
Taking away weapons that can kill many people within seconds would absolutely cut down on the death toll.
Taking away weapons that can kill many people within seconds would absolutely cut down on the death toll.Which weapons won't?
The vast majority of deaths by gun are from pistols and revolvers brandished by people who are not legally allowed to own a weapon in the first place. The "assault" weapons everyone has their panties in a bunch about seldom harm a soul, but they're the ones everyone is concerned about.
happystuff
12-7-19, 7:20pm
Which weapons won't?
The vast majority of deaths by gun are from pistols and revolvers brandished by people who are not legally allowed to own a weapon in the first place. The "assault" weapons everyone has their panties in a bunch about seldom harm a soul, but they're the ones everyone is concerned about.
Yet these are the ones I seem to hear about more in the news. And "seldom harm a soul" is fine until that soul belongs to a brother, sister, son, daughter, wife, etc.
Why can't we save THOSE souls and remove THOSE weapons, then continue and work on the rest? Let's start SOMEPLACE with SOMETHING!
9 killed, 17 wounded in the case below. Police fatally shot the gunman 32 seconds after he began firing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting
Why can't we save THOSE souls and remove THOSE weapons, then continue and work on the rest? I think you answered your own question.
happystuff
12-7-19, 7:33pm
I think you answered your own question.
No, I didn't. Why can't we remove assault weapons and save some souls?
No, I didn't. Why can't we remove assault weapons and save some souls?
What's an "assault weapon"?
What percentage of the legally owned "assault weapons" in the USA are used to "take souls"?
I think you can probably search on these forums and find some data.
happystuff
12-7-19, 7:40pm
What's an "assault weapon"?
What percentage of the legally owned "assault weapons" in the USA are used to "take souls"?
I think you can probably search on these forums and find some data.
Okay, THIS is why we can't... people arguing over semantics while others die.
YOU can talk "data" if you want. I'm not talking percentages; I'm talking lives and even 1 is too many.
iris lilies
12-7-19, 8:13pm
Yet these are the ones I seem to hear about more in the news. And "seldom harm a soul" is fine until that soul belongs to a brother, sister, son, daughter, wife, etc.
Why can't we save THOSE souls and remove THOSE weapons, then continue and work on the rest? Let's start SOMEPLACE with SOMETHING!
But there ARE already all kinds of gun laws. We DID “start.”
Why arent gun laws obeyed?
It isnt the guns that are ignoring the laws, it is the shooters.
happystuff
12-7-19, 8:28pm
But there ARE already all kinds of gun laws. We DID “start.”
Why arent gun laws obeyed?
It isnt the guns that are ignoring the laws, it is the shooters.
Agree. And not just why aren't gun laws obeyed, but why aren't they enforced - from buying to selling to owning to carrying to firing, etc?
And, no, guns don't care one way or the other - being the inanimate objects that they are.
And, yes, maybe there was a "start", but things are still "broken"; where is the follow-thru?
Teacher Terry
12-7-19, 9:59pm
Happy, some people don’t realize that there is a happy medium between taking away assault weapons and letting people keep hunting guns and pistols. Part of me is glad I have no grandchildren to worry about.
Happy, some people don’t realize that there is a happy medium between taking away assault weapons and letting people keep hunting guns and pistols.No actually there's not. Do you know the difference between the "assault weapon" you want to take away and a modern semi-automatic pistol? 'Some people' do know, there is no appreciable difference.
happystuff
12-7-19, 10:38pm
No actually there's not. Do you know the difference between the "assault weapon" you want to take away and a modern semi-automatic pistol? 'Some people' do know, there is no appreciable difference.
So take away one.... take away the other.... take away both.. increase regulations on who can buy... on who can own.... DO SOMETHING!
I'm not arguing the legal ownership of guns - I'm arguing the killing and the appropriateness of the "assault weapons" used to do that killing! You seem to be more worried about the guns than the people that are dying.
So take away one.... take away the other.... take away both.. increase regulations on who can buy... on who can own.... DO SOMETHING!
I'm not arguing the legal ownership of guns - I'm arguing the killing and the appropriateness of the "assault weapons" used to do that killing! You seem to be more worried about the guns than the people that are dying.
No, I'm worried about our government using its force to infringe on something the Constitution clearly forbade it from doing in hopes of pacifying those of you who don't realize that the real problem is people willing to commit violence against another.
I am very much concerned about people who are killed by murderous thugs and mentally unbalanced people. Very little of that is done with the 'assault weapons' everyone has an opinion of. All the talk of "assault weapon" bans will have next to no effect on potential victims, only on those who think they've made a difference by subverting themselves to more government authority than it was ever designed to wield.
happystuff
12-7-19, 11:14pm
No, I'm worried about our government using its force to infringe on something the Constitution clearly forbade it from doing in hopes of pacifying those of you who don't realize that the real problem is people willing to commit violence against another.
The government already does this in sooooo many ways. But, sticking with guns and considering the era of the Constitution, I have no issues with citizens legally owning ball and powder rifles which - my guess is - was the definition of 'gun" in the Constitution. (or whatever the proper name was for those types of guns of the period in which the Constitution was written- lol)
I am very much concerned about people who are killed by murderous thugs and mentally unbalanced people. Very little of that is done with the 'assault weapons' everyone has an opinion of. All the talk of "assault weapon" bans will have next to no effect on potential victims, only on those who think they've made a difference by subverting themselves to more government authority than it was ever designed to wield.
First - tell that to the victims and the families of the victims who have died by these weapons. Ordinary citizens do not need military grade or other "assault weapons" and if banning them means 1 less person killed, well that is a "next to no effect" that I am in favor of.
But, aside from the ban of "assault weapons", why the resistance to increased and better background checks, longer waiting periods, required training, etc. for gun ownership? Cars are required to be registered at the time of purchase and re-registered annually. Why not do the same for guns?
Why aren't those who are so concerned about owning guns, more concerned about creating the rules and regulations to keep the killings from happening - instead of worrying about losing their own gun(s)? I'm saddened that some people value their gun more than the life of someone else.
But, sticking with guns and considering the era of the Constitution, I have no issues with citizens legally owning ball and powder rifles which - my guess is - was the definition of 'gun" in the Constitution. (or whatever the proper name was for those types of guns of the period in which the Constitution was written- lol).
Most people err in thinking the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear arms but it doesn't, that is a natural right. It forbids the government from infringing upon that natural right so I'm not sure how anyone can say they meant to limit it to a specific type of weapon.
But, aside from the ban of "assault weapons", why the resistance to increased and better background checks, longer waiting periods, required training, etc. for gun ownership? I think mainly because part of so many changes under consideration are designed as a backdoor to taking away rights, such as attempts to forbid those people prescribed medical marijuana from ever legally owning a weapon, or by creating a database of gun owners which can then be used against them. Collectively they really stretch the integrity of that whole "shall not be infringed" thing.
Why aren't those who are so concerned about owning guns, more concerned about creating the rules and regulations to keep the killings from happening Such as laws against killing people? Yeah, maybe we should have more of those. But honestly, I'm not so much concerned about owning guns, I'm more concerned about someone else telling me I can't, and backing that up with government force.
happystuff
12-7-19, 11:45pm
Most people err in thinking the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear arms but it doesn't, that is a natural right. It forbids the government from infringing upon that natural right so I'm not sure how anyone can say they meant to limit it to a specific type of weapon.
I think mainly because part of so many changes under consideration are designed as a backdoor to taking away rights, such as attempts to forbid those people prescribed medical marijuana from ever legally owning a weapon, or by creating a database of gun owners which can then be used against them.
Such as laws against killing people? Yeah, maybe we should have more of those.[/COLOR]
Well, I don't see it as an err, but it is a mute point. What I did take from what you wrote was: "Oh, we can't do that because I'll be in a data base; but it's okay that someone else died."
And, if current laws don't seem to be working - again - why such objections to TRYING to fix what is obviously broken??? Try something else! Again, DO SOMETHING!
No offense, but all I'm reading above is "fear" of so much... while people die.
And with that, I've said about all I have to say in this thread.
Have a blessed and good night, all!
Teacher Terry
12-8-19, 12:22am
I totally agree Happy.
flowerseverywhere
12-8-19, 8:45am
Happy, it really sucks and many people are on multiple medications myself included. A fourth of our gross income now goes for HI.
im sorry to hear that. When good people work their whole lives, try to do the right things yet are charged exorbitant rates it is criminal.
The whole insulin debacle makes makes me so livid. Why do US citizens pay 10x more is beyond me. Some resort to rationing which leads to expensive and life threatening complications.
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20190718/spiking-insulin-costs-put-patients-in-brutal-bind
I know. I shook my head at that too.
No kidding. The thought that we now have the birther in chief is mind boggling.
Teacher Terry
12-8-19, 12:33pm
I am really looking forward to getting off my state retiree insurance when my husband is 65 in 4 years. Then we should pay half of what we do. Putting him on the ACA and me using Medicare wouldn’t save us any money either.
And all those medications are finding their way--second hand--into our waterways, which bodes ill for the planet.
I've said before that I don't understand Americans' insatiable appetite for pharmaceuticals, most of which are unnecessary or dangerous. But I see endless slick commercials full of smiling, active people promising instant cures for everything from restless legs to death, and then I understand that it's all marketing--while the litany of possible/probable side effects drones on in the background. "Cancer may occur" is one that always gets me--wish I could remember which relatively minor complaint is worth risking cancer over. More evidence of greed and disappearing critical thinking skills.
And, if current laws don't seem to be working - again - why such objections to TRYING to fix what is obviously broken??? Try something else! Again, DO SOMETHING!
"DO SOMETHING" is not a rational basis for formulating public policy.
iris lilies
12-8-19, 1:54pm
No kidding. The thought that we now have the birther in chief is mind boggling.
This made me laugh!
Teacher Terry
12-8-19, 2:01pm
My medications are life saving because they are for HBP and my heart. At 50 despite being thin and exercising a lot every day my doctor said it was a miracle I hadn’t had a stroke because my BP and resting heart rate was so high.My friend has serious restless legs and without medication she wouldn’t be able to drive, sleep, etc.
I'm lucky to have mostly (apparently) decent health, but if I were ever diagnosed with some chronic condition, I would do everything in my power to avoid drugs.
The longest-lived people I have known did without, and I've seen first hand several people whose life was either shortened or made barely livable by their dependence on pharmaceutical drugs. Careful reading of medical abstracts can be eye-opening.
Teacher Terry
12-8-19, 2:33pm
I don’t disagree Jane as I think you need to be careful with drugs. Both my mom and her sister despite being healthy got HBP at age 31. My mom died a few months short of 90 and my aunt is still alive at 95 in her own apartment. Everyone on their side of the family gets it. My youngest son got it at 31 also. All my siblings have it.
TT did your mom and aunt start taking medication at age 31?
I don’t disagree Jane as I think you need to be careful with drugs. Both my mom and her sister despite being healthy got HBP at age 31. My mom died a few months short of 90 and my aunt is still alive at 95 in her own apartment. Everyone on their side of the family gets it. My youngest son got it at 31 also. All my siblings have it.
Ah, those genetic "gifts."
Teacher Terry
12-8-19, 3:18pm
Y, yes they did as did my son.
I had not realized the meds have been around that long.
Teacher Terry
12-9-19, 11:32am
If there had not been any HBP medication back then neither would have lived because they had it bad like I do.
Teacher Terry
12-16-19, 8:32pm
So I don’t know if everyone knows about GoodRx but their app saved me a lot of money. So my asthma medication copayment went from 32 to 318. Full price is 379. So I get the doctor to prescribe generic and my copay is 162. Ugh! Well after 3 weeks of not having it I definitely needed it having symptoms every day. So I get the app and I can get the generic for 92. No clue how they make their money but it really helped.
My paranoia stems from feeling so manipulated. First I'm guilted for being so irresponsible as to take care of my own health when there's nothing wrong with me. Heaven forbid I should just be healthy. I'm 56 years old, I ought to do the decent thing and need a prescription. Then standards are moved all over the place to "prove" that I'm not healthy after all. Then drugs are forced on me to 'fix my number', and if I have the audacity to refuse, my insurance company browbeats my doctor for my non compliance, and my doctor then routinely scolds me for not "doing anything" about a number that didn't concern me in the first place. Cholesterol is what I have in mind, but mild overweight, slightly high blood pressure, minutely over the line blood sugar and a host of other things now fall into the same pattern.
I'm not entirely sure where the drive for increased costs comes from. Patients? Doctors? Devices? Hospitals? Pharma? Crazy expensive procedures, or just the propensity to recommend them for everyone? Better get an MRI for that sore thumb, you never know. Insurance? Fear of lawsuits?
What I do know is that a lot of basically healthy patients get an emotional reassurance from participating in the Be Good Little Girls and Boys program, and the rest of the parties make money off it. The politicians just get richer from making sure the spin never stops being in conflict, and what's needed is more and different rather than less and standard. Could you imagine how much salary would be lost if we actually came to a decision and stopped arguing over healthcare! Catastrophe!
And yes, Jane. What I learned from spending a week staring at commercial TV is that everyone can live like a unicorn farting rainbows if only they Ask Their Doctor If Thanatophobia Is Right For Them. Either that, or buy their spouse a $60,000 automobile for Christmas.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-19, 7:16pm
I don't think anyone is forced to get healthcare if they don't want it (yes there are certain incentives pushing tests etc, almost exclusively Medicare and Medicaid (and mostly the Advantage I think)).
I think most people just want to have the ability to get healthcare if they NEED it, and maybe get a yearly physical as well if they want. I had strange symptoms when I was working at a place that was a superfund site. And it was drilled into me by that, how much we don't control about health, what if one is exposed to toxins in a increasingly toxic world and what if one HAS TO be exposed to toxins as a trade off to earn a living etc.?
I'm basically ok, that ended, life went on, health improved, I still have a few strange symptoms. Whether "working at a toxic waste dump" had anything to do with that noone will ever know.
Teacher Terry
12-17-19, 7:20pm
Kip, they keep lowering the threshold for everything which I find to be ridiculous.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.