You do understand that things which are offered at no charge to the consumer of them must still be paid for? How many will receive “free” screening and preventation care *which they don’t need? *How many of these things are *already part of regular office visits? *How many are due to life-style choices?
Did you know they have defined “religious employers” so narrowly that most Catholic employers are required to pay for these evils?
In other words - “I’m sorry I got caught and you’re all now mad at me.”
One question I would ask is this: How sustainable was a $180/mo premium to begin with? Don’t a lot of car insurance policies entice you with a low rate to switch you over, then increase it a year later, much more if you get an accident? I know for a long-time Fortis was offering a short-term health insurance policy, but it (and the actuarial tables) were designed to be short-term only and it was stated upfront. People knew that as they were pursuing a more long-range policy.
So what is the point of having insurance if you have to have a 2nd insurance to make the 1st insurance work for you? Seems kinda dumb to me.
How do they know this ahead of time? One of the reasons people are surviving cancers and living longer generally is that many of these diseases are caught early on.
I would like to see where the totals came from. I saw a story about a couple who got on estimate on what it would cost them on the exchange but when they completed the paperwork found it was double that. The problem is a total lack of trust. When you have been lied to repeatedly its hard to trust anything they put out.
But is almost universal for those on medicare. Medi-gap policies are quite common and make up the difference between what medicare pays and what you are charged.
That’s how Medicare works, either through Medicare Supplement or Medicare Advantage. AARP and AFLAC also offer supplemental insurance on a per diem benefit basis.
According to what he said, he has been being treated for cancer under his insurance policy, which cost $180/mo. Since he made no mention of premium hikes or anything like that, it seems that he was paying the same amount all along.
I have never actually heard of the first practice, and I’ve held quite a few policies over the years.
And what does this have to do with anything? A short-term policy is not a rip-off–it’s for people who need it short-term.
What difference does this make? One way or the other, *someone *will pay for it, no?
Amazing as it may sound, 1. some people do not take into consideration what they themselves will get out of something, they also consider the effects on those around them; and 2. other people would prefer *not *being *forced *into a position where they *must *accept government aid, esp when previous to a poorly-designed law they had been able to manage without it.
Yes, but you don’t want them to go into bankruptcy, meaning the doctors and hospitals won’t get paid for their services and have to eat the costs.
That is one of the reasons I have no intention of playing their game.
Thus far my policy has been grandfathered in. I wont check the exchange for fear of my private information being compromised and for fear I will find the policies aren’t what they are cracked up to be and then cant get back into my old policy. When you sale a program with a lie its hard to regain peoples trust
Insurance is not protection from bankruptcy.
So you think a policy that only pays 60% of costs is going to prevent bankruptices?
Point taken.
Yes, some are related to that, but many of them are related to lifestyle *choices, *such as all the tests for STDs, alcohol abuse, etc.
Yes, and most of these shots have long been available for free at county health clinics.
My comment was directly related to your questioning whether the man was eligible for subsidies and went to who would pay for the insurance premiums.
To be fair, most priests have no idea of how family finances work. When I was a college seminarian, the rector freaked out because I had an economics course through the college’s experimental honors program. He later became a bishop and talked about how our families treated our servants for his example of economic justice. As far as I know, his family was the only one in the chapel whose family ever had servants at home. He may have had good intentions, but he was clueless about financial matters.
