Not political - I am old enough to retire but not old enough for Medicare. My health insurance is $24,000 a year ($2,000 per month with wife and 2 adult children). My medicines are over $600 per year plus one that is not covered by insurance is $2,400 per year. Add in co-pays and other items and our medical care is $30,000 per year. I could retire but Social Security would not even come close to pay for health care much less food, housing, clothes and other living expenses. Basically we work to pay for medical care.

I know some will question why I pay health insurance for adult children. Because they are out of college, cannot find notp find jobs, live at home and Obamacare requires me to pay for their coverage.

I am wondering how others are able to retire at 62 and afford health care plus living expenses. I have friends that have lost their jobs, cannot afford Obamacare and too young for Medicare. Too old to be hired to work.

Between 60 and 65 seems to be the age that destroys your finances.

Suggestions (?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 12:18AM by themaster.

I am 65 and got Medicare this year. I also have part A and part B by default, I pay a hundred bucks extra for part B which comes out of my social security.

I signed up for obamacare the first year it was required and it cost me nothing. It also covered nothing, but relieved me of the penalty for not having it.

I stopped working at age 62 and took retirement. The second year of obamacare I opted not to sign up because they changed the prices and I didn't want to pay for a low level coverage that didn't cover much of anything. So, I took my chances and went Rogue without insurance at all. So far I haven't had to pay any penalties, and my health is such that I have been lucky.

I know that I'm walking on thin ice, but all of my Social Security would go to obamacare if I had it. I'd rather eat than be insured. I only have myself to worry about and I know that one small trip to the hospital would tip the fine balance with serious consequences. I think about this almost daily.

I'm in Australia and find the amount you are paying for health insurance outrageous. My OH and I are both in our late 60's and our private health insurance costs AUD $850 for three months..that covers both of us. For that we get top hospital cover plus cheaper glasses ( free annual checks thru Medicare here in Oz) and cover for dental work.

Being over 65 we pay AUD $3.50 for prescription medication. When we worked we paid 1.5% of our gross income into Medicare..that's compulsory. A visit to our local GP will cost around AUD$60 for the first visit in a month with around $35 back from Medicare. Subsequent visits in that same month are free.

I'm so thankful we don't have those prices you are paying hanging over our heads.

The annual price for full-up basic medical care in Italy used to be, as I recall, about US$350 per individual, some $500 or so per family. But you'd have to ask Tyrrhenia. That may be just what they were charging people for health care for their domestics, which is how I know the price. Half of the people I worked with had a domestic for whom they had to pay health plan insurance.

Point is, we Americans are guilty of not reigning in the costs by having a plan of some sort. Everyone else has some kind of plan. We don't. I have always worked for the government or was in the military. My health care has always been 100% and low-cost. Now I have Medicare-B ($124/month) and Tricare for Life (free), and pay hardly anything. I feel very fortunate, especially when I see the struggles of my son with a brain tumor. But he is still mostly covered and getting some excellent care, and the hospital tells us that his surgery will probably be at least $500,000.

My BIL took early retirement after he couldn't seem to recover from prostate cancer surgery. His obamacare is $669 a month just for him, so the took catastrophic coverage and will have to pay a penalty.

Last year, my daughter earned around $35,000 (she worked 5 months in Alaska is all) for the prior year. She got too many subsidies and lost $1000 of her tax return. This year, she is taking the penalty because her cost per month was almost $400. Since she earned less this year and paid more in interest on her student loans, she will be able to get decent coverage for $160 a month. Go figure. Earn less, pay out more on interest on student loans, and you can get health care, meaning the poorer you are, the better obamacare coverage you get.

My son only pays $50 a month in obamacare, but it covers ZERO of what he pays out each month for seeing his doctor every month and his meds for his past drug abuse and psychiatric issues. Those costs add up to $300 a month. He works part-time, so guess who gets to cover him at age 31? That didn't count that they held up his tax return for 4 months so they could make sure he got it all back rather than take out some for getting too many subsidies.

My boss paid $1200 a month last year for she, her husband, and 3 kids. I'm sure it went up substantially for next year.

Ridiculous. And some people still wonder why I haven't divorced my ex. The first thing my new doctor said when I went to visit her the first time 18 months ago was, "You have excellent insurance. We need to use it."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 03:17AM by cl2.

If I retire from public school teaching at age 62 or so (which looks increasingly likely,) I will pay for the retiree health plan. It's not cheap, but it is comprehensive. I'm hoping to use that as my supplemental insurance once Medicare kicks in, but I'll have to get more information about that.

My plan is to continue working until full Social Security kicks in at age 66.5. My current health coverage is bound to be better than whatever a new employer could offer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 05:33AM by summer.

I've had a really good comprehensive insurance plan where I've been employed for the past going on 28 years, which is one of the chief reasons I stayed as long as I have.

When my children were home and through college I was able to keep them on my insurance. Now they're over the age for that and living overseas where their health insurance is subsidized by their host countries at a fraction of what people pay here to have Obamacare.

My insurance is now around half of what I used to pay for family coverage. It averages to about $100 month, not counting co-pays and out-of-pocket deductibles for major medical. I've been mostly healthy so have been able to avoid major medical thankfully. My insurance costs have been covering the routine care exams associated with aging, that can add up long term. Mammograms, colonoscopy last year, endoscopy, MRI's for sprains and pains, etc. Those eat away at my insurance.

As I age and near retirement will be able to keep my insurance when I'm Medicare age. Then my understanding is it will morph into something else than what it is right now, though not entirely sure what that means. With health care constantly changing I'm not even sure what it is today will be there when I go to retire?

It's been a real benefit and perk of my job though to have universal healthcare coverage that's good anywhere in the world. There's no restrictions like an HMO has.

Another thing that eats away at healthcare are the unnecessary procedures doctors want to create for us to drum up their profits in a big way. There's a huge mammogram center where I live that did a needle biopsy year before last on one side, which found nothing. This past year it wanted to do two more on the other breast based on two pin dots found on a mammogram. I got a second opinion that time from another radiology center, and learned it was unnecessary.

When I complained to my insurance provider they told me the first radiology place routinely overcharges for its services, and pads its bills with unnecessary procedures. (That was in relation to an outrageous bill I received not covered by my insurance nor authorized by me.) They told me to ignore it because the radiology place would abandon it once it establishes the insurance isn't going to pay them for it.

Having learned that about a 'premier' mammogram center where I live to treat breast cancer, I won't go back there for my routine anything. If you can't trust the doctors and radiologists with your body, your life, who can you trust?

They pad bills for the insurance carrier, and biopsy a woman who doesn't really merit a biopsy. Not only that they plant a titanium chip inside the woman's breast that leaves a permanent scar for life - because it costs another $1,000 or so dollars. Those chips have been known to become detached from where they're placed and travel elsewhere inside the body.

I'm done with that.

A rabbi where I went to a workshop this past weekend told his class the 'new wisdom' in medical care (which isn't wisdom at all but a profit approach to healthcare,) is to withhold lifesaving care from patients if it costs more than the patient's life is 'worth' in terms of age, life expectancy, etc.

He is adamantly opposed to this, and shared there are Jewish services who provide an advocate for a fellow Jew with hospitals to continue treating a patient and not allow a patient to die if they have the medicine to save someone.

The idea of medicine as a noble profession to save lives is not taught like it used to be known as the Hippocratic Oath. Today the emphasis is more about profit, rather than life saving treatment. If ever a time there was needed advocacy in healthcare, it is now.

"A rabbi where I went to a workshop this past weekend told his class the 'new wisdom' in medical care (which isn't wisdom at all but a profit approach to healthcare,) is to withhold lifesaving care from patients if it costs more than the patient's life is 'worth' in terms of age, life expectancy, etc."

If you recall, one of the arguments against the passage of the ACA is that it would lead to "death panels," meaning that if the government decided that it would cost the taxpayers too much money to keep you alive, they'd withhold care, or they would ration care to very ill people. The geniuses who created the ACA promised time after time that that wouldn't happen, but here we are are six years later, and your rabbi is confirming that that's where we're headed. Of course, if citizens can't afford to pay the premiums, they'll get sick and die anyway.

Of course, unverifiable anecdotes aren't evidence for any such thing...but hey, let's pretend they're facts anyway, and rant against them! That's always fun!

"Of course, unverifiable anecdotes aren't evidence for any such thing...but hey, let's pretend they're facts anyway, and rant against them! That's always fun!"

When the Allied forces liberated the Nazi concentration camps, Eisenhower forced the local German civilians to come to the camps and see for themselves what their government had done to the victims. The allies also took lots of film footage because they knew that at some future time, some people would refuse to believe that humans could commit such horrible acts upon other humans. And of course, today there are a lot of Holocaust deniers.

If a government takes over a nation's health care system, and the government wants to ensure that it doesn't lose money, then it's inevitable that some older people, or people with severe medical issues, are going to receive insufficient care, or none at all. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y

Randy, come to Europe and see how REAL health care works.

And it does work.

That's almost not fair. France has about the best universal health care in the world.

Hey, how hard is it to get a residence visa there? Seriously.

I'm afraid I don't know, Cludgie, because I've always been here as a European so I don't need a visa. Thanks to my countrymen's recent referendum vote (from which I was excluded because I've been away from the UK for more than 15 years), this will probably change but I hope to become French before then.

If you're really interested, I can ask around: my wife has several American cousins who live here too (and THEY are still allowed to vote in US elections, despite having been here for 40 years or so...).

+1 for Soft Machine.

In 2000 the Italian health care system was rated by the WHO second best in the world right after the French one in terms of efficiency and access to public health care to all citizens.

Cludgie had asked that I confirm some aspect of the Italian helath care system. I haven't lived in Italy for 22 years, it was when I was young and healthy and didn't have to worry much, so I had to google "Servizio Sanitario Nazionale" to find out some clarification. Not easy to summarize, because like any aspect of the Italian public administration, it is quite byzantine.

The main thing is that health care for all citizens is a right enshrined in the Constitution.

Health care is guaranteed to all citizens, it is funded through the fiscus - taxes - and a copay according to income, totally free for people without means, and administered locally by the Regions.

Et voilà!

In the meantime the German health care system, still very good, is slowly getting "americanized", I have the Impression. Profit is getting written in bigger letters (by health insurances, hospitals and clinics) and when I go to the doctor I just have less than 5 minutes to explain my issues and get an answer.

"Randy, come to Europe and see how REAL health care works.

"And it does work."

Should I bring along the other 200 million or so other Americans who are pissed off about their health care as well? :-)

Seriously---all that the USA needs to fix its health care system is leaders who will break up the unholy alliance of the insurance companies, drugmakers, the AMA, and trial lawyers. A great deal of our health care dollars are going to a small number of people at the top of those organizations, as well as the recipients of multi-million dollar windfall lawsuit judgments.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Allied forces liberated the Nazi
> concentration camps, Eisenhower forced the local
> German civilians to come to the camps and see for
> themselves what their government had done to the
> victims. The allies also took lots of film
> footage...

See, Eisenhower knew that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless, and he provided actual evidence. Smart guy.

> If a government takes over a nation's health care
> system, and the government wants to ensure that it
> doesn't lose money, then it's inevitable that some
> older people, or people with severe medical
> issues, are going to receive insufficient care, or
> none at all.

Right, because governments are all about profit, while stockholder-owned health insurance companies aren't. They don't care about profit at all, they just sincerely care about the people who pay them every month.

Oh, wait, that's backwards...never mind.

"See, Eisenhower knew that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless, and he provided actual evidence. Smart guy."

I've given you links to documentation of skyrocketing premiums and people who can't afford them. That can only lead to people dying because of lack of health care.

"Right, because governments are all about profit, while stockholder-owned health insurance companies aren't. They don't care about profit at all, they just sincerely care about the people who pay them every month."

Whenever the federal government takes control of a program, the costs usually go up and the services gets worse. Examples being the VA and college student loans. Since the passage of the ACA, costs have skyrocketed, patents have had to scramble to find new medical providers, doctors have retired or quit their practices because of the red tape and bureaucracy involved, and citizens as a result are receiving less health care at higher prices, or no health care at all, because they can't afford the premiums. I have personally talked to dozens of people since the ACA rate increases were announced last month who have told me that they can't afford the premiums, so they have no choice but to pay the penalty and pay cash if they need medical care. This can only result in more people becoming sicker and dying.

Nah, the rabbi was saying that's where healthcare has arrived at. It's already here.

It the "new normal." If you don't have an advocate and go in to be treated for something non-life threatening, and end up terminal, it is because the cost to cure ratio exceeds the resources according to what's passing off as medicine, when the bottom line is all that matters.

It's all about profits today, not people - at least when they get a certain age and past their prime. If you don't have an advocate working to ensure you get the care you deserve, it goes against the grain to get quality medical care when you are at your most vulnerable. That was part of the essence of his lesson on medicine in the day we're living in.

When the resources are there to prevent someone's dying, but the doctors won't allow it because the cost outweighs the benefit of prolonging life. The excuse is they can't afford the high cost of keeping someone alive.

Considering how inflation drives costs of healthcare and why it continues to skyrocket - that and monopolization within the healthcare industry, for healthcare professionals to cite lack of resources why they allow people to die rather than treating them is a sorry excuse for gain by those capitalizing on the sick and infirm.

Amyjo - What is a chip in the breast for?

Since Obamacare is aged based. The closer we get to Medicare (65), the more expensive Obamacare becomes to those who cannot afford it. For me, $30,000 a year is a lot of money.

Speaking of medical test(s). I had out patient surgery (nasal) and before I could have it, I had to see a heart doctor and his tests, an allergy doctor and her tests, the GP and her tests and it took months before all the doctors agreed I am healthy. Then the insurance required a certain hospital that did not have the correct equipment. It took 8 months to get a simple procedure done. My copays alone were over $1,000 for all these (required) tests.

If you are between 60 and 65 - how do you pay for healthcare?

The chip is to mark where I've been biopsied so future mammograms will see that as a false alert.

Based on my experience with that radiology center, I was nothing more than a money making pin cushion for them to make a killing off of.

My dad died from what should have been a routine biopsy, when the radiologist didn't know what the hell he was doing, and punctured the same main artery twice, causing my dad to hemorrhage to death internally on the gurney he went in on for the biopsy.

That doesn't increase my confidence in doctors any. I can assure you that. :(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 09:09AM by Amyjo.

So sorry to hear that Amy. Sad that we put our trust in people that we think will help us and that sort of inexcusable thing happens.
I went to get a hernia removed a couple of years ago , the location it was in, he had to do it for c-section, do I was suppose to be in the hospital for only a few days.
Well, he hit a benign tumour that I had in my sciatic nerve ( not even in same area) and the pain was so severe that I couldn't even stand or walk. I was in the hospital a couple of weeks, then had to go to a inpatient rehab. I had to learn to walk all over. I was using a walker for a few weeks , before I could even walk without it. All of that from a supposedly surgery that I was only suppose to be in a few days for.

That sounds just awful, HockeyRat! Sheesh, the things we do to stay healthy.

Glad you got through that, but what an ordeal. One more good thing though, is that it was benign, thank goodness.

I'm so skittish with doctors and hospitals anymore, that if I don't have to have something done, I rationalize myself out of it.

Recently some radiologist wanted to do some procedure to strip the varicose veins from my legs. I have what they call 'herniated varicose veins.' They don't bother me, mind you, and I've lived with them just fine all of my life.

It's a procedure they pretty much invited me to learn more about as they tested me, and said I met the protocol to have my veins removed. After I got home from the office visit, I went online to see just what it entailed. The radiologist injects a needle up and down a main arterial vein on the upper thigh while freezing the vein in numerous places. Afterwards the patient has to walk daily up to 40 minutes so blood clots don't form and break away into the heart and lungs during recovery (3-4 weeks!)

Was that explained to me when they were trying to 'sell' me on having this done? Heck no.

I let them know after I educated myself more about the procedure I would not be having it done.

Being my own advocate may have saved my life this time. After losing my dad to a radiologist's miscalculation, I'm not going to trust this one for a purely elective procedure.

Yes, I had it on my sciatic nerve since I was 19, wellhead it removed then. Of course, they can't get it all because of the area, so they only debulked it if it gets too big. I've been lucky, it hasn't grown much at all in about 9 years.
I'm glad you looked up your procedure yourself , doing what should of been the doctors job. That didn't sound good , having to actually walk on it after surgery just to prevent a blood clot! It probably would of had other complications too.
It's like all of this new medication coming out, the side effects are worse than the problem itself ,crazy.

Something like a benign cyst on the sciatic nerve is understandable why the doctors would try to remove most of it. But damn! That's a helluva place to have a benign cyst.

The thing with the veins is, I went in to that radiology center for my second opinion mammogram. It was the one who determined there is no need for more biopsies.

In their place they have their own procedures it seems, like this one. They handed me a questionnaire when I entered to fill out about my varicose veins on my legs. Then scheduled me to come back for an exam to determine if they were herniated or not.

Once that was established they gave me two pairs of support stockings and told me to go home and they'd contact me in three months to schedule me for the procedure. I was to wear the support stockings (or not, my choice,) during that time. After which they told me my insurance would approve the surgical procedure which is not cheap - it's like between $1,000-$1,500 per leg.

My legs do not bother me at all other than when I normally feel tired at the end of the day.

They used any reason at all in the survey to latch onto for the insurance provider to be able to push it through after the 3 months were up. I was like, didn't I just leave the other mammogram center because it was padding my bill and finding ways to cheat my insurance provider?

Seems like they're all in on the "gravy train." It's enough to make me want to move to an undisclosed island somewhere and live like a native as in off the land, far away from what now constitutes civilization.

I had to have nasal surgery three years ago to correct a deviated septum. That was covered under my insurance plan. there was more corrective surgery involved that wasn't that I had to pay out of pocket for. It cost me close to $10,000.

Was it worth it? I can breathe better now than ever before, so yes it was worth it.

Those tests and exams pre-surgery were a pain in the tushie just to be cleared for the main event. What a headache those are.

:/

What's healthcare?

Here in the US the purpose of Healthcare is to make profits for pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies

Most of the Obamacare policies have VERY high deductibles.. I know a lady who would have to pay 650/month and then a $10,000 deductible because she a congenital heart condition, had a pacemaker put in at 50. So she has $17,800 out of pocket before her insurance would kick in. She pays penalty. We worked together and ironically in healthcare so we could use the physicians in our off

I work in healthcare I see this type of situation frequently. And cost cutting measures are causing people to be cut off from treatment after a predetermined number of visits

"Most of the Obamacare policies have VERY high deductibles.. I know a lady who would have to pay 650/month and then a $10,000 deductible because she a congenital heart condition, had a pacemaker put in at 50. So she has $17,800 out of pocket before her insurance would kick in. She pays penalty."

I hear similar stories all the time. Spokespeople for the current regime continue to boast that "The ACA has insured 20 million more people who didn't have insurance before." They must be using last year's figures, because all I hear from citizens since the new premium rate increases were announced is that they can't afford it, so they are paying the penalty and going without health care of any kind.

When the ACA went into effect, I predicted that it would be like the giant alien cloud in the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still," slowly making its way across the land and destroying everything in its path, sucking up all the money in the nation's economy. Some of my friends and relatives who supported the ACA laughed at my prediction, but it has become true. I've heard from people who have actually taken out second mortgages on their homes to pay their insurance premiums. My family's premiums have risen from $300 to $500 to $800 a month over the last three years, and the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums have risen so high that we will spend most of our non-essential dollars paying for it. And the ACA is supposed to be an improvement over what we had before?

I forget what they call it, but you can have your employer take a fixed amount of money out of every paycheck before taxes, to cover your medical costs. You can start using it immediately after you sign up. The only downside is that you'll need to use it or lose it once it's been taken out. I think it's also a permanent thing per year. You can only sign up at certain times, and once you sign up, you're committed for a whole year to those deductions. But you end up not paying taxes on your medical care of what is deducted and it lowers yout tax bracket too.

I'm not doubting the expenses being quoted here for insurance, but they do make me wonder what states you guys are in...

I pay $350 per month to cover myself, my wife, and my 3 kids. Doctor visits have a $10 co-pay, prescriptions are 100% covered. Yearly deductible for "major" stuff is $1300. This is under "Covered California" Obamacare.

The state to state variation has to do with both politics and market size, as well as other factors. As lindy's Australian example points out, though, under any circumstances our coverage is obscene compared to what "full coverage" nations pay.

No wonder Cali is an eye-popping $473 Billion (and counting) in debt. Kind of reminds one of the phrase "insatiable is not sustainable". ;)

"I'm not doubting the expenses being quoted here for insurance, but they do make me wonder what states you guys are in..."

It varies from state to state. Here in TN, we were forced onto the ACA against our will. So much for the promise of "If you like your plan, you can keep it." This year's premium was affordable at around $500. But in August, Blue Cross notified us of a 62% rate increase. We had to take it, because my wife and I are 61 and 58 and we both have health issues. It would be financial suicide to go without health insurance at our age.

Then last month, Blue Cross announced that they are pulling out of our area altogether, saying that they lost $500 million in TN last year. So my wife's company is going back to group coverage, which is going to cost us about $800.

I asked a long-time insurance agent friend why Blue Cross lost so much money. She told me that the biggest reason was that girls who weren't enrolled in the ACA would get pregnant and then sign up and pay premiums so the insurance would cover the maternity. The way the ACA was passed, anyone can sign up at any time and the insuror has to cover pre-existing conditions. After the child was born, they'd stop paying premiums again. So Blue Cross didn't have enough premiums coming in consistently to pay claims and make a profit. The way the ACA was written, insurors were pretty much destined to lose money. One congressman described the problem this way:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/11/dem-on-obamacare-premium-hikes-they-didnt-know-how-to-gauge-the-risk/

"Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said health insurance premiums are rising next year under the Affordable Care Act partly because Congress did not know how to 'gauge the risk' when crafting the legislation."

The basic principle of marketing insurance is to determine risks and set premiums accordingly. But as in the case of pregnant women in TN which I noted above, an insuror cannot gauge risks nor predict premiums if they don't know who their customer base is going to be, or if they can't collect premiums from customers before having to pay out benefits. You can't buy car insurance after you've wrecked your car, and you can't buy homeowner's insurance after your house has burned down. The way the ACA was passed into law violates the basic principles of insurance, and thus it is destined to fail.

Here are reports from other states on the premium increases:

https://limaohio.com/news/214807/feeling-the-pain-obamacare-premiums-soar

http://blog.bcbsnc.com/2016/10/2017-rate-announcement/

And Colorado's recent attempt to enact universal health coverage:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/17/colorado-voters-send-message-universal-healthcare-too-expensive/

"The proposal would have junked most private health insurance plans for a state-run, single-payer system, known as ColoradoCare....The cost was tremendous. Amendment 69’s $36 billion annual budget would have dwarfed the $33 billion spent by all of Colorado’s state government in 2015."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 11:49PM by randyj.

This is what's happening in Minnesota, which was one of the states which supported the passage of the ACA:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/gov-dayton-affordable-care-act/

"MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Gov. Mark Dayton made a stunning admission on Wednesday about rising health insurance costs and the future of MNsure.

“Ultimately I’m not trying to pass the buck here but the reality is the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable,” Dayton said.

"Premiums for 250,000 Minnesotans, or 5 percent of the population, insured under MNsure will skyrocket by 50 percent or more on some health plans."

Any American family who is still paying $300-$500 a month for health insurance premiums will soon become the exception, rather than the rule. Premiums are going nowhere but up.

$350/mo. for the whole family? I pay more than that monthly even with my employer covering 80% of the premium...and my co-pays and deductible are WAY higher. I go in for my annual physical, but I avoid the doctors at all costs besides that...which will probably be the death of me.

Coming from the UK where is costs only my national insurance contributions so no other payments required. I am astounded at the cost of medical care in the US. I have a very good health plan where I work so I get covered for a lot of by daily medical needs.
I also get VA treatment and assistance for certain military related conditions and disability from my British Army career so I do quite well here in the US. I still get paid my Army and Veterans disability pensions from the UK.
My income from writing helps a lot as well. Here in the US, life is very comfortable if you have money (You can buy anything in this world for money. LOL) and I see the nightmares around me when people don't have money. It is very different from the UK and a world away from the Danish welfare system.
The first in first world countries with a third world health system for those that cannot afford cover.

I work full time, in my 50s, my insurance is $450 a month for only me, and my employer covers half of that. I pay 100% until first $2500/year deductible is met, then 20% until $6000 max out-of-pocket is met, then covered at 100%.

This is not insurance that I can afford to use. I Googled "insurance company profits," and discovered the crime that was once called "usury" when referring to loan sharks. The insurance industry has become a "legalized mafia."

They are publicly traded. I was nauseated to find my 401(k) fund invested in mostly pharma and insurance, the most profitable companies in the nation. In my view, the country has been run by corruption for many, many decades to allow this to happen.

Wait until all water supplies in the US are allowed to be polluted, happening right now. What % of your income do you suppose will be charged for clean water? This is not about politics. It is about corruption and criminals, where there is lawlessness. It doesn't matter who runs a criminal enterprise, when there is no law to control criminal behavior.

"I Googled "insurance company profits," and discovered the crime that was once called "usury" when referring to loan sharks. The insurance industry has become a "legalized mafia."


It's not just the insurance industry at fault. The trial lawyer "profession" has a lot to do with the skyrocketing prices as well. When an ambulance-chasing lawyer can afford to run TV commercials 24/7 and put up billboards all over town, he's making too much money. And the money that the lawyers and the insurance industry make comes from our premium dollars.

One thing that would begin to solve the problem is tort reform and limiting these windfall multi-million dollar damage claims. Medical providers have to pay a buttload of money for malpractice insurance. America is a sue-happy country, and that's one of our biggest problems in comparison to other nations.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It's not just the insurance industry at fault.
> The trial lawyer "profession" has a lot to do with
> the skyrocketing prices as well. When an
> ambulance-chasing lawyer can afford to run TV
> commercials 24/7 and put up billboards all over
> town, he's making too much money. And the money
> that the lawyers and the insurance industry make
> comes from our premium dollars.
>
> One thing that would begin to solve the problem is
> tort reform and limiting these windfall
> multi-million dollar damage claims. Medical
> providers have to pay a buttload of money for
> malpractice insurance. America is a sue-happy
> country, and that's one of our biggest problems in
> comparison to other nations.



They "HAVE" to buy WHAT? INSURANCE, you say? Way, way, over-priced insurance???

Okay, for a minute there, I thought you were saying that the legal rights if people harmed through malpractice should be removed, instead of reforming the INSURANCE industry, who financially rapes EVERYONE IT TOUCHES. Sorry for shouting, I hate them, not you. Guess who REALLY pays for those outrageous insurance policies?

I will grant this- If a $100k earner patient has, say, a medical accident that causes his earnings to zero, there should be some sort of formula that maxes out the compensation and any reparations for pain and suffering. But then I have to ask, what if that exact same accident happens to a bum earning nothing? I also have to ask what about the accident itself? Do/should we really expect a zero tolerance for error when it comes to human fallibility in very complex and high-stress situations? It's not even reasonable to expect perfection, so where's that line drawn? Most importantly, what does this fear of being sued do for honesty and progress? If the faults in a system cannot be openly, candidly discussed between the involved parties, how to improve the system, much less repair trust?

Yeah.

I'm not sure I'd blame the lawyers, who make doctors fear them like - vermin. Who is it that makes multi-million dollar awards? Juries. Insurance companies settle because of fear of juries, not lawyers. Insurance company lawyers are not stupid. The entire system is corrupt, but I wouldn't blame just the "ambulance chasers."

Why aren't we suing the insurance companies???

BTW, my father was accidentally given a massive overdose of heparin, which caused him to start bleeding from every orifice, including eyes. No lawsuit. Later, a nurse suctioned him (different city) with the suction off, so blocked his airway, DNR, and he died. Mom and I were both restraining my weakened father at the time, so despite the nightmares that I helped to kill my own father, no one was sued. The nurse happened to be a human being, fallibility included. I'm sure she has nightmares of her own.


I remember my dad, many years earlier, saying that insurance companies were going to destroy this country. At that time, I had no idea what he was talking about.

I live in the great state of Utah, where they care so much about the working poor,... not! I was underemployed for some time and went with Obama care. Since I made about minimum wage I was paying about $25 every two weeks for Obamanation insurance. The gov paid the rest. Now since I make over $25,000 a year, or whatever the federal poverty level is, Obama care is fazed out and my insurance would be terribly high (over $200 a month). But since I moved up the company latter I get decent company insurance.

I would encourage your kids to get a job and work their way up to where the company will give them insurance. Tell them not everyone get's a dream job in their field. But the world does reward those who kiss ass and are clever.... So says the great Poopstone, lol!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 10:28AM by poopstone.

Workin' 9 to 5,
What a way to make a livin'
Barely gettin' by
It's all takin' and no givin'
They just use your mind
And they never give you credit
It's enough to drive you crazy
If you let it

https://youtu.be/LwDMFOLIHxU

I like the 'Barely gettin' by' line, ha ha :-)

I got lucky to have workplace insurance. I only pay 30 a month with a deductible that's not too high. And my work matches hsa contributions 100% up to a certain amount



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2016 06:03PM by Drew90.

"Obama care is fazed out and my insurance would be terribly high (over $200 a month)"

You have no concept of what "terribly high" is.

(Oops, meant to place this at end of thread. My bad)

A few misstatements: OP is not "required" to insure his adult children living at home. He is allowed to. They are required to have insurance, and putting them on his policy is likely the cheapest way to do that, but they can get their own policy if they choose.

Subsidies are given based on the projected income of the customer at the time the insurance is purchased. If the actual income on the tax return is higher, you have to pay part of the subsidy back. If your actual income is lower than the projection, you will receive an additional subsidy as a refundable credit on your return. I volunteer doing taxes, mostly for low income and retired people. Both repaying or getting increased subsidy on your return is a very common event for people signed up under the ACA.

The formula for subsidy is complicated. Single person, no dependents, one job, it is a piece of cake. Multiple dependents, some eligible for workplace health coverage, or getting insurance from a non-custodial parent, and/or having multiple jobs, especially multiple jobs in multiple states (not uncommon for oil workers) is a nightmare.

All that said, in 1,500 returns over the last 5 years, the number of returns I have done where the family had enough medical expenses (including insurance premiums) to to itemize medical expenses could probably be counted on my fingers.

Personally, I retired early, and paid $1200 a month for excellent but expensive COBRA coverage for 18 months, then ACA for a few years at about $650 a month, then I reached Medicare age.

Most people either get workplace coverage or Medicare, and ACA has little or no effect on them. Low income people get subsidies, with some exceptions in states that turned down Medicare expansion for working poor.

All citizens are eligible to buy insurance. That was not always the case. People seem to forget what it used to be like to buy private health insurance. Workplace policies had to cover pre-existing conditions in most cases. Private policies were not required to cover them, and usually did not. That was how people even with insurance could easily suffer a medical bankruptcy.

Oh, I also lived in Canada for several years, and have friends who have had Canadian coverage for some major illnesses. Two thumbs way up. It's not perfect, but that's not the standard. It just has to be better than what we (US) are doing. It meets that standard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2016 10:35AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Geez,, I thought mine was high. I pay $150 a month for health, dental and eye. The health is little above average coverage ( from what i understand. I have never used it ) and the eye and dental are basic. I' pretty healthy and have never been sick, which I hope continues. I'm 54. This is all through my employer in Oregon.
I did get new glasses a month ago and after insurance they still cost me $402.

My vision care is rather useless. But my dental plan is good.

We are in our 30's and healthcare for our family is over 1000 a month. No copay, we have to pay out of pocket for doctor visits and have a 10,000 deductible. I was a stay at home mom, we were making it on one income until my husband had to switch jobs and our insurance went up by 800 a month. I now have a part time job to pay for insurance!

I'm for Single-Payer

*

>>I'm for Single-Payer

I think it's inevitable that the U.S. will go that route, but medical care will get even more painfully expensive before that happens.

God, I hope so.

"I'm for Single-Payer"

As I wrote elsewhere on this thread:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/17/colorado-voters-send-message-universal-healthcare-too-expensive/

"By an overwhelming margin, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 69 on Nov. 8. The plan was crushed by an almost 4-1 margin, with an 80 percent “no” vote.

The proposal would have junked most private health insurance plans for a state-run, single-payer system, known as ColoradoCare.

If it had passed, a 21-member panel would have then been elected to operate it and make policy decisions.

The cost was tremendous.

Amendment 69’s $36 billion annual budget would have dwarfed the $33 billion spent by all of Colorado’s state government in 2015."

You know something is wrong when after everything is added up, health care is more expensive than sex.

So are the babies that follow (more expensive than sex.)

Sex may be fun, but with longterm consequences.

Btw, what *isn't* more expensive than having sex?

Besides a walk in the park. Difference with sex is it usually has more strings attached including when it's free.

After reading these accounts of insurance and health care, I'm going to stop bitching about mine. Nothing and nobody is perfect, but I got glasses about six weeks ago and with my ins they were $53.00. My dental pays 80% on needed procedures and 50% on cosmetic. My copays are $12.00 for regular doctor and $40.00 for certain specialists. I'm a teacher and have state insurance. I have a lot wrong with me and require many meds. I still complain. I think I'll just shut the hell up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2016 06:12AM by aquarius123.

The us federal government spends 37% of its budget on health care and this amount is rising 9% per annum this past decade. The primary reason is due to their refusal to enforce the Sherman Act code.

I guess that really smart lawyers just point at the Federal Reserve, and then have a giggle fest.

We are the only major developed country that doesn't guarantee health care-- ugh.

No but really, I have a question: are parents actually required to cover their adult kids until a certain age? How? I've paid for my own or had it through a job or school since age 18. I know my parents have never paid for mine (and I like it that way, immensely). Can someone explain?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2016 10:43AM by woodsmoke.

I don't claim to support or understand the ACA (Obamacare) but I think it is a popular whipping boy for rising healthcare costs at the moment. Healthcare costs were rising before Obamacare and they will continue to rise if and when it is overturned. Healthcare in the US is firmly entrenched in the capitalist system and is driven by the profit motive above all else. The US will never adopt a universal healthcare system the way it is done in most of the world's developed nations...heaven forbid that any hint of socialism threaten the deep vein of profits the sick and dying provide. I have experienced the British National Health Service and lived in Canada when its healthcare system was introduced...69/70 as I recall. Neither system is perfect but by comparison with what we have in the US, I know which I prefer.