Who else got an insurance rate hike?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: Kommienezuspadt on 10 Apr 2010 11:34 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.262a3caef73997d7989dc9(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <l2Zvn.98993$sx5.13818(a)newsfe16.iad>, NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net > says... >> > What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary? >> >> That depends on factors --- you should look it up -- but Medicare Part D >> has >> a deductible -- >> >> >> read this for a start -- or in your case -- have someone read it for you. >> >> then run along >> >> Beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, etc.) >> The MMA establishes a standard drug benefit that Part D plans may >> offer.[6] >> The standard benefit is defined in terms of the benefit structure and not >> in >> terms of the drugs that must be covered. In 2008, this standard benefit >> requires payment of a $275 deductible. The beneficiary then pays 25% of >> the >> cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage >> limit >> of $2,510. The defined standard benefit is not the most common benefit >> offered by Part D plans. Only 10 percent of plans for 2008 offer the >> defined >> standard benefit. Most eliminate the deductible and use tiered drug >> co-payments rather than coinsurance.[7] >> >> Once the initial coverage limit is reached, the beneficiary is subject to >> another deductible, known officially as the Coverage Gap but referred to >> more commonly as the "Donut Hole," in which they must pay the full cost >> of >> medicine. When total out-of-pocket expenses on formulary drugs for the >> year, >> including the deductible and initial coinsurance, reach $4050 (now $4350 >> in >> 2009[8]), the beneficiary then reaches catastrophic coverage, in which he >> or >> she pays $2.25 for a generic or preferred drug and $5.65 for other drugs, >> or >> 5% coinsurance, whichever is greater. The $4050 amount is calculated on a >> yearly basis, and a beneficiary who amasses $4050 in out-of-pocket costs >> by >> December 31 of one year will start his or her deductible anew on January >> 1. >> Most low-income subsidy patients are exempt from all or part of the donut >> hole and the deductible. >> >> The only out-of-pocket costs that count toward getting out of the >> coverage >> gap or into catastrophic coverage are True Out-Of-Pocket (TrOOP) >> expenditures. TrOOP expenditures accrue only when drugs on the >> enrolled-in >> plan's formulary are purchased in accordance with the restrictions on >> those >> drugs. Any other purchases do not count toward either the coverage gap or >> catastrophic coverage. Monthly premium payments do not count towards >> TrOOP. >> > > You miss the whole point. If you use it you should pay for it. > > > The whole Medicare part D plan was the stupidest thing ever implemented. If you had a point I may grab my chest --- you asked -- quoting you here: What portion of the cost is born by the direct beneficiary? Now go away --- you are not worth any more effort __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5015 (20100410) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 12:37 On Apr 9, 1:55 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the > > pre-natal and delivery? > > > -Greg > > People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided > by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to > suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) > employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as > much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their > employers making those choices. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they > ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or > acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in > your scenario. They have choices. > > -Greg The money allocated to salaries and benefits is a budgeted item. You want to be as competitive as possible. If the money were not spent on health insurance, it would go to salary. My advocacy is for the employee to get the benefit of what they earn and make their own decisions with respect to things like health care, as opposed to have the salary paid to the employee reduced and some health insurance program imposed on the employee by the employer...or the govt..the govt would be worse though, IMHO as it is in fact less responsive to the employee and far more expensive.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 12:40 On Apr 9, 5:24 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:1a21391e-37d5-4ead-b8e4-5a2adf5632e0(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.26277c7c88830f44989dba(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23...(a)newsfe19.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > > says... > > > >> "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > >>news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > > >> > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, > > >> > NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > >> > says... > > >> >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it > > >> >> represents > > >> >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > > >> >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > > >> >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, > > >> >> the > > >> >> benefit too will go. > > > >> >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with > > >> >> the > > >> >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this > > >> >> program > > >> >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their > > >> >> drug > > >> >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way > > >> >> than > > >> >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > > >> >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > > >> >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > > >> >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > > >> >> === > > >> >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple > > >> >> as > > >> >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it > > >> >> off > > >> >> as > > >> >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > > >> > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > > >> > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > > >> > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > > >> > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > > >> Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > > > Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and > > > or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability > > > to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal > > > coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize > > > tax revenue. > > > How is it screwing them? > > > The crazy law (written by Repubs) gave them a 28% subsidy to buy insurance > > AND let them write off the total cost of the insurance while keeping your > > tax money. > > > So -- why not give them all of your money? > > It was either that or have the govt pay for the services the companies > were and are paying for now. FWIW, I don't think the companies or the > govt should pay for those services. > > === > you'll have to prove to me that it was an either or scenario like you claim. It's a gimmick to have the companies continue to pick up drug costs fore retirees put in place at a time when the govt enacted legislation requiring taxpayers to pick up the cost of drugs for seniors. I draw my conclusions, you draw yours. The rhetorical reality is that no one can prove anything to anyone, and such a Challenger is to me an admission of the validity of my argument.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 12:41 On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:db82085e-9774-4cc7-8569-bed8104d1ed0(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 7:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > > says... > > >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents > > >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > > >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > > >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the > > >> benefit too will go. > > > >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the > > >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program > > >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug > > >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than > > >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > > >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > > >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > > >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > > >> === > > >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as > > >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off > > >> as > > >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > > > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > > > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > > > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > > > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > > Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > I can choose to purchase a product from ATT or not. I cannot choose my > health insurance though. > > === > > true -- but YOU said they were being screwed by them not being able to write > off a huge gift to them -- I'm still shaking my head on how you can think > that is a good idea - but you'll howl about paying for insurance with tax > money. I never said the companies were being screwed, just that the elimination of the policy will cost them money, and it will, and that it is salary money that they will loose. These are simple facts, and it is not too difficult to extrapolate the consequences. I agree with you that it is and was a dumb policy.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Apr 2010 12:50
On Apr 9, 6:34 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message > > news:fd1a94bf-aa15-46ab-81c1-4461ac8c077b(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > Very stupid policy, IMHO. > > The whole free drug for seniors policy is/was a bad policy. This is > typical of these sorts of things though, IMHO. Some "deal" has to be > made to satisfy some contingency. How about "you use a product, like > say drugs, you pay for it"? Why is that so bad? And who is going to > pay for it if the user doesn't...and where are those people going to > get the money? > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Grandma on SS and a small pension paying $300/mo. for medication, just to > stay alive. "Why is that so bad?" > > -Greg Fine, so you can pick up the costs then? The aspect of this that some, like Gray Asphalt for example, don't seem to get is that health care has expanded and improved dramatically over the last few decades, and that is great. Driven a lot of economic activity and given people access to better health care. For example, in the 1970's, how many people were on blood thinners and statins? Today? In the 1970's how many people had angioplasty and stents? Today? These kinds of things cost money, and that fact has to be accounted for. The people talking about this today seem to me to be using 1970's based logic on the costs of health care. The fact is that *EVERYONE* is going to have use of, in some sense or another, expensive, modern health care. So my question remains: who pays for it? IMHO, the fairest solution is for the user to pay for it. If the taxpayer pays you wind up, at best, having working people working solely to pay for health care. Everyone can't have everything, the best, whatever. That applies to housing, food, transportation, health care, clothing, education...whatever aspect of society you want to look at. So who is the decider? The govt. giving one size fits all to everyone, like in the UK, so John Bs mom couldn't spend her 2 million being as comfortable as possible with her ALS, but gets the one size fits all daily visits from some nurse, like in the UK? Or how about you get what you can earn...and the govt helps out people in legitimate need...but no universality to any entitlement. |