Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

Health Insurance Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I will not blame peop;le for having what I would like to have, Lindsay. We all need affordable healthcare, and good paying jobs. Perhaps the good paying jobs would allow us to shop for healthcare on our own and that would make it more affordable? But you simply can not take peoples company pensions and healthcare away or make it cost more drop their incomes and then suddenly decide they can pay for their healthcare costs too... Totally dumb to think our nation could work that way. We will all be in the poor house if all we can afford to buy is healthcare and save for retirement. What would we all need to work for since no one would be buying anything? So, Lindsay, I am glad you have coverage!

    Comment


    • I'm not completely understanding your post....I didn't state anything to do with the recent healthcare reform issues. Just posted about my own personal experience with insurance.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by momisery View Post
        I will not blame peop;le for having what I would like to have, Lindsay. We all need affordable healthcare, and good paying jobs. Perhaps the good paying jobs would allow us to shop for healthcare on our own and that would make it more affordable? But you simply can not take peoples company pensions and healthcare away or make it cost more drop their incomes and then suddenly decide they can pay for their healthcare costs too... Totally dumb to think our nation could work that way. We will all be in the poor house if all we can afford to buy is healthcare and save for retirement. What would we all need to work for since no one would be buying anything? So, Lindsay, I am glad you have coverage!
        Nanny states always fail.

        If you don't like your lot in life, change it. Why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to ensure you have everything you want?
        Well, I did. Every one of 'em. Mostly I remember the last one. The wild finish. A guy standing on a station platform in the rain with a comical look in his face because his insides have been kicked out. -Rick

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OhioFiler View Post
          Nanny states always fail.
          Which ones have failed? Specific examples please :-)

          I think there has to be a balance. Pure capitalism is bad as is pure socialism. Adding universal healthcare - be it government run or not will not turn us into a complete socialist society. European countries, Japan, Australia, all have large and healthy free markets.

          I don't necessarily think universal healthcare is in the same "nanny state" category as welfare, unemployment, and social security/gov't pension benefits. It's more of a moral/humanitarian service.
          March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
          Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!

          Comment


          • If I don't like my lot??? Really??? There is nothing wrong with my lot except there are no jobs for people and no way to pay for healthcare. What should we do to exactly here die? Big business allowed this to get out of control and now they want to toss it back on our laps, and we have no control at all. Business could have negotiated, but they decided not too. Nanny states? Really? I think we have bailed out businesses and continue to give them TAX breaks to ship jobs overseas. So, your idea to fix this is?????

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TooMuchCredit View Post
              Which ones have failed? Specific examples please :-)

              I think there has to be a balance. Pure capitalism is bad as is pure socialism. Adding universal healthcare - be it government run or not will not turn us into a complete socialist society. European countries, Japan, Australia, all have large and healthy free markets.

              I don't necessarily think universal healthcare is in the same "nanny state" category as welfare, unemployment, and social security/gov't pension benefits. It's more of a moral/humanitarian service.
              Pretty soon all of them, but the most recent major failure would be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic......last I checked its not on the map anymore .

              However the debt to GDP of all western countries is approaching dangerous levels, not just the United States. We aren't really to far from an 1870s style global economic collapse. (That was worse than the Great Depression for those that don't study history). The problem is everyone of the western countries have for years promised goods and services and not set aside sufficient monies to cover them, as such each has tremendous unfunded liabilities that they can never meet which means at some point services will have to be cut due to lack of funding when finally someone turns the pipe off. Take the United States for instance. If you took the federal unfunded liabilities they total 106 trillion dollars right now, all private and business assets in the United States current are only 74 trillion dollars. Its a hole you can never recover from yet politicians want to pass even more such liabilities. This doesn't even include the states, local, personal and corporate debt.
              May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
              July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
              September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JRScott View Post
                Pretty soon all of them, but the most recent major failure would be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic......last I checked its not on the map anymore .
                The USSR was a COMMUNIST state. Big difference. A Socialist state is not necessarily the same. You actually can have a Socialist Democracy - and more than in name only - Communist countries liked to put "Democratic" in their names. And even the extreme of adopting government run single payer health care would not equate us with the USSR. The UK has single payer, yet they are far from being equated with the USSR.

                Originally posted by JRScott View Post
                However the debt to GDP of all western countries is approaching dangerous levels, not just the United States. We aren't really to far from an 1870s style global economic collapse. (That was worse than the Great Depression for those that don't study history). The problem is everyone of the western countries have for years promised goods and services and not set aside sufficient monies to cover them, as such each has tremendous unfunded liabilities that they can never meet which means at some point services will have to be cut due to lack of funding when finally someone turns the pipe off. Take the United States for instance. If you took the federal unfunded liabilities they total 106 trillion dollars right now, all private and business assets in the United States current are only 74 trillion dollars. Its a hole you can never recover from yet politicians want to pass even more such liabilities. This doesn't even include the states, local, personal and corporate debt.
                Yes, the debt load is a problem, but according to the argument, we aren't socialist now, and we're in the debt hole too like the others we are labeling socialist.

                If we are paying 50% more that other countries that cover everyone, we should be able to rework the system so that we cover everyone here without any increase in costs.
                March 2009 - Filed Ch 13 April 2009 - 341 Meeting
                Sept 2009 - Confirmed April 2014 Plan completed May 2014 - Discharged!!

                Comment


                • Communism by definition is a nanny state .

                  We are paying so much because of the lack of tort reform.

                  There are doctors, many of them that pay 1/3rd to 1/2 of their income just in medical malpractice insurance.

                  In addition they order tests that are not really needed to avoid lawsuits as a result of the sue happy public. They also avoid other drugs and treatments where a company might be in litigation even if the drug/treatment is more effective than other such lines.

                  Thus if you want real health care reform you have to have tort reform, without it you have a coat where someone stripped out the lining and you are in the middle of a snowstorm. Basically meant to make you feel better but you'll still freeze to death.
                  May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                  July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                  September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                  Comment


                  • Tort reform is the healthcare debate's frivolous sideshow

                    We are paying so much because of the lack of tort reform.
                    Tort reform is the healthcare debate's frivolous sideshow

                    Any issue featuring so many interest groups cantering about on hobbyhorses is an issue where the truth goes to die. So let's try a shot of reality.

                    Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform."

                    You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

                    Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) boiled this view down to its essentials in a recent Republican weekly radio address, calling for the elimination of "frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals."

                    Tort reform has lots of fans. The public's on board because it's easy to hate lawyers. Doctors and hospitals love it because they hate to get sued. Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because they're afraid to look like lawyer lovers.

                    Any issue featuring so many interest groups cantering about on hobbyhorses is an issue where the truth goes to die. So let's try to resuscitate the patient with a shot of reality.

                    First: "Frivolous" litigation. Lawyers define frivolous lawsuits as those that, from first to last, don't have a leg to stand on. Just because a lawsuit ends up a loser doesn't mean it's frivolous.

                    That's especially true of malpractice cases, which can bristle with complexity. Often the only way to know if an injury resulted from professional error is to use a lawsuit to pry loose the facts.

                    "It can be hard to tell until late in the litigation if there's really no claim," Michelle Mello, an expert on malpractice at Harvard's School of Public Health, told me. An extensive study she helped conduct of malpractice case files showed that frivolous cases, as usually defined, are rare -- and those that do get brought usually don't yield a payment to the plaintiff.

                    The obverse is a bigger problem -- injury cases where the victim doesn't get a dime. These often involve lower-income or unemployed patients, says David M. Studdert, Mello's research partner, now at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

                    The truth is that medical liability isn't a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending -- in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion. (You'll hear estimates as high as $200 billion from outfits like the American Medical Assn., which is the antithesis of an objective source.)

                    It's fair to say that some reform is needed in our tort system. The trick is to make sure that the benefits of any changes go to the right people -- the patients. That hasn't been the result of the preferred remedy for malpractice lawsuits, which is to hit trial lawyers in the pocketbook. Cap their fees or jury awards (of which they customarily take a percentage), the theory goes, and they'll knock off the ambulance-chasing.

                    This model of tort reform comes, alas, from California. In 1975, a sharp run-up in doctors' premiums stampeded the Legislature into enacting draconian limits on malpractice cases. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA, noneconomic damages -- that's "pain and suffering" -- were capped at $250,000. Lawyers' fees were also limited. Many other states followed with similar laws.

                    Who got helped by MICRA? Not consumers. California's healthcare costs aren't measurably lower than other states'. In fact, they're measurably higher.

                    Not the victims of medical error, at least not fairly: A Rand Corp. study in 2004 found that the cap fell disproportionately on "those with small economic losses but great damage to the plaintiff's quality of life."

                    Women were big losers, possibly because their claims often result from obstetrics and gynecology procedures that affect fertility or sexual lifestyle, conditions which aren't amenable to economic analysis. Such patients find it hard to even bring cases, for lawyers know the long odds of winning a judgment big enough to cover costs.

                    Doctors and hospitals? Premiums in California continued to rise sharply for 10 years after MICRA. Rates finally plateaued in the late '80s, but the reason may have been 1988's Proposition 103, which rolled back casualty insurance rates.

                    By the way, the MICRA cap isn't indexed to inflation. So even if $250,000 was the right limit in 1975, it's the equivalent of only about $62,000 now.

                    MICRA's big winners are insurers. The average loss ratio for California malpractice carriers last year -- the portion of their premiums they paid out or reserved for claims -- was 16.43%, according to the state Department of Insurance. In other words, they paid out less than 17 cents of every dollar they took in.

                    How great a business is malpractice insurance nationwide? At American Physicians Capital (an insurer active in the Midwest), claims were falling so fast in 2007 that its chief executive publicly compared his underemployed claims managers to "the Maytag repairman." The next time you find yourself nodding in assent while some politician carries on about tort reform, remember that its benefits will go to characters like this.

                    That doesn't mean that no changes are needed, only that there are many ways to counter defensive medicine and the costs and inequities of the U.S. litigation system without shutting the courtroom door to malpractice cases.

                    Clearer professional guidelines for diagnostic imaging would give doctors legal cover for skipping an MRI or CAT scan that isn't clinically indicated. Creating special courts or appointing judges to specialize in malpractice cases would help deserving victims get compensated without the grotesque overhead of full-scale trials. So would a "no-fault" system to compensate those with medical injuries regardless of their source, paired with an objective process for disciplining error-prone doctors or hospitals.

                    Some of these options are being tried around the country, and are promising. But none of them has the pizazz of railing about lawyers and "frivolous" lawsuits.

                    October 01, 2009 MICHAEL HILTZIK Copyright 2009 Los Angeles Times
                    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct...ss/fi-hiltzik1
                    Last edited by WhatMoney; 12-19-2009, 02:18 AM.
                    “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” — Sinclair Lewis

                    Comment


                    • Alas, an RCA (root cause analysis) will show that the root cause of a problem, is usually a "small percentage" of the snowball effect it causes. You can quote me on that.
                      Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                      Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                      Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                      I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                      Comment


                      • Tort reform does not help. Missouri has it and our healthcare is expensive. There is an area in Texas that passed it two years ago and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. Court fees are a small fraction. The CEO of healthnet makes 122,000.00 PER DAY and that is based on a 365 day year, not the actual days he works. I would say the real reason our care is up is right there, salaries of CEO's.

                        Comment


                        • Then what's the cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs? I think it's a combination of things. I think you have to look at all those causes and deal with each one. I don't think it's tort reform alone, but everything from billing to tort reform. We use more designer drugs... ahem... pharmaceutical drugs than I care to even mention. Please I just want honesty on where the cost problems are. I don't think my Doctor's problem is un-collectability. Most medical offices now expect payment before service is rendered! They check your insurance first in my dentist's office, and demand as much as $500 down-payment for any restorative/cosmetic care done! They are very happy to get a "medical" line of credit for you, while you wait. So, all the costs can't be from lack of paying or lack of insurance.

                          Billing, Third Party "anything" (all "insurance" as third party "payers"), Education Expenses (Loan Payoffs), Private Medical Clinics, Niche Medical Practices, Pharmaceuticals, Torts... Xanax (just because I need something at the end of the alphabet). Someone explain to me why an anesthesiologist needs to make $300K a year? Explain to me why my doctor, for an office visit to refill prescriptions and just take my BP and temperature, charges my insurance $90, only to get $36 as the "negotiated" price? I think I was in the office for 10 minutes, and saw the "physician assistant" for 2 minutes.

                          I really don't care anymore, to tell you the truth. I pay $627/month for my plan for a family of 4. It's a very good plan. Routine office visits are included. Labs, X-rays, testing are all included. Specialist is a co-pay of 20%. It's still expensive at $7,524/year. Dental covers almost everything and prescription drugs via mail-in are usually 90-day supply for less than $5 on all my medications. Alas, do I use $7,524/year in services? No. But, if I need it... it's there.

                          We purchase insurance in case something happens. If something doesn't happen... shouldn't we get our money back?
                          Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                          Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                          Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                          I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                          Comment


                          • Mine plan costs 250.00 per month and it will go up this year. It has a deducatable of 1100 and total out of pocket 10500 this year I think, and least I am close. My drug plan is a joke medco, mail order. At the end of the year that is a lot out of my pocket with hubby laid off. And if you have to use it it really is expensive.

                            I think we have to take the middle man back out of it. We can't afford to pay insurance companies executive salaries. And education needs to be cheaper and we need to get the AMA to offer more schools to cut the incomes on doctors too. Sorry, that may make some angry, but everyone else has their wages cut in todays world. We have too many lawyers that don't seem to see the black and white right and wrong that needs to change.

                            I work in banking with high income people and a good number are DRS. Here in my LITTLE town one guy makes 900,000 per year. Another one makes a salary of 450,000 with 300,000 in bonus... and our wages her are at 29,000 when the median average is 41000. Meaning that they want the world even when they can live cheap, open up offices cheap, and we have tort reform in MO.

                            My father lost his first wife in child birth. He worked in a factory at the time and managed to pay that bill off, pay for the funeral, raise 7 kids, marry a new wife and saved up to buy a farm in 5 years tops on factory wages. We bought a new car every three years and we had things my grand parents did not have just as the grand parents had things their grandparents didn't have. So, the rant about cells phones, computers, and cable tv seems silly to me. We always have more that is the American way. Per the labor dept our wages on the working class have been falling in purchasing power since the early sixties. And I believe that is a fact since we pay for homes, cars, and belongings now on credit for longer terms all the time. We have not noticed how much of our income has disapeared because we had credit. So, where did it go? My own feelings are that higher income people are making much more. for example, and this is document that a CEO use to make 41 times more than we do, now it is 480 times more.. so our lost incomes went to them. The stock market is no longer about investing it is about beting on performance and that has cost us, the working class in higher energy prices.
                            We can fix it, but doing it without going public option will result in a lot of people doing without healthcare and they will die sooner that way. I don't know how we can get those people at the top to see that the current system does not work because we can't afford it. And if we have to pay more and more for healthcare other purchases can not be made which will cripple our economy. Our economy, like it or not, if 67% driven by people being consumers. If we stop buying everything will slow down. I think if you paid people that get out there and work and allow them to spend that money they will bargin, but they can't afford itr at the current costs of healthcare. It is a sort of box canyon..

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by momisery View Post
                              Tort reform does not help. Missouri has it and our healthcare is expensive. There is an area in Texas that passed it two years ago and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. Court fees are a small fraction. The CEO of healthnet makes 122,000.00 PER DAY and that is based on a 365 day year, not the actual days he works. I would say the real reason our care is up is right there, salaries of CEO's.
                              May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
                              July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
                              September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

                              Comment


                              • Just copy the UK NHS and all will be solved. I work for the National Health Service and I think it can work in the states. I'm just really pissed that once I move back in the next 2 months I will be without insurance until I find work.
                                Filed: 6-7-2010 341: 7-15-2010 DISCHARGED: 9/17/2010

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X