PDA

View Full Version : Economics Until we get the facts, we are being taken on Health Care


HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 07:57 AM
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM


Fact Sheet about Michael Moore



Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.



So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.



Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.



Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.



Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.





Breaking It Down: Who’s Uninsured?



The number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million “Americans” without health insurance.



“It’s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.



It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 “Good Morning America.”



“It’s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,” said Johnson.



In his propagandumentary “SiCKO” that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.



“SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,” quoted Moore’s Web site.



However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.



A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.



Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.



“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it,” said Moore in footage aired by ABC’s “Nightline” on June 13.



That isn’t the only problem with the numbers currently being used.



Moore’s Trouble with the Facts



Recently, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of “fudging” some numbers in his recent film “SiCKO.” This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the network’s “worst nightmare” if they didn’t apologize and recant.



CNN did “correct and apologize” for one transcription error, but stood by Gupta’s statement “CNN’s numbers and Moore’s numbers aren’t far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.”



In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.



On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had “underreported” the number of people without health insurance.



But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.



The Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.





They Can’t Afford Insurance …



Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance.



“And when you’ve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford it,” Moore said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” July 10.



Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS “Evening News” May 23.



“The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they can’t afford to offer group insurance … People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach,” said Couric as she introduced a two-part “investigation of the health insurance industry.”



But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.



On the July 13 “Larry King Live,” Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.



Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.



“Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.” Gratzer cited a study of the “nonpoor uninsured” from the California Healthcare Foundation.



“Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health,” explained Gratzer.





A Lie that Promotes Big Government



Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.



The mainstream media have played along, championing “ambitious” universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as “deeply flawed.”



“California’s ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and here’s why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million,” said Katie Couric on the “CBS Evening News” January 9.



Journalists’ failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.



“Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks,” Gratzer told BMI. “Again, that’s not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.”



Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.”



Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.



So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.



Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Garcia Bronco
06-07-2009, 08:08 AM
Not suprising.

banyon
06-07-2009, 09:58 AM
It's like she didn't even watch Sicko. The movie wasn't about the uninsured at all and says so in the first five minutes of the film.


Also, I guess according to her, it's a lot easier to solve the health care problem than previously thought?

Chiefshrink
06-07-2009, 10:37 AM
We will always be taken if the government has any control of healthcare PERIOD.

Just like global warming(now called climate control for deceptive marketing purposes:rolleyes:) the 47 million "so-called uninsured" is a crock a manure!!!

So called "global warming" and so called "47 million uninsured" are just the 'progressive liberals' attempts to control our lives and turn us into a socialist country. So just plan to hear more in the future about so-called crisis after crisis with each of these so-called concerned issues as the American people begin to see through all this "snakeoil spin".:rolleyes:

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 10:52 AM
Its a sell job at the lowest level. Thats whats so wrong about allowing our future to be mortgaged away on unneccessary approaches and not try to fix the problems. We need fixes no doubt but we are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of social engineering and government control.

Fish
06-07-2009, 11:09 AM
The average visit to the ER these days is well over $1000..... but healthcare is fine folks....

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 11:20 AM
The average visit to the ER these days is well over $1000..... but healthcare is fine folks....

That is a lie. But then you knew it was a lie when you said it.

banyon
06-07-2009, 11:26 AM
That is a lie. But then you knew it was a lie when you said it.

Why is it a lie?

headsnap
06-07-2009, 11:44 AM
That is a lie. But then you knew it was a lie when you said it.
considering what all goes on in an ER, if the average is just well over $1000, I'd say we're not in that bad of shape...

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 11:53 AM
That is a lie. But then you knew it was a lie when you said it.

Seriously? When was the last time you were in an ER?

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 12:10 PM
Seriously? When was the last time you were in an ER?

Mid May.

Cannibal
06-07-2009, 12:15 PM
I was in one about a year ago for severe lower back pain to the point where the pain was projecting through to the side of my stomach.

They did a CT Scan, urine test, painkiller injection and examination.

The cost: $5,500. I never go to the doctor or hospital, so I was unaware that the hospital I went to was not a "preferred provider". (Tough lesson learned there.) So insurance only covered 55%. So I am stuck paying $3,600 for a fuckin CT Scan.

wild1
06-07-2009, 12:15 PM
Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

This is all true. The overwhelming majority of people who go uninsured are only uninsured in the short term.

And the "figures" also include people who are eligible for benefits from the government but for whatever reason do not activate them.

The number of people who have no coverage at all over the long term is very low, and they still get free emergent care no matter what by law.

Cannibal
06-07-2009, 12:19 PM
This is all true. The overwhelming majority of people who go uninsured are only uninsured in the short term.

And the "figures" also include people who are eligible for benefits from the government but for whatever reason do not activate them.

The number of people who have no coverage at all over the long term is very low, and they still get free emergent care no matter what by law.

Meanwhile, if they are in a catostrophic accident in those 4 months they are financially fucked.

Or if they develope a disease in those 4 months and when they do get insurance again, the Insurance Co. won't pay because the disease will be considered a pre-existing condition.

wild1
06-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Meanwhile, if they are in a catostrophic accident in those 4 months they are financially ****ed.

Or if they develope a disease in those 4 months and when they do get insurance again, the Insurance Co. won't pay because the disease will be considered a pre-existing condition.

In that case, they would be in the soup by their own hand for not buying the Cobra policy.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 12:32 PM
I was in one about a year ago for severe lower back pain to the point where the pain was projecting through to the side of my stomach.

They did a CT Scan, urine test, painkiller injection and examination.

The cost: $5,500. I never go to the doctor or hospital, so I was unaware that the hospital I went to was not a "preferred provider". (Tough lesson learned there.) So insurance only covered 55%. So I am stuck paying $3,600 for a ****in CT Scan.

I had that last NY's. I couldn't walk or get into a car without being lifted into it. I had it fixed for $300 by a chiro and massage therapist. Was well under my deductible.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 01:59 PM
This is all true. The overwhelming majority of people who go uninsured are only uninsured in the short term.

And the "figures" also include people who are eligible for benefits from the government but for whatever reason do not activate them.

The number of people who have no coverage at all over the long term is very low, and they still get free emergent care no matter what by law.

I have a question about this. If a person is covered by private insurance, but is also eligible for coverage under a government program, is it more honorable to activate the government benefit in order to lighten her/his footprint on the private insurance pool or to refuse to activate that benefit so as not to burden the public health system since s/he's already covered with employer-subsidized health insurance anyway? For purposes of discussion, let's say that the out of pocket cost to the individual will be about the same either way. I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on this.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 02:02 PM
In that case, they would be in the soup by their own hand for not buying the Cobra policy.

Yes, or a bridge policy covering catastrophic events only. That's what I did when I went back to school to cover the gap between my employer-provided health insurance and the insurance I got through the school.

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 02:03 PM
I have a question about this. If a person is covered by private insurance, but is also eligible for coverage under a government program, is it more honorable to activate the government benefit in order to lighten her/his footprint on the private insurance pool or to refuse to activate that benefit so as not to burden the public health system since s/he's already covered with employer-subsidized health insurance anyway? For purposes of discussion, let's say that the out of pocket cost to the individual will be about the same either way. I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on this.

It will have to be like it is now where two members of family work for seperate companies, the employers coverage is the one to pay. In otherwords the couple cannot pick or choose.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 02:04 PM
Mid May.

What for and how much if you don't mind me asking.

I went a little over a year ago because I got bit by a brown recluse that swelled up the size of a softball and I didn't want to wait over the weekend because it was hurting like a motherfucker.

Total bill = $1200

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 02:05 PM
More interesting reading that helps debunk the overheated words of the pro-nationalized health care leftists.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba595/

Crisis of the Uninsured: 2007
Brief Analysis | Economy | Federal Spending | Government | Health | Taxes







No. 595

Friday, September 28, 2007

by Devon Herrick

Despite claims that there is a health insurance crisis in the United States, the proportion of Americans without health coverage has changed little in the past decade. The increase in the number of uninsured is largely due to immigration and population growth — and to individual choice.

How Big Is the Problem? In 2006, according to Census Bureau data:

More than 84 percent (250.4 million) of U.S. residents were privately insured or enrolled in a government health program, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Programs (S-CHIP).
Up to 14 million uninsured adults and children qualified for government programs in 2004 but had not enrolled, according to the BlueCross BlueShield Association.
Nearly 18 million of the uninsured live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 and could likely afford health insurance.
In theory, therefore, about 32 million people, or 68 percent of the uninsured, could easily obtain coverage but have chosen to forgo insurance. That means that about 94 percent of United States residents either have health coverage or access to it. The remaining 6 percent live in households that earn less than $50,000 annually. This group does not qualify for Medicaid and (arguably) earns too little to easily afford expensive family plans costing more than $12,000 per year. However, they could afford the limited benefit plans that are gaining in popularity (see below).

How Serious Is the Problem? According to the Census Bureau, the proportion of people without health insurance was slightly lower in 2006 (15.8 percent) than a decade earlier (16.2 percent in 1997). During the past 10 years the number of people with health coverage rose nearly 25 million, while the number without health coverage only increased about 3.5 million. Both increases are largely due to population growth. Typically, those who lack insurance are uninsured for only a short period of time. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 21 million to 31 million people had been uninsured for a year or more in 2002 — far short of the 47 million figure cited by proponents of universal health care. Of all the people who are uninsured today, less than half will still be uninsured 12 months from now.

Who Are the Uninsured? It is often assumed that the uninsured are all low-income families. But among households earning less than $25,000, the number of uninsured actually fell by about 24 percent over the past 10 years. [See the figure.] The uninsured include diverse groups, each uninsured for a different reason:

Immigrants. About 12.6 million foreign-born residents lack health coverage —accounting for 27 percent of the uninsured. In 2006, 83.6 percent of naturalized citizens had coverage — close to the rate of native-born residents (87.8 percent). In contrast, 45 percent of foreign-born noncitizen residents were uninsured. These 10 million uninsured immigrants were more than 20 percent of the total number of uninsured U.S. residents. Income may be a factor — but not the only one. A partial explanation for this disparity is that many immigrants come from cultures without a strong history of paying premiums for private health insurance. In addition, immigrants do not qualify for public coverage until they have been legal residents for more than five years.

The Young and Healthy. About 19 million 18-to-34-year olds are uninsured. Most of them are healthy and know they can pay incidental expenses out of pocket. Using hard-earned dollars to pay for health care they don't expect to need is a low priority for them.

Higher-Income Workers. As the figure shows, the fastest-growing segment of the uninsured population over the past 10 years has been middle- and upper-income families. From 1997 to 2006, the number of uninsured among households earning more than $50,000 annually actually increased by more than seven million. The ranks of the uninsured in households earning $50,000 to $75,000 increased 49 percent, while the number of uninsured households earning above $75,000 increased 90 percent.


Why the Poor Are Uninsured: The "Free Care" Alternative. Many people do not enroll in government health insurance programs because they know that free health care is available once they get sick. Federal law forbids hospital emergency rooms from turning away critical care patients regardless of insurance coverage or ability to pay. Estimates of spending on free care range from $1,049 to $1,548 for each individual who is uninsured for an entire year. This does not include the more than $300 billion the federal and state governments spend annually on such "free" public health insurance as Medicaid and S-CHIP. Furthermore, there is little incentive to enroll in public programs because families can always sign up when the need arises.

Why the Nonpoor Are Uninsured: State Mandates. Government policies that drive up the cost of private health insurance may partly explain why millions of people forgo coverage. Many states try to make it easy for a person to obtain insurance after becoming sick by requiring insurance companies to offer immediate coverage for pre-existing conditions with no waiting period. Thus, when people are healthy they have little incentive to participate and tend to avoid paying for coverage until they need care.

Some states also impose "community rating," which forces insurers to charge the same premium to all, no matter how sick or healthy they are when they purchase insurance. This mandate drives up the cost of insurance for the healthy. Because their premiums are far higher than their anticipated medical needs, healthy people are often priced out of the market.

How to Reduce the Number of Uninsured: Limited Benefit Plans. Some of the uninsured would purchase insurance if policies were more to their liking. The state of Tennessee recently conducted focus groups with blue-collar workers and discovered that what people want is very different from what health policy experts think they should have. For example, there was very little interest in insurance for catastrophic events. Instead, people wanted insurance benefits that pay for primary care visits or prescription drugs. Limited benefit plans designed to meet these patients' demands are the cornerstone of TennCare, the state program to cover low-income families in Tennessee . And these types of plans are gaining in popularity. Insurers say more than a million people already have limited health plans. Employers also are establishing their own plans, especially for part-time workers.

How to Increase the Number of Uninsured: Mandatory Insurance. If millions of people have access to coverage but choose not to enroll, should they be forced to? The logic is simple: If people won't buy health insurance voluntarily, pass a law mandating that they buy it anyway. This is a requirement of the Massachusetts health reform law and many of the other universal coverage proposals. This is also how auto insurance works in 47 states. The problem is: It doesn't work! Recent research by Greg Scandlen, published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, found that the rate of uninsured motorists is very similar to the proportion of people lacking health insurance.

Conclusion. Despite claims that the United States is experiencing a health insurance crisis, the proportion of people without insurance coverage has changed little in recent years. Even so, much can be done to reduce the number of uninsured. This could include deregulating insurance markets to allow affordable plans that are attractive to the young and healthy. It could also include subsidizing the purchase of private insurance using the free-care money taxpayers are already providing. Finally, the use of limited benefit plans could be expanded to make insurance coverage more affordable to low-income families.

Devon Herrick is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 02:10 PM
It will have to be like it is now where two members of family work for seperate companies, the employers coverage is the one to pay. In otherwords the couple cannot pick or choose.

I'm saying that I know a person who's in this situation now. They have private coverage through their spouse, but they're also eligible for coverage through medicare. I'm not sure how it works, but wild1's post made me wonder if activating the medicare coverage would reduce the cost to the spouse's employer-based group and if so, whether it's more noble to do so than to refuse to activate the medicare coverage.

HonestChieffan
06-07-2009, 02:18 PM
What for and how much if you don't mind me asking.

I went a little over a year ago because I got bit by a brown recluse that swelled up the size of a softball and I didn't want to wait over the weekend because it was hurting like a mother****er.

Total bill = $1200


I ran a 2 inch thorn into my thumb and had to go in when the swelling and infection was pretty nasty. I had an x-ray even though they said an xray cant see wood...duhhh...and the doc dug around in my hand, they gave pain killer shot and pills plus antibiotic scrip...total was under 400. The xray was the greatest portion of the bill.

The two previous ER visits were for workshop injuries. Running a finger through tablesaw was the worst and that ran about 600 cause all they could do was wrap it and give pain meds.

banyon
06-07-2009, 02:33 PM
I ran a 2 inch thorn into my thumb and had to go in when the swelling and infection was pretty nasty. I had an x-ray even though they said an xray cant see wood...duhhh...and the doc dug around in my hand, they gave pain killer shot and pills plus antibiotic scrip...total was under 400. The xray was the greatest portion of the bill.

The two previous ER visits were for workshop injuries. Running a finger through tablesaw was the worst and that ran about 600 cause all they could do was wrap it and give pain meds.

Well that cinches it, our health care system is fine. All costs and expenses are under control and people aren't going bankrupt over medical bills.

wild1
06-07-2009, 02:39 PM
I have a question about this. If a person is covered by private insurance, but is also eligible for coverage under a government program, is it more honorable to activate the government benefit in order to lighten her/his footprint on the private insurance pool or to refuse to activate that benefit so as not to burden the public health system since s/he's already covered with employer-subsidized health insurance anyway? For purposes of discussion, let's say that the out of pocket cost to the individual will be about the same either way. I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on this.

Let's do a thumbnail sketch.

Medicare's rates are at least 5 years out of date. They might reimburse 40-50% of what someone gets charged. Further, there is a 6+ month float before the reimbursement occurs. That's a huge additional cost to a health care provider but let's put that aside for a moment.

While only covering 40-50 million people, medicare outlays this year will probably close in on $500 billion. But they're reimbursing poorly, remember, so for health systems to break even on current Medicare patients they'd have to spend a trillion. Then think about expanding it to cover 6 times as many people - $6 trillion.

That's approximately double what the total 2008 Bush budget was, $3 trillion. A child can do the math on this. If apples cost a dollar and you have $3, how are you going to tell me that you can buy me 9 apples?

Did this idea come from the same minds that designed General Motors' pension plans?

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 04:16 PM
I ran a 2 inch thorn into my thumb and had to go in when the swelling and infection was pretty nasty. I had an x-ray even though they said an xray cant see wood...duhhh...and the doc dug around in my hand, they gave pain killer shot and pills plus antibiotic scrip...total was under 400. The xray was the greatest portion of the bill.

The two previous ER visits were for workshop injuries. Running a finger through tablesaw was the worst and that ran about 600 cause all they could do was wrap it and give pain meds.

Damn that had to hurt.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 04:19 PM
I have a question about this. If a person is covered by private insurance, but is also eligible for coverage under a government program, is it more honorable to activate the government benefit in order to lighten her/his footprint on the private insurance pool or to refuse to activate that benefit so as not to burden the public health system since s/he's already covered with employer-subsidized health insurance anyway? For purposes of discussion, let's say that the out of pocket cost to the individual will be about the same either way. I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on this.

If the out of pocket costs are equal I would say go with the private insurance.

But usually that isn't the case is it since Medicaid and Medicare might only require to pay a small portion?

patteeu
06-07-2009, 04:35 PM
If the out of pocket costs are equal I would say go with the private insurance.

Why? Why should the group that's paying for the private insurance bear the cost when the patient is eligible to spread some of the cost to the taxpaying public and save his co-workers some money? I'm curious about your rationale.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 04:42 PM
Why? Why should the group that's paying for the private insurance bear the cost when the patient is eligible to spread some of the cost to the taxpaying public and save his co-workers some money? I'm curious about your rationale.

Personally for me I am paying a monthly premium so I would want to use it.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 04:57 PM
Personally for me I am paying a monthly premium so I would want to use it.

You'd be paying a monthly premium for medicare too, even if you don't use it.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 05:05 PM
You'd be paying a monthly premium for medicare too, even if you don't use it.

Good point and I didn't realize that until you mentioned and then I went and looked it up.

If you make under $85,000\170,000 you pay $96.50 a month.

Is there any reason why you couldn't use both?

patteeu
06-07-2009, 05:07 PM
Good point and I didn't realize that until you mentioned and then I went and looked it up.

If you make under $85,000\170,000 you pay $96.50 a month.

Is there any reason why you couldn't use both?

No there isn't. The choice is between using only the private or using both. In the case of using both, I'm not sure which one would be primary or how they split the coverage.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 05:27 PM
No there isn't. The choice is between using only the private or using both. In the case of using both, I'm not sure which one would be primary or how they split the coverage.

I would use both. I called my parents just because of you and my parents are retired and they have both private insurance and medicare. They said private insurance is primary and the portion that it doesn't cover medicare will.

patteeu
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
I would use both. I called my parents just because of you and my parents are retired and they have both private insurance and medicare. They said private insurance is primary and the portion that it doesn't cover medicare will.

Thanks for the info. I'll pass that along.

dirk digler
06-07-2009, 06:08 PM
Thanks for the info. I'll pass that along.

You are welcome.

Here is a more detailed answer and it looks like it depends on the size of the private insurance group.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_determine_if_medicare_primary_or_secondary

BucEyedPea
06-07-2009, 07:34 PM
Yes, or a bridge policy covering catastrophic events only. That's what I did when I went back to school to cover the gap between my employer-provided health insurance and the insurance I got through the school.

I mainly only had a policy for catastrophe most of my life. Many self-employed people only carry that. Some of them quite wealthy. I've a dentist/implant surgeoon friend who makes $500 and that's all he carries.

A ton of insurance just isn't necessary and is a racket imo. You just need to be protected from financial devastation. Cheaper to pay most stuff out-of-pocket.

WilliamTheIrish
06-07-2009, 08:18 PM
Yes, or a bridge policy covering catastrophic events only. That's what I did when I went back to school to cover the gap between my employer-provided health insurance and the insurance I got through the school.

That's what I did also. It's a risk. But what isn't in life?

WilliamTheIrish
06-07-2009, 08:25 PM
I ran a 2 inch thorn into my thumb and had to go in when the swelling and infection was pretty nasty. I had an x-ray even though they said an xray cant see wood...duhhh...and the doc dug around in my hand, they gave pain killer shot and pills plus antibiotic scrip...total was under 400. The xray was the greatest portion of the bill.

The two previous ER visits were for workshop injuries. Running a finger through tablesaw was the worst and that ran about 600 cause all they could do was wrap it and give pain meds.

Sometimes you can see thorns. They often get blood soaked sitting under the skin and become visible. Sometimes it takes a couple of days for this to happen.

No offense. But I don't believe you walk into any ER and walk out with less than 1k charge. Urgent Care... possibly. ER? Doubtful.

jiveturkey
06-07-2009, 08:36 PM
So a bunch of us were talking health care in the backyard this weekend and one of my buddies mentioned a handful of plans under BCBS. He told me that he was paying $60/month for a basic plan and I told him he was full of shit.

I'm blown away by what I found this evening. I'm on a group plan through my own company and I'm paying $150/month even though I'm the only one of 3 that uses the plans (everyone else is on their spouses plan). Since I haven't used health insurance in close to 4 years I'll be switching to one of the plans listed below. Absolutely shocked! These types of plans should be able to help most people.

https://www.bcbskc.com/Public/Uploads/Need_Insurance/AffordaBlue_Web_11-09.pdf

https://www.bcbskc.com/Public/Uploads/Need_Insurance/PCB_RateSaver_Web_11-09.pdf

https://www.bcbskc.com/Public/Uploads/Need_Insurance/PCB_RateSaver_Web_11-09.pdf

Direckshun
06-07-2009, 09:49 PM
Truth: we get iffy (at best) healthcare.

Truth: we pay more for it (increasingly) than most.

Truth: this does not have to be the case.

SBK
06-07-2009, 10:45 PM
Truth: we get iffy (at best) healthcare.

Truth: we pay more for it (increasingly) than most.

Truth: this does not have to be the case.

Iffy turns into shitty when the gov't takes over. LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
06-07-2009, 11:28 PM
Truth: we get iffy (at best) healthcare.

Truth: we pay more for it (increasingly) than most.

Truth: this does not have to be the case.

1. 29th rated healthcare in the world. true

2. 1st in cost, most expensive. true

3. most definitely true, but were the suckers we pay 50% of what we make in taxes and receive almost nothing back thanks to corruption.

The government is certainly not the answer though as they are the most corrupt historically.

tiptap
06-08-2009, 07:19 AM
This is all true. The overwhelming majority of people who go uninsured are only uninsured in the short term.

And the "figures" also include people who are eligible for benefits from the government but for whatever reason do not activate them.

The number of people who have no coverage at all over the long term is very low, and they still get free emergent care no matter what by law.

In August, 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 45.7 million people had no health insurance at a point in time in 2007. The number had declined from 47 million the previous year, largely due to increases in Medicaid and CHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) enrollment. The number may now be going back up due to the recession.
There are both higher and lower numbers that give different perspectives. Families USA, an advocacy group, recently estimated that 86.7 million people—one in three of those under age 65—were uninsured for some or all or the two-year period 2007-2008.2 The number indicates that many more than 45 million people are likely to be uninsured over a short time period, even if many have coverage at some point. On the other hand, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has estimated that 26.1 million people were uninsured for the entire two-year period 2004-2005, and that 17.4 million were uninsured for the preceding two years as well—four straight years.

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40517

patteeu
06-08-2009, 07:40 AM
In August, 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 45.7 million people had no health insurance at a point in time in 2007. The number had declined from 47 million the previous year, largely due to increases in Medicaid and CHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) enrollment. The number may now be going back up due to the recession.
There are both higher and lower numbers that give different perspectives. Families USA, an advocacy group, recently estimated that 86.7 million people—one in three of those under age 65—were uninsured for some or all or the two-year period 2007-2008.2 The number indicates that many more than 45 million people are likely to be uninsured over a short time period, even if many have coverage at some point. On the other hand, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has estimated that 26.1 million people were uninsured for the entire two-year period 2004-2005, and that 17.4 million were uninsured for the preceding two years as well—four straight years.

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40517

I'm not sure what your point is, but just to be clear, your numbers support rather than refute what wild1 said (except possibly the "overwhelming" part).

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 07:58 AM
That number has been refuted by the Government itself. The number includes anyone who at any point in time during the year was not covered regardless of the length of time. It also includes by Census Department figures 10 million non citizens who were included in the numbers. It also does not reflect those who choose to not buy insurance.

Figures lie. And this is a perfect example of looking for a figure to support a position in hopes no one will look into the numbers.