# Weekly Heath Care Post...



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is an article that was on MSN over the weekend.



> With new health law, insurers target diabetics
> 
> MIAMI (AP) - Diabetics beware. Your insurance company is looking for you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ok I highlighted a couple of things in the article and now will break them down.

This article is kind of slanted to a point trying to say that the Health Care Law is good.....but it isn't. It is saying Companies are taking a more pro-active approach. Now was that because they are now "Forced" to insure these people or is it that they are hoping to cut costs??? Anyway you look at it this is some good.

But now for the bad.



> A relatively healthy person with diabetes can cost insurers around $5,000 a year.
> 
> "But if you let any of those long-term, difficult complications develop, then you're talking $100,000 dollars plus," Nussbaum said.


This shows you what it costs per person.... a "healthy diabetic" per year. $5000 and if they are not Healthy... $100,000. Now that is what it will cost an insurance company. Ok... So the premium should be a minium of $5000 to cover costs... Correct???

Now look that a person who is a diabetic is paying...



> Shelley Dayman, who lives in an Orlando suburb, has struggled for years to manage her disease, in part because loves to bake and eat her sweet creations. A few years ago, the 62-year-old woman lost her foot in a car accident. Doctors reattached it, but she uses a wheelchair and can't exercise. She lost her job, her health insurance and started stretching her insulin because she couldn't afford it.
> 
> Last year, she was rushed to the hospital after she started talking gibberish while on the phone with her sister. Dayman's blood sugar was off and she spent an expensive two days in the hospital.
> 
> ...


so you have a struggling diabetic paying $2 a month for insurance... So $24 a year. HOW CAN THIS STAY AFLOAT. When a healthy diabetic costs $5000 a year????

So again....how will this bill be self sufficient??? Two things.... Raise the premiums or cut care or BAIL OUT!!!!

People....please forward this article on to your legislators asking how can this bill stay afloat with examples like this???

Again... I welcome all comments or discussion on the subject.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Report projects health care costs to dip slightly
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - The Affordable Care Act's health insurance subsidies will cost a little less than previously thought, according to a new report released Monday.
> 
> ...


Again another article trying to slant the topic.... Great it will cost less than anticipated.... BUT IT WILL STILL COST THE US TAXPAYER!!!! Thought it wasn't going to cost the tax payer one dime????

Look they are starting to make this sound like a good WIN.....but think about it. It is costing the US Government $10,000,000,000 a year for 10 years. We as tax payers are paying for this bill!!!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> This shows you what it costs per person.... a "healthy diabetic" per year. $5000 and if they are not Healthy... $100,000. Now that is what it will cost an insurance company. Ok... So the premium should be a minium of $5000 to cover costs... Correct???


I agree with most things you have had to say about health care, but this is not true. My health care didn't cost me $5000 as a diabetic before Obamacare. If you total out your $40000 truck was your premium supposed to be $40000 a year?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Longshot.... You are correct.

I should have made in more clear. And it was more in frustration that example. But you are correct it should be averaged out.

The main point i was trying to make is that with the one lady paying $2 a month and getting subsidized the rest. That there is no way this bill can stay afloat.

$5000 per healthy diabetic..... So we will just use rough numbers for the article 8% of the nation they say are diabetics. So with 10% of the nation not insured you can extrapolate the data that is about .8% of the "un-insured" are diabetics So of the 40,000,000 million that are un insured that is roughly 320000 people. That costs if healthy $5000 a year. So do the math.... 
320,000 x $5,000 = 16 billion a year!!! That is what the medical costs for just those people.... That is meds, doctor visits, check ups, blood work, eye glasses, eye appointments, etc. That is if they are "healthy" and not over weight and doing the correct stuff to keep everything in check. So again if only 320,000 people out of 40,000,000 will cost the program $16 Billion.....what will the rest cost and how do you make this bill self sufficient.

Also i hate to say it.... But how many of the "un-insured" will be trying to keep everything in check when they only have to pay $2 a month???

That is where I was saying the premium should be more for these people....and i got out of whack with the numbers.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I agree Chuck. We are paying the $574 a month while she pays $2. A $574 redistribution of wealth being called a tax credit. A tax credit for those who pay no taxes. uke:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Only a politician can figure out that math. Pay in $10 but yet you take out $100.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I agree Chuck. We are paying the $574 a month while she pays $2. A $574 redistribution of wealth being called a tax credit. A tax credit for those who pay no taxes. uke:


The big surprise is next year when the premiums skyrocket on these people. So they will either bit#H and moan so they can get more subsides or they will just go with out insurance..... then we are right back at square one.

These politicians are not seeing the light.

This article is a proven fact. Yet it is slanted to show that "obamacare" is working and a great thing.... uke:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I will be some of the ones not getting insurance because I can't afford it now. Before I could afford it, now not so much. Well maybe if I went without eating or having a roof over my head I could afford it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bl.... You are what I am afraid is going to be lots of people.

My dad went online to see if he could get a better deal. he is a diabetic and is paying through the nose.... He didn't qualify like the people in the article for subsidies. So he would be paying in more. So yeah....unless you don't qualify for subsides this program isn't any better than you were before!! So why try to better your life when the government will just give you money if you suck off it's teet!!!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

This whole health care bill is a damn train wreck and everyone can see it except people too stupid to understand logic.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well another article on MSN this morning talking about how the Dem should embrace the bill as a success.

It talks about how the 7 million sign ups over shot goals.... Only after they changed them repeatedly. How the budget office said it is coming in cheaper than expected (as of now) at ONLY $100 billion that it will cost the tax payers.....but I thought it wasn't going to cost the tax payers one dime??? So yeah it is a success in people's eyes who are blinded. I mean I can make a failing business look like a success if i keep changing goals and receiving backing from the government too....LOL

It is just sad that the media is so slanted and people will eat it up.

Like i was stating in the articles above. How many of the people who are on this bill and only paying in $2 a month will try to stay healthy when out of pocket expenses are so low??? I mean even if the lady with diabeties is only paying in $2 a month and she has $1000 out of pocket expenses... That will be gone in 3 months of just pills with a co pay (if she is paying the same as my father who is a "healthy" diabetic and is keeping things in check). Why stay healthy when the rest is free. I hate to compare it with other government subsidized things....but look at most government housing??? those places look great don't they.... uke:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The bottom line is that government needs to stay out of any welfare projects. They cannot manage thing right other then the miliarty and even that is questionable. Everything they touch is a wreck. Federal Crop Insurance, Postal Service, Welfare, Land Management, and the list goes on.

I really wish that the South would have won the war, more states rights and less federal control.


----------

