Your continued assertions that the ACA was a Republican invention is well, for lack of a better word, laughable. Everyone knows that ACA was ramrodded through both the Senate and the House during the first year of Obama's presidency when the Democrats held the majority in both the Senate and House. As I recall, the final text of the law was distributed almost last minute, which due to its size and complexity made it impossible for anyone to actually read and study it before the votes were taken. And I also seem to recall that many complained about not having the opportunity to amend it prior to the vote.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" <rickb_cool@> wrote:

Until we get simple single payer universal medical insurance we will suffer with sub-optimal performance and businesses will continue to suffer competitive and economic disadvantages. Only when everyone is covered and business no longer pay for the coverage will we get good medical insurance and regain free market competitive advantages because business will no loner need to decide to provide medical insurance or not and will not have to deal with medical insurance operationally. This was a step created by conservative Republicans to delay such universal single payer medical insurance. The complexity comes from a divided Congress and control by industry lobbyists.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

You seem to be compulsively 'kicking your dead horse' or is it a '
'Tar Baby' that you can't let go of?

Nancy made an excellent posting with SPECIFIC examples of choices and benefits.
??

________________________________
From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



??
Actual costs vary depending on which of the possible health care choices you select. I belong to an HMO (Kaiser Permanente) which is one of the least expensive choices (If not the least expensive choice) that IBM offers in Northern California. Nancy did not mention her current choice of insurance nor the choice she plans to obtain through the exchange, so she may have apples and I oranges. For this reason, I think the information I provided is more meaningful. I also provided the URL so any who want to investigate the cost of options being provided by the California exchanges can investigate the costs and details of the coverages being provided on their own. Doing so will provide costs estimates more meaningful than any numbers I might report.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., dan finn <dfinn1@> wrote:

So based on your post of ACA costing 3X IBM, bottom line is that you will pay $4K+ per month for ACA? Is that what you are alleging? Sorry but when responding to a post that gives numbers it is always useful to provide numbers because multipliers can be confusing when taken out of context. Thanks.

"zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a

total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.

Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.????I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.???? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.???? Members of my family???? live under Medicaid and???? others like myself live under Medicare.???? But you seem to have a dosed????mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care????programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.???? Who will prevail the ACA????supporters or those who oppose..???? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences

From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA????is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care????insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my
point.???? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder????but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA????as the answer.???? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance
> companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.???? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare????doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA????you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???? In
Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.???? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA????has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.???? My Medicare????doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon????a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the >
analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA????is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to >
more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI
think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.???? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of
their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > >
hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.???? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date:
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ????> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ????> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In
ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, >
distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > >
technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates
have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

You seem to be compulsively 'kicking your dead horse' or is it a '
'Tar Baby' that you can't let go of?

Nancy made an excellent posting with SPECIFIC examples of choices and benefits.
??

________________________________
From: "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare



??
Actual costs vary depending on which of the possible health care choices you select. I belong to an HMO (Kaiser Permanente) which is one of the least expensive choices (If not the least expensive choice) that IBM offers in Northern California. Nancy did not mention her current choice of insurance nor the choice she plans to obtain through the exchange, so she may have apples and I oranges. For this reason, I think the information I provided is more meaningful. I also provided the URL so any who want to investigate the cost of options being provided by the California exchanges can investigate the costs and details of the coverages being provided on their own. Doing so will provide costs estimates more meaningful than any numbers I might report.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., dan finn <dfinn1@> wrote:

So based on your post of ACA costing 3X IBM, bottom line is that you will pay $4K+ per month for ACA? Is that what you are alleging? Sorry but when responding to a post that gives numbers it is always useful to provide numbers because multipliers can be confusing when taken out of context. Thanks.

"zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a

total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.

Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.????I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.???? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.???? Members of my family???? live under Medicaid and???? others like myself live under Medicare.???? But you seem to have a dosed????mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care????programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.???? Who will prevail the ACA????supporters or those who oppose..???? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences

From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA????is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care????insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my
point.???? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA???? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder????but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA????as the answer.???? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance
> companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.???? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.???? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare????doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA????you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.???? In
Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.???? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA????has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.???? My Medicare????doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon????a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the >
analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA????is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to >
more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI
think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.???? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of
their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.???? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.???? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > >
hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.???? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.???? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date:
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ????> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ????> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In
ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, >
distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > >
technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates
have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

Does this calculator give same result?



--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

---

From: "zimowski@..."
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

?

Actual costs vary depending on which of the possible health care choices you select. I belong to an HMO (Kaiser Permanente) which is one of the least expensive choices (If not the least expensive choice) that IBM offers in Northern California. Nancy did not mention her current choice of insurance nor the choice she plans to obtain through the exchange, so she may have apples and I oranges. For this reason, I think the information I provided is more meaningful. I also provided the URL so any who want to investigate the cost of options being provided by the California exchanges can investigate the costs and details of the coverages being provided on their own. Doing so will provide costs estimates more meaningful than any numbers I might report.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., dan finn wrote:
>
> So based on your post of ACA costing 3X IBM, bottom line is that you will pay $4K+ per month for ACA? Is that what you are alleging? Sorry but when responding to a post that gives numbers it is always useful to provide numbers because multipliers can be confusing when taken out of context. Thanks.
>
> "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:
>
> >Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.
> >
> >I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
> > Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.
> >
> >The url for the estimator, by the way, is
> >
> >
> >--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" wrote:
> >>
> >> I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.
> >>
> >> --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.??I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed??mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care??programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA??supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA??is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care??insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder??but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA??as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare??doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA??you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA??has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare??doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon??a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA??is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

So based on your post of ACA costing 3X IBM, bottom line is that you will pay $4K+ per month for ACA? Is that what you are alleging? Sorry but when responding to a post that gives numbers it is always useful to provide numbers because multipliers can be confusing when taken out of context. Thanks.

"zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.??I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.?? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.?? Members of my family?? live under Medicaid and?? others like myself live under Medicare.?? But you seem to have a dosed??mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care??programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.?? Who will prevail the ACA??supporters or those who oppose..?? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA??is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care??insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.?? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder??but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA??as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare??doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA??you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA??has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.?? My Medicare??doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon??a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA??is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

Sound familiar?

Paid around $1200-$1400 a month for awhile, then I dropped the pricey
prescription plan for several years before going on Medicare. All that
really ate up big part of pension, in past few years. IBM's self-funded
plans still had "Business" as their middle name.

Then, on Medicare, and Aetna Integration Plan A, those costs went way
down right away and I got house paid for!

Dropping the IBM prescription plan and shopping online for meds overseas
(since that is where they are all manufactured!) really saved me lots of
money, like $7K a year for several years. No sweat for a 3-yr. Corvette
lease, with those savings!

For a $$surprise$$, enter your favorite med and dosage over at:

(a place I learned about here on Yahoo).
For more med sources, see:


I also saved money buying meds at Sam's Club & Costco before discovering
online sources were about a third less than those two big box stores.

My wife's eye meds all come from the Allergan factory in Germany, via
signature confirmation mail.

For me, AARP stuff was all too pricey.

BTW, moved IBM 401-K money over to Vanguard right away and made out very
well, based on a tip in another Yahoo Group:


Even with both of us on a low-priced Part D Humana plan, we still by all
meds online for even less out of pocket, in our particular situation.
YMMV.

Let's share ideas on how our past experiences can help those RA'd in
their 50's and too young for medicare!

Libs, neo-cons all have the same needs!

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

?

Now here is what I see when I read that link. Tell me what I missed. While congress did not create any special exemptions for itself, no congressperson is required to give up any special coverage and cadillac plans they may have and be required to only have choices available to the bulk of the American people. The article goes out of its way to avoid stating such things until a short paragraph at the very end where it mentions a Republican wanted to amend the bill to state that federal officials must only be able to choose from those new plans created by the ACA. In other words making our government eat its own dog food. Apparently according to the article which gives one entire sentence to it, maybe hoping people would be bored by the time they got this far in the article the change was added but only if the leadership and committee heads were exemption from the change. So they don't have to eat the dog food they are serving.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., Sheila Beaudry wrote:
>
> Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.? Stop spreading untruths.? See
>
>
> From: Rick b Cool
> To: ibmpensionissues@...
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
> Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
>
> ?
> Really?
>
> Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.
>
> --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%, KenSP@ wrote:
> >
> > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care?insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired
> person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
> Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon?a
> retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%> Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern
> Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is > getting
> back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even accept you as a patient.
> Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of their patients where under
> Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a
> doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now
> tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others
> expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > >
> > > > > > Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%,> > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> >
>

Wrong, they are not exempt from ACA.?? Stop spreading untruths.?? See .


From: Rick b Cool <rickb_cool@...>
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare

??
Really?

Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.

--- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:

If ACA??is so great why did Congress and the President exempt themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt national corporation who have health care??insurance for employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally missed my point.?? The point I was making is it does not matter if you have or do not have insurance including ACA?? If doctors do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single payer? As a retired

person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political discussion or as do gooder??but are based on real life experience which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same age.I do not see ACA??as the answer.?? Since like Medicare, in order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance companies or the government will have to reduce the reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.?? Based on actual personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one that does not.?? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on everything. A Medicare??doctor is earning his income by seeing volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No
Doctor can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the ACA??you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.?? In Canada, you are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical needs and the test you need to take.?? In the ACA, a nurse is made your primary care person who determines the tests you need and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA??has only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create the ACA.?? My Medicare??doctor told me that I should do the two knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think you have to live the law. to see what you have lost.RegardsFreon??a
retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com> Very good. Thanks for the analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > No ACA??is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of the United > States. The one strategy which the modern
Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we need to have access to good health care > severely limited to more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue on this forum is > getting
back on topic. We don't need the political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com, KenSP@ wrote:> >> > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > who have retired.?? It is reasonably price. The issue is not the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before he > is willing to even accept you as a patient.
Some will advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting Medicare / Medicaid > patients.?? The reason is that the government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.?? A medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of their patients where under
Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.?? She had to pay his fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the fee.?? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you want but it won't > by you medical services if a
doctor does not accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards single payer.> > > > > > ??> > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, now
tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this thread can get back on topic> > without the radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > "Rick b Cool" wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole time. Obviously less the> > changes currently being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > they receive at others
expense, or the great > benefits of> > have a great society that supports all the > people, grows> > the economy, and increases the standard of > living. They> > simply dream of how good it would be if they retained> > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use words like > socialist and> > communist and have no idea what either term actually> > means. They certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All they do is whine and hope that someone> > will give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > themselves that they are independent individuals> > supporting themselves outside all that exists > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > >
> > > > > Back to the good old days when only white> > male protestants who own landed estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > pawnedmyrolex wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:ibmpensionissues%40yahoogroups.com,> > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >

An interesting conclusion. Solely based on complete circular reasoning, obviously starting with the conclusion.

Hint: most legislation is complex. Mostly because of industry input to create confusion and loopholes and give big corporations competitive advantages and exclusions from regulations.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@" <zimowski@> wrote:

"The real issue on this forum is getting back on topic." Really? Unlike the ibmpension group, the moderators of this group do not censor participant appends. It seems that your style for participation is to criticize others that you don't agree with politically and then to suggest that anybody who responds to one of your inflammatory appends is off topic.

Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think it's now becoming quite clear that ACA is complicated, poorly understood, difficult to implement, and that it will be more expensive for most Americans, providing affordable care only to those who could not previously obtain/afford health care coverage on their own. Everyone else will pay for it out of pocket while receiving lower quality services due to the added stain that will be placed on the entire health care system.

Not sure what is meant by a "private physician". There are self-employed concierge physicians, there are hospital or other organization-employed physicians, and there are self-employed non-concierge physicians. These seem to be the main groupings; there may be some that do not fit into these categories. Self-employed physicians are decreasing in number as they huddle under hospital umbrellas to stay afloat with all the office overhead, at least for primary care, which has become a "loss leader", perhaps unable to generate enough revenue through office visits to keep itself going, but feeding the "mother ship" with orders for labs and radiology, referrals for admissions or surgeries, etc. It is a response to the fact that hospitals need primary care, and primary care has difficulty staying in business without help. I am referring here to what I know about primary care. Specialists may be able to make a go of it without needing help.
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/24/13, weinerisnospitzer <no_reply@...> wrote:

Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 7:44 PM
















??









true:

In 2012, there were 4,400 private physicians - a 25%
increase from 2011.



source:



--- In ibmpensionissues@...,
"Steve" <stevejm1935@> wrote:

>

> "Concierge medicine started LONG before Obama got
involved."

>

> Absolutely right.

Nancy, I think you must either be one of the lucky ones or ACA will be providing you will a much reduced level of health care coverage.

I'm also a Californian resident and recently stumbled across a web page that has a calculator for estimating the cost of coverage through the California Exchange starting October 1, 2013, so I thought it might be interesting to get an estimate. The estimate I obtained is for the "Silver Plan", which appears to be an in between plan: "Premiums are shown for a "silver plan," but individuals can choose to purchase a more generous or less generous plan. " I took a quick look and the "Silver Plan" provides less coverage than I currently have. By less, I mean that the medical deductible is higher and the co-pays are also higher (1.5 to 2 time higher). One of the inputs to the estimator is Annual Household Income, but the definition for this input value is vague. Is it the adjusted gross income from my U.S. tax return or is it the total income I receive ignoring any losses that are allowed on the 1040 (e.g. rental real estate losses)? Not sure, so I used a total income number. The estimator provided cost turns out to be 3.15 times more than what I currently pay. I, by the way, fully expect the actual benefits to also be less that what I currently have, although I have not yet done that detailed analysis.
Affordable care? Certainly not as affordable when compared to what I currently have.

The url for the estimator, by the way, is


--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "nancygoodenough" <nancygoodenough@...> wrote:

I have looked forward to ACA to kick in next year for individuals. Since I left IBM in 1999, my med insurance has kicked up to $1600/mo for just me. And I'm not sick. California has the bids in for the health exchange and I'll have a lower deductible next year and $679/mo. The idea of insurance is everyone plays and spread the risk. It will work well for me and my peers who have to buy individual insurance. Husband is on Medicare and that's what I'd like for all. Buy into Medicare, but in the meantime, I'm looking forward to a hybrid system with the exchanges.

--- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:

The same can be said for those who blindly support the ACA. and big government is the solution.?I will no longer waste time responding to you on this issue since it appears that you are not living under the single payer of Medicare or Medicaid.? Therefore your comments are not based on experience but opinions and beliefs or what you read not what you experience.? Members of my family? live under Medicaid and? others like myself live under Medicare.? But you seem to have a dosed?mind on the issue and perhaps even support the approach of taking money from these financial strapped health care?programs to create a new program..So continue living your dream and let's see what happens in 2014 election.? Who will prevail the ACA?supporters or those who oppose..? .Regards----- Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:36 amSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: ibmpensionissues@...> Sorry. I do have to add that it does give fodder to those > looking to rationalize their prejudices.> > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> >> > Really?> > > > Government exempts itself from everything. Governments, > federal and state exempt all their own vehicles from all > regulations pertaining to vehicle construction and safety, > including school buses.. It's a crock but had nothing to do with ACA.> > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> > >> > > If ACA?is so great why did Congress and the President exempt > themselves, their families, and staffers from the provisions of > ACA? No one seems to talk about that. Why didn't they exempt > national corporation who have health care?insurance for > employees? I was happier with my IBM coverage even though it was > expensive than Medicare.As to my previous note, you have totally > missed my point.? The point I was making is it does not matter > if you have or do not have insurance including ACA? If doctors > do not want to accept your insurance, you need a credit card or > money to obtain medical services. It does not matter if you have > ACA, Medicare, Medicaid or a company health insurance policy you > need cash to at least get treatment.Your focus is totally > misplaced. You can have medical insurance but if you cannot find > someone who accepts it,what good is it? What about the quality > of service - Are all doctors equal?Isn't Medicare a single > payer? As a retired person who is in his 70's I LIVE MEDICARE > EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. My comments are not theory, political > discussion or as do gooder?but are based on real life experience > which is shared by my friends and neighbors who are the same > age.I do not see ACA?as the answer.? Since like Medicare, in > order to cover so many people and keep rates low, insurance > companies or the government will have to reduce the > reimbursement to doctors. I have gone through the issue of > trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare.? Based on actual > personal experience when finally finding one, I know that there > is a difference between a doctor who accepts Medicare and one > that does not.? It is the amount of time the doctor spends with > you. A Medicare doctor will spend five minutes or less with your > medical issue and you end up dealing primarily with a nurse on > everything. A Medicare?doctor is earning his income by seeing > volumes of patients and quality of the service falls. No Doctor > can survive on Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements for which he has > to wait for three months before he gets paid. Not so with a > doctor who does not accept insurances. His practice is built on > reputation.Have you compared the Canadian Plan verses the > ACA?you are supporting which DOES NOT effect me.? In Canada, you > are assigned a primary care doctor who determines your medical > needs and the test you need to take.? In the ACA, a nurse is > made your primary care person who determines the tests you need > and whether you should or should not see the doctor.The ACA?has > only effected me when funds were taken out of Medicare to create > the ACA.? My Medicare?doctor told me that I should do the two > knee replacement this year since in 2014 under Medicare I will > be paying a larger share for these operations.Remember what was > said, "You have to pass the law, to know what is in it" I think > you have to live the law. to see what you have > lost.RegardsFreon?a retired person who needs Medicare.not ACA----> - Original Message -----From: Rick b Cool Date: Tuesday, July > 23, 2013 6:54 pmSubject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> Very good. Thanks for the > analysis. However, none of what you > said has anything at all > to do with ACA. Yes, some doctors > refuse Medicare. Some refuse > all insurance. They have done so > for an extremely long time. > Some demand cash payment in advance > and them reimburse when > insurance pays them. They have done so > for a very long time.> > > No ACA?is far, far from a perfect plan. It is something which > > was never wanted by those who believe in universal health > care. > It was a proposal that was proposed by conservative > Republicans > and only abandoned as a political maneuver against > a President > they wanted to fail at any cost to the people of > the United > States. The one strategy which the modern > Republican leadership > has carries out extremely consistently > at great cost to the > American people.> > Also, from a purely > social perspective. It clearly looks as if > you said that we > need to have access to good health care > severely limited to > more wealthy individuals because their is a > shortage of > doctors. People do reveal their self centered nature > while > entirely ignoring the fact that most doctors are educated > at > the expense of the people of the United States through > grants, > subsidies, and delayed low interest loans. No one pays > the > full free market capitalist price of their healthcare. > Though, > one must admit that in some arenas, such a patent drugs, > they > do pay monopolistic prices.> > Healthcare in this country is a > highly complex system with many > interdependencies. The idiotic > perspective is that some of us > deserve good healthcare more > than others of us.> > Now as I said previously. The real issue > on this forum is > getting back on topic. We don't need the > political bullshit of > the loud mouthed Obama haters who will > say anything true or > false or irrelevant. > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@..., KenSP@ wrote:> >> > > ColleaguesI think you are dreaming if you think that ACA or a > > single payer will be the answer to the healthcare. The first > > thing is Medicare and Medicaid is a single payer for many of us > > who have retired.? It is reasonably price. The issue is not > the > cost, but finding a doctor who accepts Medicare / Medicaid > > Patients. The law cannot force a doctor to work at a specified > > price. Otherwise it is slavery. So he can legally refuse to > > accept patients as long as he does not discriminate. A doctor > > determines what he is willing to accept in payment for his > > service. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone.Today, a > > doctor now asks "Do you have insurance and with whom?" before > he > is willing to even accept you as a patient. Some will > advise you > upfront that they expect payment when services are > render and > they post such a sign in their office. There are > many who will > pay upfront to be treated by the doctor of their > choice and who > has an excellent reputation.Many doctors, in > the New York City > and Westchester County are not accepting > Medicare / Medicaid > patients.? The reason is that the > government reimbursement is to > low. If a doctor accepts a > Medicare patient, he must also take > Medicaid patients.? A > medicaid patient pays nothing, not even > the 20% a Medicare > patient pays. A doctor receives about 65% of > the reimbursement > he gets for treating Medicare patients - so he > refuses to > treat either. The reimbursement the doctor receives > from the > government does not cover his costs especially his > malpractice > insurance so why accept Medicare or Medicaid > patients.In > Westchester, a nearby hospital closed because a > majority of > their patients where under Medicaid and they went > bankrupt. > There also have been some hospital closing in New York > City > and the wait in emergency room has increase in the other > > hospitals.Even if you have private or company insurance, like my > > daughter who has a healthcare insurance policy from her > company > listed on the New York Stock Exchange, was told by her > doctor, > he does not accept any insurance.? She had to pay his > fees with > a credit card and when the doctor received payment > from the > insurance company (three months later), he gave her > the amount > he received. Her out of pocket costs was 40% of the > fee.? This > is not the case with the Hospital but with the > doctors.As you > can see, it does not matter what insurance you > have, if no > doctor, other than a hospital, is willing to > accept it, what > good is insurance. So dream on about ACA and a > single payer. You > may have the reasonably priced insurance you > want but it won't > by you medical services if a doctor does not > accept it.From a > retiree who is under Medicare----- Original > Message -----From: > Danny Baptista Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 > 12:40 pmSubject: Re: > [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears > Destructive Consequences From > ObamacareTo: > ibmpensionissues@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick, thank you. > I've also been fed up> > with the misinformed reactionary > rhetoric from this site > that I> > find in my inbox often > these days. An FYI to you all: > I'm looking> > forward to > increased access to health care that is not > quite as> > > expensive and not quite as much a rip-off, and I welcome > the > ACA> > as an incremental and progressive step towards > single payer.> > > > > > ?> > > > > > > Sorry. Not me.> > > > > However, you did prove my point.> > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > buckwildbeemer wrote:> > >> > > OK, > now tell us what ya did at IBM!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > >> > > > Perhaps this > thread can get back on topic> > without the > radical reactionary rhetoric firmly > grounded> in > delusions.> > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > "Rick b Cool" > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > WOW.> > > > > > > > > > > This forum has turned > into just another> > radical reactionary shithole. > Completely off > topic. Yet> > another internet > place for delusions, > distortions, and> > lies.> > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The full > text of the ACA was> > available almost the whole > time. Obviously less the> > changes currently > being proposed and discussed. > > > > > > > > > > > Fact: The people who do this kind of> > > whining are exclusively completely self centered> > > anti-social morons who don't consider all the benefits> > > they receive at others expense, or the great > > benefits of> > have a great society that supports > all the > people, grows> > the economy, and > increases the standard of > living. They> > simply > dream of how good it would be if they retained> > > everything they have and get and somehow didn't > have to> > > pay for any of it. All the advances of society and> > > technology, the vast bulk of which they had > > nothing to do> > with. I am quite sure they use > words like > socialist and> > communist and have > no idea what either term actually> > means. They > certainly have no idea what the term> > capitalist > actually means now what Adam Smith > was trying> > > to achieve.> > > > > > > > > > All > they do is whine and hope that someone> > will > give them everything they desire while not > giving to> > > others they feel are undeserving. All while deceiving> > > themselves that they are independent individuals> > > supporting themselves outside all that exists > > and all that> > has gone before.> > > > > > > > > > > Back to the good old days when > only white> > male protestants who own landed > estates have any > rights or> > benefits of the > wealth society and all the > people create.> > > > > > > > > > > --- In > ibmpensionissues@...,> > pawnedmyrolex > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > > Reminds me of the new Lib movie> > remake: > "Dependence Day"> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > "zimowski@" wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Those who re-elected Obama now> > need > to eat his dog food.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ibmpensionissues@...,> > > spitzerisnoweiner wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences-from-obamacare/?mod=WSJBlog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soooo glad I never joined > a> > union...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a bad> > re-> distribution of wealth for sure.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> >> > >

"Concierge medicine started LONG before Obama got involved."

Absolutely right.

Concierge medicine started LONG before Obama got involved. It was created (IMO) by the reimbursement system, which encourages "churning" of as many patients as possible through in one day, rather than dealing with multiple (possibly interconnected) complaints in a single visit, which would be more satisfactory for the patient and lead to better care. The reimbursement system was designed back in the days when people only went to the doctor when they had an acute complaint of some sort. Today, high-quality medical care requires MUCH more than that, and is much more complex. Using the old reimbursement system, there is not sufficient added reimbursement for doing all that extra stuff to cover the time required to do it right.

In addition, office overheads for primary care have gone through the roof, and this (IMO) has largely been due to the administrative overhead of dealing with numerous insurance plans, each of which has its own forms and sets of rules, which also change at least annually. This requires much work that is not reimbursed, since it does not occur during a face-to-face visit with the patient and increases staffing needs. By refusing to accept insurance, an office can greatly lower its overhead.

Let me give a specific example. A patient has been on a particular medication for years and it is working well with no adverse effects. Then the insurance plan decides it doesn't like that medication anymore, and sends notification to (maybe) the patient and (maybe) the patient's primary care office. But the letter does not provide any info re which medication the plan would prefer. It is a guessing game. The office must have a person who specializes in dealing with these things and is able to stay on "hold" for protracted periods while trying to do the right thing for the patient.

In addition, if the "preferred" medication is somehow discovered, and the patient is switched to that medication, that may trigger the need for additional expense and inconvenience for the patient. For example, some blood pressure medications can cause alterations to kidney function or potassium levels. Thus a medication switch now morphs into the need for extra labs after the patient has been on the medication for awhile, and an extra office visit to make sure the blood pressure is OK. BUT - the pharmacy insurance company doesn't care about that, because the cost of those things is from a different bucket and it isn't THEIR bucket.

Offices are being encouraged financially to implement electronic health records (at great expense) but there are numerous vendors and none of the systems can communicate with each other, which limits the value of such systems. If a patient is seen in more than one location, it is still necessary in many cases to rely on old-fashioned mail and fax communication, which introduces delays and makes cataloging patient data in consistent ways much more difficult.

The whole thing is so fouled up I despair of it being unsnarled in my lifetime. I believe a single payer system is the only possible solution, but there are too many influential entities that want to preserve the status quo. I have worked for the VA and Indian Health Service systems and the office overhead was much lower. These are the closest thing to "single payer" that we have in the USA. Office overheads for Canadian primary care offices are 25% of those in the USA. That's a big contributor to our higher health care costs.

By the way - I am an IBM retiree who retooled and became an internist, and about 85% of my patients are Medicare. I happen to LIKE taking care of that age group. I think concierge medicine is unethical (I can remember that oath I took on graduation from medical school, one of the high points of my life) but I can understand why it happens.
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7/23/13, icarlosdanger <no_reply@...> wrote:

Subject: [ibmpensionissues] Re: Union Fears Destructive Consequences From Obamacare
To: ibmpensionissues@...
Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 10:37 PM

I really feel we are headed toward a two-tier
system, so well-explained here:







To find a concierge doctor or locate a direct primary care
medical practice in your area, see
and .




I think Obamacare played some part in the emergence of
concierge medicine. I usually think of a concierge as a
hotel grunt who assists guests by arranging tours, etc. In
the medical field, patients get special treatment from
concierge doctors.



Those who can afford to pay the annual fees are flipping to
concierge medicine for their health care. Annual fees range
from $200 a year to $1,500 or more. Concierge doctors limit
their patient loads to

400-600 people, give them better service like same-day and
longer face time and 24/7 access!



--- In ibmpensionissues@...,
dan finn <dfinn1@> wrote:

>

> But if everyone were covered under a single payer, then
practices go out of business if they refuse to accept
payment from single payers, correct? Or, the prices would be
so low that they cannot continue to pay for their
liabilities such as homes, cars and expenses. This is the
part where very good doctors with lower financial
expectations from places like the Philippines and India set
up shop in the usa...ACA (regrettably not single payer) will
probably necessitate this anyway due to high demand. They
would be here now except for the arbitrarily protective visa
limitations that could be liberalized, probably by executive
order.