TexasCHLforum.com

It was a great little bit of presentation from all. He made a fantastic first impression.

rotor wrote:

G26ster wrote:

rotor wrote: This may work if you are not on Medicare or Medicaid but the doctors, labs and hospitals can not charge you anything but the government mandated price. You can not go outside of the system on these government programs. They can NOT balance bill or give you a discount. They can be fined quite severely if they do.

When I was diagnosed with cancer, I wanted to see the best possible doctor/hospital. Unfortunately I am on a Medicare Advantage plan (Part C) that forces me to see doctors and hospitals only within my network. I wanted a second opinion from UT Southwestern (which is outside my network), in the event I needed surgery in the future, and offered to pay out of pocket for it, as they have some of the best surgeons in the country for my type of cancer. I was told in no uncertain terms by them, that as I was on Medicare they could NOT accept an out of pocket payment from me for any of their services. I was illegal.

The good news is that I did have the surgery in my network at USMD Cancer Center/Hospital in Arlington, and I have been cancer free for two years. But, I was very surprised and taken aback by UT Southwestern's response.

First, you are Medicare Advantage which limits you even more (and is also the biggest profit sources for the insurance company). I would advise anyone approaching Medicare age to go with regular Medicare, a good supplement and a plan D drug. With that you can see any doctor in the country that takes Medicare at any hospital that takes Medicare ( virtually all) and you have choice although you pay more. With Medicare advantage you get some freebie stuff but MUST go to their list of docs and hospitals and CAN NOT go outside, even if you want to pay for it yourself. The docs and hospitals can not legally see you. The exceptions are for cosmetic stuff not covered by Medicare. So think carefully before you sign onto an advantage plan. Makes Aetna and United Health rich, costs the taxpayer 10% more for your care and limits you drastically. On the other hand I am glad you are doing well.

Thanks for you good wishes.

When I was diagnosed, I wanted to switch to Original Medicare, with a supplement. Problem was, I could switch, but NO insurance company would sell me a supplement because of my diagnosis. I had to answer the health questions and one of them was "have you been diagnosed with internal cancer?" I spoke with many companies, but all said they could not underwrite a policy until I was cancer free for 5 years. Even USAA, who I have been with for 51 years said the same. So, I would be responsible for 20% of all doctor fees, and with cancer, that can be substantial.

I agree that Original Medicare and a supplement is the way to go, but once you are outside your window of "guaranteed right" which ends 6 months after you sign up for Medicare Part B, you must answer the health questions to get a supplement. The pre-existing conditions clause of Obamacare does not apply to Medicare. Now if I move out of my coverage area, or my insurance company no longer offers my Advantage plan in my area, I don't have to answer those questions. But folks considering Original Medicare over Medicare Advantage must consider the considerable costs involved. With Original Medicare, you pay over $100 a month for that, plus another $150-200 per month for your supplement, plus another $35-$60 a month for a prescription drug plan. All of those are included in Advantage. So expect to pay about over $3500 - $4500 per year for that, and there's a good chance, if your health allows that, you will being paying far more in insurance costs than you would pay a doctor if you didn't have the supplement. In retirement that's substantial. However, I agree, that for major illnesses in old age, if you want free choice to choose any doctor or hospital, Original Medicare and the supplement and the drug plan is the way to go.

G26ster wrote: Thanks for you good wishes.

When I was diagnosed, I wanted to switch to Original Medicare, with a supplement. Problem was, I could switch, but NO insurance company would sell me a supplement because of my diagnosis. I had to answer the health questions and one of them was "have you been diagnosed with internal cancer?" I spoke with many companies, but all said they could not underwrite a policy until I was cancer free for 5 years. Even USAA, who I have been with for 51 years said the same. So, I would be responsible for 20% of all doctor fees, and with cancer, that can be substantial.

I agree that Original Medicare and a supplement is the way to go, but once you are outside your window of "guaranteed right" which ends 6 months after you sign up for Medicare Part B, you must answer the health questions to get a supplement. The pre-existing conditions clause of Obamacare does not apply to Medicare. Now if I move out of my coverage area, or my insurance company no longer offers my Advantage plan in my area, I don't have to answer those questions. But folks considering Original Medicare over Medicare Advantage must consider the considerable costs involved. With Original Medicare, you pay over $100 a month for that, plus another $150-200 per month for your supplement, plus another $35-$60 a month for a prescription drug plan. All of those are included in Advantage. So expect to pay about over $3500 - $4500 per year for that, and there's a good chance, if your health allows that, you will being paying far more in insurance costs than you would pay a doctor if you didn't have the supplement. In retirement that's substantial. However, I agree, that for major illnesses in old age, if you want free choice to choose any doctor or hospital, Original Medicare and the supplement and the drug plan is the way to go.

You are absolutely correct. What you don't know also about Advantage is that the doctor has to get approval for virtually everything and the average lay person really doesn't know if he/she is getting the best therapy or the cheapest therapy. Some accountant at your insurance company makes a decision that could keep you alive... or not. Regular Medicare, supplement ( I do have USAA ) and Medicare D is still the best way if you can afford it. Glad you are OK though. Thank you too President Trump for your Supreme Court nominee.

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Yes, but in politics it's more important to be right than quick. We've seen a number of reversals and chaos in the first few days that gives the impression things are not being well thought and organized. Learning by trial and error can have a much further reaching effect in politics.

Can you give us some specific examples?

No problem. Here's some: gag order to HHS issued, then reversed; gag order to USDA issued, then reversed; EPA website data on climate change removed, then restored; VA hiring freeze issued (hiring more is not the answer!) then reversed; prepaid TV PSAs on Obamacare deadlines cancelled, then restored; chaos about green cards; removing senior management in State Dept w/o replacements. I'll leave the details to you. [You're welcome!]

Dale. Dale. Dale. Those State Department career bureaucrats needed to go, that was LONG overdue! One of them, Kennedy, actually tried to pressure the FBI during the Hillary investigation. Replacements are NOT needed, that bloated Dept is 10X larger than it needs to be and is full of insolent seditionists who create their own policy rather than enforce the rule of law. Give me break, would you please?

Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, I hope you are right about the large number of excess bureaucrats in the State Dept... see http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... n-protests.

You are not disputing the other seven items I mentioned so I guess we are mostly in agreement! Yikes.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Yes, but in politics it's more important to be right than quick. We've seen a number of reversals and chaos in the first few days that gives the impression things are not being well thought and organized. Learning by trial and error can have a much further reaching effect in politics.

Can you give us some specific examples?

No problem. Here's some: gag order to HHS issued, then reversed; gag order to USDA issued, then reversed; EPA website data on climate change removed, then restored; VA hiring freeze issued (hiring more is not the answer!) then reversed; prepaid TV PSAs on Obamacare deadlines cancelled, then restored; chaos about green cards; removing senior management in State Dept w/o replacements. I'll leave the details to you. [You're welcome!]

Dale, That is just a bunch of liberal talking points that have taken situations and twisted them into being something negative. All of the issues you mentioned can be argued from partisan perspectives.

How about this? Obamacare was rammed down our throats after a couple of years of coniving and scheming. Looks at how many changes, corrections and modifications were made to correct issues subsequent to Obamacare going into effect. Look at how well the exchange implementation went. Look how well the whole Obamacare scheme has worked.

All of the things you mentioned, even if true and accurate, pale in comparison. The sad thing for liberal dems is Trump has done more good for the country in a little over a week than Obama did in 8 years.

dale blanker wrote: You are not disputing the other seven items I mentioned so I guess we are mostly in agreement! Yikes.

Just like your washed up ex-President, who could not keep his mouth shut the customary year, but had to start flapping his gums after only 10 days, you appear to live in a fantasy world where real change is something unimaginable. I simply will not waste my time responding to every one of your specious, silly points.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-views-234437

"He attended Harvard Law with former President Barack Obama. On Tuesday, Obama's former ethics czar, Norm Eisen, another classmate, tweeted: "Hearing rumors Trump's likely Supreme Court pick is Neil Gorsuch, my (and President Obama's!) 1991 Harvard Law classmate.If so, a great guy!""

Pausing to contemplate that Judge Gorsuch was classmate of Obama and praised by another classmate who worked in Obama administration.
Hopefully not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Jeff Sessions just cleared by committee to advance to full Senate. We'll see what happens there.

POTUS meeting now at the White House with Supreme Court interest groups (Fox News's term; don't know exactly what it means; includes Grover Norquist, head of US Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, and others). Wayne LaPierre is sitting at President Trump's left shoulder.

bblhd672 wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...l-views-234437

"He attended Harvard Law with former President Barack Obama. On Tuesday, Obama's former ethics czar, Norm Eisen, another classmate, tweeted: "Hearing rumors Trump's likely Supreme Court pick is Neil Gorsuch, my (and President Obama's!) 1991 Harvard Law classmate.If so, a great guy!""

Pausing to contemplate that Judge Gorsuch was classmate of Obama and praised by another classmate who worked in Obama administration.
Hopefully not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't think we have to worry too much about that. Some of his most notable, published opinions are easy to Google, some statements are on YouTube, but here's a quick bullet-point summary: https://www.conservativereview.com/comm ... rt-nominee.

Going in, if anything he might be slightly more of an originalist than even Scalia. That said, I don't think that we can ever ignore that time on SCOTUS can cause opinion platforms to shift. Understandable if you have a lifetime appointment and do the same job for decades. If Gorsuch lives to 80, we'll have him for 31 years. A 79-year-old Gorsuch may rule a bit differently than the current version, but the current version looks to be a stellar nomination to me.

I do not believe this guy is another Justice Roberts.

After reviewing the responses of the left (exploding heads, etc) I can see this is a very good pick. Should be an interesting confirmation process. I'm betting that there will be enough Democrats (especially those in areas President Trump won big) voting yes to achieve the 60 mark. The majority Senate should quickly ensure that Judge Gorsuch gets a vote.

bblhd672 wrote:After reviewing the responses of the left (exploding heads, etc) I can see this is a very good pick. Should be an interesting confirmation process. I'm betting that there will be enough Democrats (especially those in areas President Trump won big) voting yes to achieve the 60 mark. The majority Senate should quickly ensure that Judge Gorsuch gets a vote.

I really, really hope you're right and that it's a straight-up 60-vote confirmation, without use of the nuclear option. There will certainly be screaming, wailing, and (love the term) exploding heads, but at the end of the day I hope the guy is just too good to not garner a few democrats' votes.

Schumer, Pelosi, et al. will only ratchet up the screaming, wailing, and exploding even more after a nuclear option deployment; new fuel on a divisive fire. They will never shut up, but a straight-up 60-vote confirmation might take some wind out of the sails and shock them into silence for at least a few hours while they figure out their partisan and small-minded agenda is in bigger trouble than they thought.

A quick aside. I simply can't look at Chuck Schumer without, first, thinking of his gun control agenda and being in the back pocket of the Soros/Bloomberg camps, but then secondly because of his smirky handling of a retired Space Shuttle being awarded to New York (because of course New York has had so much to do with space exploration, and because so many memorable words spoken by astronauts in space began with "New York") when no shuttle was to be kept at the Johnson Space Center in Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leNsvK9V8PA

There are a number of democrats I could stand seeing in party leadership roles. But two of the three who most turn my stomach are Schumer and Pelosi.

Sorry, Had to get that off my chest. Back on topic....

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote: You are not disputing the other seven items I mentioned so I guess we are mostly in agreement! Yikes.

Just like your washed up ex-President, who could not keep his mouth shut the customary year, but had to start flapping his gums after only 10 days, you appear to live in a fantasy world where real change is something unimaginable. I simply will not waste my time responding to every one of your specious, silly points.

Hey, wait, I did find something we agree on:

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp [my original point]

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote: You are not disputing the other seven items I mentioned so I guess we are mostly in agreement! Yikes.

Just like your washed up ex-President, who could not keep his mouth shut the customary year, but had to start flapping his gums after only 10 days, you appear to live in a fantasy world where real change is something unimaginable. I simply will not waste my time responding to every one of your specious, silly points.

Hey, wait, I did find something we agree on:

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp [my original point]

Slow and inaccurate has been the norm for the last 8 years.