TexasCHLforum.com

Vol Texan wrote: Sure, this has been an enjoyable read, but that's where you lost my interest. I'm NOT willing to accept any socialist aspects.
Like TAM, I'm through with anyone who tries to convince me of the benefits of this travesty of a law. It's like trying to convince me that getting shot in the heart (and dying fast) is better than getting shot in the arm (and bleeding to death more slowly), because the pain is over quicker.

We've got extremes, right? Would you accept living in a country where only those could afford to pay get medical care? I'm not sure that I can accept that, especially when we're realistically looking at a medical cost situation without some form of assistance where 95% or more of the retirees won't be able to pay for medical care out of pocket because they're not muti-millionares.

So we go back to the old system. That's wealth redistribution too. It's just hidden, which seems to make it more palatable. We don't deny anyone medical care in emergency situations, so those that can't afford care go to the emergency room. You, me and the rest of the taxpayers pick up those tabs through $10 aspirins and massive inflation of costs on those that can pay. I'd wager that most emergency room visits that are incurred without insurance don't pay out... Someone is covering it... You and me.

Medicaid: It's a form of wealth redistribution. Those who have pay for have-nots. Taxpayers can't opt out.

Medicare: "Social insurance". Again, we can't opt out (at least not most of us)... We all pay in. Seems like this should be much more offensive than Obamacare, as you don't get a choice at all. I'm not allowed to manage my money effectively and provide for the costs of private health insurance when I'm older. Additionally, if I'm doing really well, I have to pay even more than everyone else!

Sure seems to me like we've already accepted the socialist aspects... and we have for decades.

Realistically, we've got to decide on two things:
1) What do we do with people who can't afford to pay for care - particularly the poor and those that are older? I say those that are older because most Americans can't afford to retire... And it's getting worse, not better.
2) We have to head-off the current and pre-Obmacare course of heath care costs. I think Obamacare is a band-aid, that is, it was designed under the theory that if healthy people pay more, sick people won't have to pay as much... Course, it remains to be proven that it can even work in that aspect.

The current path.. And the one before Obamacare will not sustain.

The Annoyed Man wrote:CB, because of how I do business, I file yearly like everyone else, except that for the past 5 years or so, I have filed an extension in April, and wrap it up during the first week of October.

I'm getting edumacated here.. I thought that if you ran your own business and there was no withholding, you were required to pay estimated taxes?
IE: http://www.irs.gov/irspup/Businesses/Sm ... ated-Taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Get the government out of the private sector. Get the government out of private sector regulation. The markets work. Let them.

cb1000rider wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:CB, because of how I do business, I file yearly like everyone else, except that for the past 5 years or so, I have filed an extension in April, and wrap it up during the first week of October.

I'm getting edumacated here.. I thought that if you ran your own business and there was no withholding, you were required to pay estimated taxes?
IE: http://www.irs.gov/irspup/Businesses/Sm ... ated-Taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just follow my CPA's directions. I seem to remember there being a regulatory limit.... like, if your revenue is below a certain amount, quarterly filings are not necessary, or something like that. I might not be remembering that correctly. In any case, I've been filing this way since 2008, and nobody seems to mind. So.......

G26ster wrote:I've got one for all you medical insurance experts. Say one has insurance but is limited to Doctors and hospitals in one's network. After coming down with a major disease, you find that few if any doctors or hospitals in your network are anywhere close to the best care available. So, you contact a major cancer center, who's staff is well qualified in your particular disease, but they don't take your insurance, and of course they're not in your network. So you tell them you wish to pay for a medical second opinion "out of pocket" They come back and tell you that the LAW (don't know if it's State or Federal) does not allow them to see patients who have insurance but wish to pay out of pocket! Anyone ever heard of this, and if so I'd appreciate an explanation.

So far as I know, you can pay for whatever you want out of pocket........if you can afford it. But won't likely be able to convince your insurance carrier to either reimburse you for the consultation, OR to cover you at the same rate for going out of network. If I recall correctly, my BCBS policy will cover me for out of network costs, but the copayments are higher, and the coinsurance is less favorable.

But the law does not prevent you from paying out of pocket for anything. In fact, some of the lower plan levels under Obamacare are intended to make you do exactly that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G26ster wrote:I've got one for all you medical insurance experts. Say one has insurance but is limited to Doctors and hospitals in one's network. After coming down with a major disease, you find that few if any doctors or hospitals in your network are anywhere close to the best care available. So, you contact a major cancer center, who's staff is well qualified in your particular disease, but they don't take your insurance, and of course they're not in your network. So you tell them you wish to pay for a medical second opinion "out of pocket" They come back and tell you that the LAW (don't know if it's State or Federal) does not allow them to see patients who have insurance but wish to pay out of pocket! Anyone ever heard of this, and if so I'd appreciate an explanation.

So far as I know, you can pay for whatever you want out of pocket........if you can afford it. But won't likely be able to convince your insurance carrier to either reimburse you for the consultation, OR to cover you at the same rate for going out of network. If I recall correctly, my BCBS policy will cover me for out of network costs, but the copayments are higher, and the coinsurance is less favorable.

But the law does not prevent you from paying out of pocket for anything. In fact, some of the lower plan levels under Obamacare are intended to make you do exactly that.

I called UT Southwestern Hospital in Dallas and told them they were not in my network, and did not accept my insurance, and I would pay out of pocket. I was told that was unlawful for them to accept out of pocket payment for a person with insurance. Maybe it's a Medicare Advantage thing, but I don't see why or how that could be. I don't see why they would turn away money and lie about it being unlawful by state law (I believe they said "state"). Makes no sense.

Yea, I'd like to know the details on that.. it makes absolutely no sense.