search results matching tag: uninsured
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (15) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (6) | Comments (181) |
Videos (15) | Sift Talk (3) | Blogs (6) | Comments (181) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
bobknight33 (Member Profile)
The fourth major insurance company (Farmers) is leaving Florida, with 6 medium sized companies going under in the state in the last year…all because of that non existent global warming that isn’t happening and the costs that therefore aren’t involved. Many others have stopped selling new policies.
DeSantis blames wokeness….so I guess capitalism is woke now. Enjoy being a communist. The biggest insurance company in the state are now the socialist government policy writers. 😂
Good thing it’s all a hoax…you can buy cheap uninsurable oceanfront land and retire. Go all in, it’s the only way to invest.
Meanwhile ocean temperatures right before hurricane season are in the mid 90’s…but that won’t cause more hurricanes or sargassum because it’s not real…hoax hoax hoax! 🤦♂️
bobknight33 (Member Profile)
I am certain. Science doesn't lie, and I don't have to take someone's word, I can examine data, understand chemistry, and see short and long term trends. The data is undeniable, the only thing wrong with what the media tells you is they paint FAR too rosy a picture. You would think, based on media reports, that if we did stay at only 1.5C above pre industrial levels all is fine, that's nonsense. Truth is 1.5C is where they theorized we lose all control and skyrocket up from there to....nobody knows where, but hot. I think we are on track to 1.5C before 2030, and the feedback loops are already kicking in now. Does that mean we die in 2030? No, but it means our collective fate is sealed and completely out of our control.
I do plant trees, I already have solar, I drive well under 4000 miles a year, in fact I haven't driven anywhere but the grocery store in the wife's car in over 6 month when my car broke, and I don't miss it, I don't have AC, and yes, I need to get on my bike more, for my weight and blood pressure. My money IS where my mouth is, and I still was willing to put it on the line....you aren't.
A big difference is, if somehow I am wrong, what I do is still proper, cleaner, safer, and actually cheaper. Your ideas and ideals lead to detrimental, polluting, dangerous, and more expensive actions and processes even if miraculously they don't lead to our extinction this century.
Are you snatching up cheap uninsurable coastline in Florida and Louisiana? Are you selling off your water rights because they're a dime a dozen? Are you short selling produce and grains on margin? Are you doing anything to risk your money based on what you say?
Your turn.
Edit: I don't do mobs. I prefer people who think for themselves.
That's not the deal.
If you are SOOOOOOOOOOO certain.
Start planting trees, turn off your electric, abandon your cars, turn off you AC and start peddling.
I don't see much action from those who "believe".
Mount up a mob and start planting.
joe scarborough on wednesday jan 6 2021 maga riot
So sorry, the dozens of Molotov cocktails confiscated indicate that wasn't by choice. Neither was the no explosions bit, but the bombs they planted were found and disarmed before they went off.
I guess the dead policeman and 60 injured police are a nothing burger, right?
I guess the stolen classified documents don't matter, and neither do the stolen classified laptops containing state secrets?
The millions in uninsured damages, fugetaboutit.
The hunting of representatives to lynch them, not an issue.
The attempted coup, ignore that.
🤦♂️
There wasn't even any fires burning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1mxJMIIMuE
simonm (Member Profile)
Your video, Trumpcare, 22 Million More Uninsured: A Closer Look, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 5 Badge!
AHCA: A Republican Response to The Affordable Care Act
Yep, better protect the wealthy, they've had it so bad lately, and the poor are just handed everything for doing nothing.
Also, better end family planning services, because we want more, more dangerous abortions to happen, but must be certain we don't pay a penny of public funds for them.
So far, their plan seems certain to raise costs for everyone while making about 10000000 people uninsured and returning to insane hospital costs to cover the uninsured who can't pay and 6+ hour emergency room wait times.
Doesn't anyone notice that tiny Cuba, with no money, has some of the best medical care in the world for free? If they can do it, why does the right think America is incapable? We aren't as smart as Cubans? We shouldn't be as healthy as Cubans? What?
Obamacare in Trump Country
Um, deductibles are way up from 100%? The uninsured had a 100% deductible, the insured had a steadily rising deductible before the ACA. It's true, cost and deductible have gone up....just as they have since the insurance industry began.
The true fix is single payer, where you remove the useless insurance industry that does nothing but raise cost and get in the way of treatment (all the talk of death panels back in the day, what do you think insurance adjusters that deny treatment are?). Without the insurance industry we instantly save 10-20% on healthcare, remove numerous roadblocks to treatment, and offer everyone good healthcare, saving more by keeping people healthier. Yes, some people's taxes would rise, others not, but overall it would be a HUGE savings that only costs us red tape.
Cheep for the poor and not that affordable for for what you get. Not to mention deductibles are way higher under the current plan.
I don't know the true fix but this current plan is not working.
Obamacare in Trump Country
Trump said he will "repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing".
These people bought into that. The average sifter (myself included) did not.
However, as someone who wants to see health care improve in the US, I think that a Trump presidency is likely to lead to things getting better (long term). Even if he massively screws up. Actually, sorta especially if he massively screws up.
These people had deductibles in the multiple thousands of dollars range. With a median family income of $16k per year. According to CNN, the premium for the standard package will be $296 per month on average. So for the people in the video, they'd pay about 20-25% of their yearly income on premiums, with another 12-15% out of pocket before they hit their deductible for any needed care. Sure, some insurance is better than no insurance, but these people have been living dangerously with no insurance for a LONG time. Thirty plus percent of your yearly wages vs rolling the dice? A bunch are gonna roll the dice.
So, option A -- a miracle occurs, and Trump actually follows through and replaces Obamacare with something that actually is better. My money isn't on this one, but if he pulls it off more power to him.
Option B -- the people in the video are right, and Trump and the GOP will lose interest in actually repealing the ACA when they realize that they are going to have a hard time actually making something better. I don't think this one is likely either, because I don't think they really give a shit. But you never know. This one would represent a slow stagnation and likely eventual death for the ACA (without any intervention in 2018 or 2020) as more and more people decide to roll the dice and go back to living uninsured.
Option C -- whatever "plan" Trump and the Republican Congress come up for to "replace" the ACA with is a trainwreck. The people in the video that did benefit from the ACA get screwed, at least short term. But the thing is ... "fool me once". Some of them would be pissed, and wouldn't forget. Some would blame Trump and the GOP. Some would remember Trump's answer to Kathy in the video -- that the ACA isn't perfect, but it could be improved. But that her Senator (a Republican) isn't talking about doing that, he's talking about dumping it.
Maybe a bunch of people get fooled again, and eat up whatever excuses Trump, the GOP, and Fox News feed them. But some will remember. And it doesn't take a whole lot to shift the balance of power -- popular vote totals are often just a few percentage points apart. I think it will be extremely hard for the GOP to avoid a major shakeup in midterms and/or 2020.
Rigging the Election - Video II: Mass Voter Fraud
Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!
Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.
Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.
Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.
You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.
So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.
Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.
Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/
If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.
Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.
Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.
I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.
BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.
Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png
More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.
These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.
Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.
REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.
That's not substantial?!?!
Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.
Democrats Don't back down. Republicans are.
Obamacare is a fucking disaster and need to be scrapped.
My sisters premiums went from 400 to 1500$/month and she was forced onto medicade because of this.
My brothers went from 250$ to 600/month.
Both are single without kids.
My CEO work for for OBAMA and got a setaside from this disaster. My rates have stayed nearly the same.
Its purpose was to lower rates and cover everyone. Nether of this occurred.
You want a known crook with a 40 years of scandal after scandal. She has yet to create anything positively substantial of all her years of service. Even her / husbands charity is fraught with scandal.
You are a stupid fool to even consider such a person.
Even the Mafia looks up to the Clintons and wonder in amazement of how to get away with all the shit they do.
If Insurance Companies Were Honest
He didn't even get into uninsured motorist coverage. Let me pay even more to cover the criminal's cost!
Deray McKesson: Eloquent, Focused Smackdown of Wolf Blitzer
Despite that he can understand it without condoning it, he shouldn't refuse or be incapable of actually stating that he doesn't condone it.
Sure he's articulate, though I don't know why he should be praised for that (it seems kind of insulting to me; he shouldn't be expected to be articulate because he's a black man taking up a black cause?), but he's also being a politician, dancing around on the fence.
Regardless, I would have no problem admitting I would condone rioters causing property damage as long as 1) it's the only way their voice will actually be heard and cause change, and, more importantly, 2) NO INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFER as a result of their rioting.
If they physically injure people or put small business owner's out of business or cause uninsured motorists to lose their transportation to work or pull truck drivers out of big rigs to smash their heads with bricks, then fuck them.
Is Obamacare Working?
EDIT: I answered my own question about this. Apparently "US Citizens Living Abroad" is one of the exemptions to the mandate/rule. So nevermind the below.
As a US citizen living outside the US, one thing that concerns me is the health care / insurance mandate and penalties.
I live in Thailand, and have health insurance through the nearly-universal Thai healthcare system because I have a job that pays in to it. On top of that, I have insurance through a private insurer based in the UK.
The Thai system is really good. A few years ago, I had something like 5 episodes of tonsillitis in one year, and my doc told me that I should consider getting a tonsillectomy. I opted to go for it, and the Thai govt. insurance paid for the entire operation except for about $30 that I had to pay myself because I opted to stay in a private, air conditioned room for a recovery night instead of the busy public ward. Other than that, it cost me absolutely nothing.
The private insurer I have is for any travel outside Thailand and backup purposes; it has a higher max payout and would allow for more optional treatments to major things. I haven't made any claims against it so far, but it is a nice safety net. The only downside to it is that it works "around the world*" (*except in the US, because that system is so f*&^ed up they wash their hands of it). So, on the rare occasions where I make a trip back home to the US, I'm technically uninsured.
Signing up for Obamacare would be pretty pointless for me. I've been in Thailand for about 10 years, and during that time I've been back to the US only twice for a sum total of about a month and a half. But technically, it seems that I may be subject to penalties since I don't have any US insurance coverage. No idea if there are exceptions for expats or not.
Red Neck trucker says NO to this blonde trying to merge...
First of all, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with that claim. Auto accidents are never fun to deal with. The goal of a good claims rep should be to do what they can to put the customer at ease and work to get the claim settled fairly and efficiently.
For the most part, the adjusters I deal with at other companies do work in good faith to settle their claims. Insurance adjusters are held to a high ethical standard. At most of the larger carriers (with some exceptions), the ethical standards are quite high. Otherwise, they would be sued right out of business.
There are certainly some bad companies out there and some bad adjusters out there. There are a few smaller companies in Texas and California that I can think of that have particularly bad practices--I'm not sure why the Texas and California DOI's haven't shut them down.
That said, the obligation of an ethical insurance adjuster is to pay what the company owes. No more, and no less. Paying less than what is owed, or stonewalling, delaying, or otherwise acting in bad faith, is certainly unethical. But it is also unethical to overpay claims--to pay out on coverages that have not been purchased, for example, or to pay more than what the claim is worth. Personal lines insurance companies operate on very slim margins. If we consistently overpay on claims, then it will come back to our customers in the form of higher premiums, which could result in losing customers and perhaps the business being closed.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to Florida's Uninsured Motorist laws. They're pretty similar to the UM laws in most other states. There's not a lot of variation there. Florida is a no-fault state, so you do have to file under your Personal Injury Protection first. (Which blows. No-fault laws just make your premiums more expensive.)
Okay, if this seems angry it is because it is. My wife and kids were hit head on by a car (Who sped up to get around the car she was passing...,) in a new van we just purchased, by a lady with no insurance. In Florida we get fucked for it (Thankfully they are alright...)
So here goes. You work for a bunch of cum guzzling money grabbing fuckfaces. It is a shameful job, unappreciated because your bosses want the most money at the expense of those who have just been through a terrible, horrible ordeal.
Insurance companies donate billions to lawmakers to keep these fucking stupid laws up. Florida's You-Pay-for-Uninsured-Motorist's laws are proof-fucking positive about that. "I am responsible so fuck my asshole wide please."
And the scare tactics of god damn claims adjusters?! Holy fuck, that shit would be considered assault anywhere else. Congratulations if you are one of the rare ones that don't threaten or low-ball...
Of course your company would charge it as 50-50 (or 70-30.) They would do it in every situation they could. Because it's all about the money to those anal-warted motherfuckers.
Red Neck trucker says NO to this blonde trying to merge...
Okay, if this seems angry it is because it is. My wife and kids were hit head on by a car (Who sped up to get around the car she was passing...,) in a new van we just purchased, by a lady with no insurance. In Florida we get fucked for it (Thankfully they are alright...)
So here goes. You work for a bunch of cum guzzling money grabbing fuckfaces. It is a shameful job, unappreciated because your bosses want the most money at the expense of those who have just been through a terrible, horrible ordeal.
Insurance companies donate billions to lawmakers to keep these fucking stupid laws up. Florida's You-Pay-for-Uninsured-Motorist's laws are proof-fucking positive about that. "I am responsible so fuck my asshole wide please."
And the scare tactics of god damn claims adjusters?! Holy fuck, that shit would be considered assault anywhere else. Congratulations if you are one of the rare ones that don't threaten or low-ball...
Of course your company would charge it as 50-50 (or 70-30.) They would do it in every situation they could. Because it's all about the money to those anal-warted motherfuckers.
So, I am an auto liability adjuster. I do this for a living--I take statements from drivers and witnesses, review damage and, when it's available, I watch videos of car accidents to see where fault lies.
In this particular accident, it seems pretty obvious that both parties contributed to some degree or another. The VW's driver was obviously making an unsafe lane change. However, the trucker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and from the audio in the cab was clearly distracted by a cell phone. The truck thus contributed by failing to maintain driver attention.
So we're going to need to assess partial negligence on both driver's. So, how much will we need to assess, and what does that mean for how much each person might or might not get paid?
In terms of negligence law, Texas is a Modified Comparative state under the Not Greater Than rule. What this means is that in order to recover money from the other party, you cannot have more responsibility than they do in order to recover any money. But you can only recover the percentage that the other party is at fault. So if it's 50/50, each party gets half of their costs from the other party. If it's 51/49, one person owes the other guy 51%, but the other guy doesn't owe a dime.
In this case, 50/50 would be a likely and attractive option for the insurance companies. Both parties clearly contributed, and each party had equal opportunity to avoid the loss, so each insurance company would pay the other 50%.
The gross negligence of the driver of the pickup is such that I don't see less than 50% negligence on that driver. However, I can see the car's insurance company arguing for a higher responsibility on the truck.
When the car puts on the signal and starts moving over, there is clearly room to move over without striking the truck. The car starts moving over, and the truck starts to overtake the VW. The trucker was closing the distance with the traffic ahead. The VW appears to hit their brakes as the traffic ahead is slowing down--but the trucker doesn't, and appears to be accelerating.
Moreover, as the driver of the larger vehicle, the trucker has a greater duty to maintain driver attention and avoid accidents, as a mistake on his part has greater likelihood of causing more serious physical damage, and severe bodily injury or death.
I believe that it would be justified to put a slight majority on the truck, 60-70%. This would be my preference. So they would owe for 60-70% of the VW's damages. The trucker will have to go through his own insurance or pay out of pocket for his damages.
Milton Friedman puts a young Michael Moore in his place
Drachen, I'll help out although I'm pretty sure Payback won't understand. It will be fun to see what comes back...
A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.
...and as for the ONLY cause for bankruptcy anywhere is the inability to pay for one's debts. The white, pimple-faced burger joint fry cook driving the Hummer wouldn't ultimately benefit from a $1,000,000 gift. He'd probably go buy a $750,000 house and wonder why he's bankrupt on land taxes. The banker who lost everything making margin calls on insider trading wouldn't have that million either. The family with the child suffering from cancer might benefit, but if they bought insurance rather than continuing to smoke 3 packs a day they wouldn't need it to begin with.
I'm saying people mostly go bankrupt because of their own stupid decisions. Very few are due to outside conditions. Gifting them money is just throwing gas on the fire.
"Give a man a fish" yadda yadda yadda.
Health Care: U.S. vs. Canada
Canadian from Manitoba checking in here. Things like crutches, prescription medications, and ambulances are out of pocket expenses. Got something like diabetes? Expect to be spending a lot of money every month on drugs.
For life threatening emergencies or even broken bones and stitches our system works great for people, and no worries about going broke, you just go in anyways. Our federal and provincial taxation levels though are also much higher than in the US and a large percentage of that is spent directly on health care. I don't know what level of health insurance that amount would buy each Canadian, but it is important to remember that the Canadian healthcare system is NOT free.
I must say I do prefer the Canadian system to the American one. Largely on the basis of not seeing working class families being financially destroyed by life threatening and uninsured medical conditions.
I can't just say that though without pointing out that our Canadian system has it's own serious flaws. I know of people with back injuries putting them off work until they can get surgery, and that surgery being a waiting time for them measured in years. They flew down to the states to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket to get the surgery in weeks instead, and were financially ahead too over those two years since they could get back to work. Patients showing symptoms that might indicate major heart conditions or other illnesses who would get an immediate MRI or other expensive diagnostic in the states straight away will routinely wait months in Canada.
That is all just a long winded way to say the Canadian system is far from perfect and has very serious problems and flaws in it that are negatively impacting peoples health and financial well being too. It's no magic bullet.