Impeding changes to our Health Care system

I guess this post crossed the line for super-sensitive members.

I am befuddled and bemused by the classic response...and IMO, others, should be equally offended by the BJ remark.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Where's that ignore button sparky?

Nope - HE can stop responding to me or HE can put me on ignore. I'm not going to do it. He has initiated the interaction EVERY TIME. I have only responded to him. If he doesn't engage me, there will not be a problem. If he does, apparently there will. I have already said I wouldn't start it, but I will respond.

[Happy Monkey]

You only respond to baiting, ond only by being pissy about it.

If you tried occasionally responding to the substance of posts, you might get more sympathy about the baiting.

Or you might not; the experiment might not be worth it to you.

[Happy Monkey]

No; lifetime limits are on payouts. At least, the ones eliminated by HIR.

I don't think any insurer offers lifetime limits on what you pay them, though deductibles are yearly limits, to an extent.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, most policies I've seen have lifetime limits on what the insurance companies will pay, but they are never called "out of pocket", that always referred to the insured.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You only respond to baiting, ond only by being pissy about it.

Only to a selecct group.

If you tried occasionally responding to the substance of posts, you might get more sympathy about the baiting.

See above and you can keep your sympathy. I don't want it either.

Or you might not; the experiment might not be worth it to you.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Just to be clear, I have ZERO interest in ANY interaction with Redux. Z.E.R.O. none nada zilch. He is dead to me.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Just to be clear, I have ZERO interest in ANY interaction with Redux. Z.E.R.O. none nada zilch. He is dead to me.

Zero substantive interaction perhaps. You seem to resent any suggestion to have zero actual interaction.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Zero substantive interaction perhaps. You seem to resent any suggestion to have zero actual interaction.

I will not engage him. I have made that clear, but if he is going to, I will respond. Which part of that are you not grasping. You're a bright guy, its not that complicated.

[classicman]

You are correct xob. "Out of pocket" and "lifetime limits" are two separate things.
OOP= max that the insured pays per year. Typically $5000.
LL= Maximum the insurance Co. will pay out over the lifetime of the policy or the insured. Typically $1-5 million.

One insured that I am aware of is already well over 2 million with a limit of 3. Not a good situation.

[Happy Monkey]

Lifetime limits are what has been eliminated (my latest benefits newsletter confirms this).

[classicman]

Correct, I believe... I know they are no longer written into policies. I assume they are being eliminated from all preexisting ones as well. That is part of the reason that rates will increase. The insurance companies will be on the hook forever in certain circumstances.
The companies are tryin instead to limit what they can pay on specific things instead. Theoretically there is no "Lifetime Maximum." BUT they are attempting to skirt the issue by writing limits into policies in other ways. Some of these are eliminating limiting certain procedures, treatments and/or medical supplies/items.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

The companies are tryin instead to limit what they can pay on specific things instead. Theoretically there is no "Lifetime Maximum." BUT they are attempting to skirt the issue by writing limits into policies in other ways. Some of these are eliminating limiting certain procedures, treatments and/or medical supplies/items.

That's why we can never let up and just let them do what they want.

Actually, it's why we should go to single payer, but in lieu of that it is why they should be heavily regulated.

[classicman]

Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever. Severe regulation adds inherent costs that will offset any savings. The more bureaucratic this becomes, the more it will cost.

ETA - Dumping an additional 30million people onto an already taxed system with the prior planning, training, staff and facilities is going to be very bad - for how long is the only unknown.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever.

Thank you for being honest enough to admit the over riding Socialist agenda of the liberal progressive left demoncrats. You are the first to at least stand up and state the obvious.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Single payer is the only answer with everything covered forever and everyone paying in forever. Severe regulation adds inherent costs that will offset any savings. The more bureaucratic this becomes, the more it will cost.

Another point for single payer. But we can't have that, so we're stuck with the insurance companies. And we can't let them do whatever they want just because it would be expensive to police them.