BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > Homesteading > Homesteading

Homesteading Talk or ask questions about homesteading in general, your homestead, or any other related topic.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:08 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
It's ironic that liberals, who generally want to micromanage our lives with regulations, also tend to favor freedom of choice in dying, while conservatives want the govt out of our lives, except when it comes to our bedrooms. The problem with legalizing assisted suicide is in the details: who determines what conditions will be covered and when? The poor guy who is suffering with the excruciating pain of end-stage pancreatic cancer and is not expected to live more than a month is a no-brainer. But what about the 13 y/o junior hi valley girl who is sooo unhappy because she doesn't have blue eyes? I'm being facetious with that example, but you get the picture.

I still maintain that physicians are prevented from doing the right thing, which will vary on a case by case basis by govt rules and the courts. Six times more money is doled out by medicare on the last year of life than on other yrs, and 40% of that is spent on the last month of life-- often, if not usually, when the outcome is obvious. If the lawyers weren't giving pts & their families unreasonable expectations, much of that money could be saved, and the suffering of prolonging a death avoided.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99304153281506
"Conservatives" seem to be obsessed with my uterus. And when it comes to health care spending in the last year of life, I believe it was the ever-so-intellectual Palin who jumped on the "death panel" band wagon. Religious institutions also like to stick their noses into the health care decisions of others.

Honestly, we should encourage cigarette smoking. While health care costs are incurred, it saves mega-bucks when it comes to social security and medicare.
__________________
The 1950s are a dust bin in history - good riddance. Those who cannot change are doomed to perish - good riddance. White have always been a minority and are shrinking every day.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-27-2016, 04:31 PM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 837
Default

Doc anytime the government gets involved in ANYTHING the cost goes up ten fold and the value decrease ten fold at least. Always has, always will!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-30-2016, 11:44 AM
Mesquite_Bean's Avatar
Mesquite_Bean Mesquite_Bean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Zone 8
Posts: 272
Default

We do not have insurance. My dh could get it through work but after premiums and deductibles it is anything but affordable. We belong to a healthcare sharing group and therefore are exempt from the "tax" and penalties.

The way it works is we pay anything under $300 out of our pocket. Anything over goes into a pool and is divided among the members to be paid. It costs $380 a month (we're a family of 12). In the 4 years we've been with them it has covered two pregnancies, an appendectomy, and most recently, a heart attack.

We belong to Samartian Ministries but there are other groups. They each have their own guidelines. Doing a search for "healthcare sharing" should list the other groups.

HTH
__________________
~Bean
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-30-2016, 10:26 PM
CountryGuy's Avatar
CountryGuy CountryGuy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Central PA
Posts: 335
Default

This seems like good timing to see this thread.

I'm in the position to be looking at taking a new job and thought it'd be a no brainer until I got sent the benefits package to review. My current employer has always told us about how much they pay to our benefits package to keep our costs down and overages up. A few years ago they'd switched our provider which was a bit of a pain at first going from BCBS, but they said they had to to keep things down as BCBS wanted crazy high rate hikes. Even with switching providers the company absorbed a massive increase so they could keep our coverage costs about the same. My employer still took over a 1 million dollar per year hit to keep us with a very small increase. Conversely, BCBS was going to be a $3 million jump with coverage cut to less than half of what we had.

Anyway just found out we're going back to BCBS who happens to be who this new prospect company (a fortune 200 company) has. However to keep the family coverage which we currently pay around $580/ mo for med, dental & vision with a $500 deductible; cost would jump to around $1,250/ month with a $2,600 deductible. Not to mention coinsurance out of pocket jumps from like $8k to $18k. Lots of things currently in preventative coverage goes away or drops a bunch.

Makes thngs difficult when trying to add up the pluses and minuses and also leaves me wondering what the new potential employer might jump rates to next year...

Any ideas on how to try to weigh out the hit to the pocket for different coverage in order to try to get more out in way of salary?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-31-2016, 10:48 AM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
Posts: 1,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesquite_Bean View Post
We do not have insurance. My dh could get it through work but after premiums and deductibles it is anything but affordable. We belong to a healthcare sharing group divided among the members to be paid.

HTH
All insurance is basically a "healthcare cost sharing group."...the larger the group, theoretically, the lower the premiums because the more rare, unusually large cost cases are diluted by the total membership: that's the one thing a single party pay system has going for it....again, the problem with the govt handling it is the inherent wastefulness of a govt bureaucracy.

BTW--why should normal pregnancy (ie- uncomplicated) be covered by health insurance? It's a VOLUNTARY condition! That's like having your car insurance covering the cost of a new car anytime you want one.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-31-2016, 10:56 AM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
Posts: 1,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryGuy View Post

Any ideas on how to try..... to get more out in way of salary?
Yea, vote Republican for Pres, House & Senate (as much as I hate single party control).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-31-2016, 06:38 PM
Mesquite_Bean's Avatar
Mesquite_Bean Mesquite_Bean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Zone 8
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post

BTW--why should normal pregnancy (ie- uncomplicated) be covered by health insurance? It's a VOLUNTARY condition! That's like having your car insurance covering the cost of a new car anytime you want one.
I agree. I absolutely agree. However the system is overly complicated and broken, very broken...and it was broken long before it became affordable. (Thanks be to lawyers and, yes, insurance.)

I am the picture of health, I know my bloodtype, and genetics/birth defects aren't going to change our minds but yet I'm still required to jump through all the prenatal-care tests and hoops or otherwise I'd be neglectful should Baby not be 100% perfect.

Including prenatal care my last uncomplicated, unmedicated, "natural" hospital birth cost $7K. That was the "cash" discounted price since we are considered selfpay. (We live too far from the closest midwife. Even then it'd be upwards of $3500 for a homebirth.)

When my dad was born they had no insurance. He was delivered by the family doctor at the hospital. My grandfather wrote a check for $50 when they left. I have the "paid in full" bill. I wish it was still as easy.
__________________
~Bean
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-01-2016, 12:34 PM
ScrubbieLady ScrubbieLady is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 1,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
All insurance is basically a "healthcare cost sharing group."...the larger the group, theoretically, the lower the premiums because the more rare, unusually large cost cases are diluted by the total membership: that's the one thing a single party pay system has going for it....again, the problem with the govt handling it is the inherent wastefulness of a govt bureaucracy.

BTW--why should normal pregnancy (ie- uncomplicated) be covered by health insurance? It's a VOLUNTARY condition! That's like having your car insurance covering the cost of a new car anytime you want one.
In that case, then a heart patient who smokes or doesn't eat or exercise right, etc. should NOT have coverage if they have a heart attack because their VOLUNTARY actions lead to such.

Why should I be required to have maternity benefits? I am way past that point in my life but Obamacare requires it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-02-2016, 10:35 AM
Setanta Male Setanta is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 862
Default

Same reason men are required to have pregnancy coverage, force everyone to have coverage then it distributes the cost around to everyone, those who don't need it are subsidizing those who do. same with forcing young people to be insured, people in their 20s, especially men, generally don't need insurance but older people who have been worn down by time are more likely to need it, since young people don' buy insurance the whole expense goes to those who need it, forcing the young people to pay for it subsidizes the costs paid by the older, however the prices remain high because of all the Beurocratic BS needed to shuffle things around. only the government could cut the top of a blanket off, sew it to the bottom, and claim its longer
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-02-2016, 01:44 PM
ScrubbieLady ScrubbieLady is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 1,295
Default

Agree. My question was mostly rhetorical. I do NOT agree with the government dictating which coverage I am required to have. Nor do I think that the government should dictate that insurance companies cannot offer different policies to different people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.