Reality check: medical expenses

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Last month, my 74 year old mom (don't tell her I know her true age and told others....she'll kill me!) had a medical emergency where she had to be taken to the local hospital by ambulance. The cause was a flare up of a condition by which she's suffered before and is being treated.

Anyway, she spent a total of 1 week in the hospital.....from about 3 hours in the emergency room where she was tested, diagnosed, given a small blood transfusion (2 units), stablilized, being moved to a bed where she shared a room with another patient, various tests, vists/consultations/diagnosis/treatment by her doctors, nurses....fed 3 meals daily for 4 days...and then sent home with a clean bill. She's doing great, back to her normal routine.

The total cost from the hospital: $27,000.....NOT including the ambulance!

Fortunately, my Mom has a hospital insurance; she also shares my Dad's GHI and she has medicare and even with that she sometimes in the past had to shell out $1-200 bucks out of pocket. Now my parents (both retired) are on a fixed income, so her Soc. Sec. would be paired down $200 every time she's hospitalized (which, thank God, has been only 4 times in the last 13 years).

I can only imagine what her out of pocket expenses would be if Sen. Ryan has his way with her Soc Sec and Medicare! You've got to wonder what type of deal a private insurance company replacing medicare is going to give a 74 year old with a condition that may flare up....you've got to wonder what would have happened to her Soc Sec if it were privatized and gambled on Wall St. in the last 13 years!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Last month, my 74 year old mom (don't tell her I know her true age and told others....she'll kill me!) had a medical emergency where she had to be taken to the local hospital by ambulance. The cause was a flare up of a condition by which she's suffered before and is being treated.

Anyway, she spent a total of 1 week in the hospital.....from about 3 hours in the emergency room where she was tested, diagnosed, given a small blood transfusion (2 units), stablilized, being moved to a bed where she shared a room with another patient, various tests, vists/consultations/diagnosis/treatment by her doctors, nurses....fed 3 meals daily for 4 days...and then sent home with a clean bill. She's doing great, back to her normal routine.

The total cost from the hospital: $27,000.....NOT including the ambulance!

Fortunately, my Mom has a hospital insurance; she also shares my Dad's GHI and she has medicare and even with that she sometimes in the past had to shell out $1-200 bucks out of pocket. Now my parents (both retired) are on a fixed income, so her Soc. Sec. would be paired down $200 every time she's hospitalized (which, thank God, has been only 4 times in the last 13 years).

I can only imagine what her out of pocket expenses would be if Sen. Ryan has his way with her Soc Sec and Medicare! You've got to wonder what type of deal a private insurance company replacing medicare is going to give a 74 year old with a condition that may flare up....you've got to wonder what would have happened to her Soc Sec if it were privatized and gambled on Wall St. in the last 13 years!
Click to expand...

No, you really DON'T have to wonder about Ryan's plan... since it doesn't touch benefits of anyone over 55... Your Mom is well over 55.

You also don't have to wonder about how her social security would have fared had it been invested over the past 60 years in the market, it would be a considerably larger amount than she has available now through social security, and it would belong to her and not the government.

What we DO have to wonder about, is idiots like you, who are willing to bury your head in the sand, or worse yet, wage an all-out political war against people who are trying desperately to save the Social Security system for future generations.
 
Dixie said:
No, you really DON'T have to wonder about Ryan's plan... since it doesn't touch benefits of anyone over 55... Your Mom is well over 55.

You also don't have to wonder about how her social security would have fared had it been invested over the past 60 years in the market, it would be a considerably larger amount than she has available now through social security, and it would belong to her and not the government.

What we I always wonder who is this "we" our Dixie dumbass keeps referring to. Is it the mental midgets like Bravo, Yurt, LoyalEnd, SuperFreak, Damned Yankee, etc.? If so, no big whoop. DO have to wonder about, is idiots like you, who are willing to bury your head in the sand, or worse yet, wage an all-out political war against people who are trying desperately to save the Social Security system for future generations.
Click to expand...

Earth to the Dixie Dunce; I pointing out that if Ryan's plan were in effect today, My mom would be in dire straights. Reality check:
Ryan’s proposal would change Medicare so that beneficiaries would get a so-called "premium-support payment” to help purchase private insurance, instead of being on the current fee-for-service system. In 2022, the average payment would be $8,000 for those age 65. The payment amount would increase based on the age of the recipient and the consumer price index for urban consumers, or CPI-U. But the "premium-support payments" wouldn’t keep pace with growing health care costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office, meaning that many Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay a larger percentage of their coverage as costs increase. CBO projected that under Ryan’s plan, the government would pay 39 percent of the cost of a private insurance plan in 2022 and 32 percent in 2030.

So, while the government’s contribution for insurance for members of Congress stays basically the same, proportionally, the contribution would actually decline over time for future Medicare beneficiaries. And the percentage the government would pay for seniors is also much lower than what the government pays for federal employees.http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/ryans-muddy-medicare-claims/

Also, my Dixie Dunce, your supposition and conjecture about Soc Sec overlooks the FACT that had it been part of the Wall St. roulette wheel in the last ten years, my mom's Soc Sec would have been down the toilet....similar to the retirement investments of the people who trusted Enron. But again, reality trumps neocon wishful thinking. Observe and learn, you Dixie dumbass:

Social Security Privatization

Ryan’s Assertion : Ryan disputes our statement that his plan would partially privatize Social Security. He says his new system of Social Security individual accounts would not be “private” because it would be overseen by a government board.

Our Response : What makes these accounts private is their ownership, not their oversight or management. Ryan’s response itself states that “the accounts are owned by the individual.” In their management and ownership, these accounts would be similar to what President Bush proposed in 2005, and there was no dispute at the time that they should be considered “private.” Indeed, that’s what their proponents were touting.

General Revenue Transfers to Social Security

Ryan’s Assertion : Ryan disputes our statement that his plan would require $4.9 trillion in general revenue transfers to the Social Security system.

Our Response : As we carefully explained in our paper of March 10, the $4.9-trillion figure was an estimate that the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary released on an earlier (2008) version of Ryan’s plan, taking stock-market risk into account. According to the actuary’s analysis of the current version of Ryan’s proposal, which was released on April 27, the plan would require general revenue transfers totaling $1.2 trillion between 2037 and 2056, and those transfers would not be fully repaid until 2083.

Cost of the Social Security Guarantee

Ryan’s Assertion : Ryan challenges our statement that his requirement that the Treasury bail out private-account holders for stock-market losses could cost $2.9 trillion and that this cost is not reflected in the CBO report on his plan. He claims that CBO explicitly estimated this cost and included it in its projections of his plan.

Our Response : The $2.9 trillion figure now appears to be substantially too high. As stated in our report of March 10, it was the estimate of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration based on an earlier version of Rep. Ryan’s plan. Ryan has significantly scaled back his proposed guarantee compared to the 2008 version of his proposal, making the accounts less risky for the government and more risky for their owners. The actuary’s new analysis of the current version of the Ryan plan estimates that the revised guarantee would cost only $60 billion.

Our description of the CBO cost estimate remains accurate. We wrote, “These potential bailout costs — like the cost of the plan’s very large tax cuts — are not reflected in the CBO estimates that Rep. Ryan cites when touting the plan’s fiscal responsibility.” We confirmed the accuracy of this statement with CBO before issuing our report. CBO conducted separate analyses of the proposed benefit guarantee, but CBO’s budget estimates reported in Appendix II of the Ryan plan do not include the cost of the guarantee.

Reductions in Social Security Benefits

Ryan’s Assertion : Ryan lists as another “error or misleading statement” our statement that his plan “would cut traditional guaranteed Social Security benefits substantially compared to the benefits now scheduled to be paid.”

Our Response : In fact, Ryan does not dispute our contention that his proposals to alter the indexing of Social Security benefits and raise the full retirement age would cut benefits for the average retiree compared to current law. He correctly notes that his plan contains a modest benefit increase for some very low earners and that currently scheduled taxes are not permanently sufficient to finance scheduled benefits. But these points in no way contradict what we wrote. Our report made the point that his plan would provide massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans even as it cut Social Security benefits for average workers.

http://centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3119
 
Taichiliberal said:
Last month, my 74 year old mom (don't tell her I know her true age and told others....she'll kill me!) had a medical emergency where she had to be taken to the local hospital by ambulance. The cause was a flare up of a condition by which she's suffered before and is being treated.

Anyway, she spent a total of 1 week in the hospital.....from about 3 hours in the emergency room where she was tested, diagnosed, given a small blood transfusion (2 units), stablilized, being moved to a bed where she shared a room with another patient, various tests, vists/consultations/diagnosis/treatment by her doctors, nurses....fed 3 meals daily for 4 days...and then sent home with a clean bill. She's doing great, back to her normal routine.

The total cost from the hospital: $27,000.....NOT including the ambulance!

Fortunately, my Mom has a hospital insurance; she also shares my Dad's GHI and she has medicare and even with that she sometimes in the past had to shell out $1-200 bucks out of pocket. Now my parents (both retired) are on a fixed income, so her Soc. Sec. would be paired down $200 every time she's hospitalized (which, thank God, has been only 4 times in the last 13 years).

I can only imagine what her out of pocket expenses would be if Sen. Ryan has his way with her Soc Sec and Medicare! You've got to wonder what type of deal a private insurance company replacing medicare is going to give a 74 year old with a condition that may flare up....you've got to wonder what would have happened to her Soc Sec if it were privatized and gambled on Wall St. in the last 13 years!
Click to expand...

People like Ryan and others on this board have forgotten the history of why Medicare/Medicaid program was created in the first place. In the 1950's employers started covering employees health insurance, as part of their compensation, with private insurers. Since the elderly and retired were outside the scope of these employer plans rates for the elderly sky rocketed to completely unafordable levels for elderly individuals on fixed incomes. Thus in the 1960's the medicare-medicaid program was created to mitigate these costs for the elderly and to assure that health care would be available for them at the time in their life that they need it most.
 
Dixie said:
No, you really DON'T have to wonder about Ryan's plan... since it doesn't touch benefits of anyone over 55... Your Mom is well over 55.

You also don't have to wonder about how her social security would have fared had it been invested over the past 60 years in the market, it would be a considerably larger amount than she has available now through social security, and it would belong to her and not the government.

What we DO have to wonder about, is idiots like you, who are willing to bury your head in the sand, or worse yet, wage an all-out political war against people who are trying desperately to save the Social Security system for future generations.
Click to expand...

Like Fuck Dixie. Those benefits would have been reduced to $1.36 when Bank One and Lehman Brothers gambled them away on credit default swaps and other high risk derivative. If there's anyone I trust less, by far, then a Washington Beaurocrat it's a Wall Street Banker.

What you and Ryan are advocating (along with all the fools who want to privatize SS) is half a step away from giving my benefit money to Willie Sutton to invest. How stupid can you get?
 
Dixie said:
No, you really DON'T have to wonder about Ryan's plan... since it doesn't touch benefits of anyone over 55... Your Mom is well over 55.

You also don't have to wonder about how her social security would have fared had it been invested over the past 60 years in the market, it would be a considerably larger amount than she has available now through social security, and it would belong to her and not the government.

What we DO have to wonder about, is idiots like you, who are willing to bury your head in the sand, or worse yet, wage an all-out political war against people who are trying desperately to save the Social Security system for future generations.
Click to expand...

Social Security needs another 5% in cuts or tax raises a year to stay solvent. Not that big a deal.
 
Paul Ryan's plan has no chance in hell of passing. I doubt he could even get it through a fully Republican government. It's a waste of time for him to propose it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Earth to the Dixie Dunce; I pointing out that if Ryan's plan were in effect today, My mom would be in dire straights. Reality check:
Click to expand...

No she wouldn't... she is well over 55, and the Ryan plan only effects people who are UNDER 55! If it were in effect today, it wouldn't effect your mother because it wouldn't apply to your mother, because your mother is over 55! You can type it really big or really small, it doesn't matter... your mom is over 55, and the Ryan plan doesn't apply to anyone who is over 55... that's a FACT!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Like Fuck Dixie. Those benefits would have been reduced to $1.36 when Bank One and Lehman Brothers gambled them away on credit default swaps and other high risk derivative. If there's anyone I trust less, by far, then a Washington Beaurocrat it's a Wall Street Banker.

What you and Ryan are advocating (along with all the fools who want to privatize SS) is half a step away from giving my benefit money to Willie Sutton to invest. How stupid can you get?
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry MottBrain... not true! ANY diversified stock portfolio, over the past 60 years, shows a positive return, no money lost over time, and significantly GREATER returns than any "investment" one would have made into the nearly bankrupt Social Security system. No one has proposed we just let people willy-nilly gamble away their retirements on shaky investments... you want to paint that picture to be bombastic and extreme, but it's silly and ridiculous, let's have an adult conversation, shall we? Aren't you MUCH better off with an individual retirement account (belongs to you) than some nearly-broke "program" to give you aid from the government when you get old? I'd rather have tangible assets myself... I can borrow money against my balance... I can pass it on to my kids when I die... I can know that I am going to have enough money to live on until I die... I don't have to worry about politicians spending my personal retirement account, they don't have access to it!


Sorry, I like MY idea better than yours.... and I think, most Americans probably do as well.... save for those over 55, who aren't going to be effected anyway!
 
In Vancouver, B.C. she may have been asked to wait in the lobby for two hours while they looked for a spare hospital bed. After two hours, they'll report that no beds are available, and that she'll have to drive twenty miles to another hospital. By the time she receives medical attention, they'll inform her that had treatment been delayed another half an hour, she would have died. This happened to a close friend of mine who had internal bleeding.

The advantages of single-payer: free at the point of delivery, portability.

The disadvantages of single-payer: rationing of services due to cost controls, no financial stake in keeping the patient alive.
 
Topspin said:
it should all be free, wtf
If I get hungry, wouldn't it be ashame if uncle sam didn't feed me.
Click to expand...

WTF is your problem? How many homeless people do you know that are carrying medicare cards? I am SO fucking tired of this BS being shoveled by people who are deluded to thinking that they are an island and never needed the federal gov't in their lives. Hell, when the Constitution has that part about "general welfare", they're talking about giving the average American citizen at least some shot without just sweeping them into the gutter if they don't pass a certain test, or get fired/laid off or just get too old or sick. What we have now is far from perfect....what Ryan and his ideological cohorts are proposing would make it worse.
 
King of Gods said:
In Vancouver, B.C. she may have been asked to wait in the lobby for two hours while they looked for a spare hospital bed. After two hours, they'll report that no beds are available, and that she'll have to drive twenty miles to another hospital. By the time she receives medical attention, they'll inform her that had treatment been delayed another half an hour, she would have died. This happened to a close friend of mine who had internal bleeding.

The advantages of single-payer: free at the point of delivery, portability.

The disadvantages of single-payer: rationing of services due to cost controls, no financial stake in keeping the patient alive.
Click to expand...

I've known several Canadians of various economic stature in my lifetime....NONE of them have stated what you do here. Mind you, they didn't say the system was perfect, but what YOU describe here is the EXCEPTION, and NOT the rule....as Canada is a BIG place with many hospitals.

FYI, there have been times over the years where my Mom was doing the 3 hour waiting stint...and then there were some issues regarding her treatment and such that would curl your hair....times when she would have died if not for the vigilence and research capabilities of my brothers and I to combat the bureaucracy. And THAT was with insurance......people without it go through the ringer.

So spare me the bullshit lies, supposition and conjecture about single payer, because the alternative offered by the neocon GOP is just letting the assholes in medical insurance companies who have screwed people in the past (Just ask Wendell Potter and Dr. Peeno) have free reign to compete and police themselves 2 fold.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Earth to the Dixie Dunce; I pointing out that if Ryan's plan were in effect today, My mom would be in dire straights. Reality check:
Click to expand...

No she wouldn't... she is well over 55, and the Ryan plan only effects people who are UNDER 55! If it were in effect today, it wouldn't effect your mother because it wouldn't apply to your mother, because your mother is over 55! You can type it really big or really small, it doesn't matter... your mom is over 55, and the Ryan plan doesn't apply to anyone who is over 55... that's a FACT!
Click to expand...

I would like to see the Dixie Dunce actually print the part of Ryan's proposal that explains EXACTLY what the Dixie Dunce is asserting here. Meanwhile, here are MORE FACTS that show what a toadie the Dixie Dunce is:

Ryan’s proposal would change Medicare so that beneficiaries would get a so-called "premium-support payment” to help purchase private insurance, instead of being on the current fee-for-service system. In 2022, the average payment would be $8,000 for those age 65. The payment amount would increase based on the age of the recipient and the consumer price index for urban consumers, or CPI-U. But the "premium-support payments" wouldn’t keep pace with growing health care costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office, meaning that many Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay a larger percentage of their coverage as costs increase. CBO projected that under Ryan’s plan, the government would pay 39 percent of the cost of a private insurance plan in 2022 and 32 percent in 2030.




Seniors would pay more for two reasons. First, the Ryan plan forces future beneficiaries out of the traditional Medicare plan into a more expensive private plan. In 2022 65-year-olds would be forced to pay twice as much for care than they would under Medicare: $12,500 compared to $6,150. The same holds true for 65-year-olds in 2030. They would be forced to pay $20,713 compared to $9,138 under Medicare (see graph).



Second, the House Republican plan forces seniors to pay a larger share of their health costs over time since the value of the voucher in the House Republican budget plan increases at a slower rate than medical costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Ryan proposal calls for 65-year-olds to contribute $12,513 of the estimated $20,513 total cost of their health care in 2022, including premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, or 61 percent. They are expected to pay $20,713 of the $30,460 in total costs in 2030, or 68 percent .

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ryan_medicare.html

So, while the government’s contribution for insurance for members of Congress stays basically the same, proportionally, the contribution would actually decline over time for future Medicare beneficiaries. And the percentage the government would pay for seniors is also much lower than what the government pays for federal employees.http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/rya...dicare-claims/
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople
Like Fuck Dixie. Those benefits would have been reduced to $1.36 when Bank One and Lehman Brothers gambled them away on credit default swaps and other high risk derivative. If there's anyone I trust less, by far, then a Washington Beaurocrat it's a Wall Street Banker.

What you and Ryan are advocating (along with all the fools who want to privatize SS) is half a step away from giving my benefit money to Willie Sutton to invest. How stupid can you get?
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry MottBrain... not true! ANY diversified stock portfolio, over the past 60 years, shows a positive return, no money lost over time, and significantly GREATER returns than any "investment" one would have made into the nearly bankrupt Social Security system. No one has proposed we just let people willy-nilly gamble away their retirements on shaky investments... you want to paint that picture to be bombastic and extreme, but it's silly and ridiculous, let's have an adult conversation, shall we? Aren't you MUCH better off with an individual retirement account (belongs to you) than some nearly-broke "program" to give you aid from the government when you get old? I'd rather have tangible assets myself... I can borrow money against my balance... I can pass it on to my kids when I die... I can know that I am going to have enough money to live on until I die... I don't have to worry about politicians spending my personal retirement account, they don't have access to it!


Sorry, I like MY idea better than yours.... and I think, most Americans probably do as well.... save for those over 55, who aren't going to be effected anyway!
Click to expand...


Evidently folks, our Dixie Dunce was asleep during the S&L scandal, or what went down with Enron, or the more recent Wall St. debacle. Thousands of thousands of Americans SCREWED as their "diversified portfolios" went down the drain, their IRA's shot to hell. Funny that only FDIC was a major save for some banks and their accounts.

Fucking neocon toadies and corporatists wonks.....so long as their flabby asses are okay, screw everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top