|
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/08/519170657/the-affordable-care-act-medicaid-and-divorce Unfortunately, no transcript. The TL;DR is this: Under ACA, Medicaid no longer looks at assets to qualify. So more couples in Medicaid expansion states are not divorcing! What, how does that make any sense? Consider a couple in their 50s and one comes down with an incurable disease (dementia, cancer, etc). They would have to spend all of their life's savings in the vain attempt to save the spouse and only after exhausting their savings, qualify for Medicaid. The recommended financial advice was to DIVORCE, splitting those assets so one of the spouses could qualify for Medicaid. So let's go back to that. 
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Yes, sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have: You'd have to exhaust all assets before qualifying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
"Every employer plan"? What about insurance in general? How could any kind of insurance work if not for the pool of uninjured/undamaged payers "subsidizing" the injured/damaged? Is it that these people are unable to see insurance as anything but a savings account, hence accounting for their endless braying about it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Hahaha holy poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Some of the Republicans really want the ACA totally gone... Back in 2011 Obama offered a "Grand Bargain" for the budget. It included absolutely unconscionable cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in exchange for raising taxes slightly. Like if you weren't fully on board with Obama not being on the side of the working man, this pretty much set you straight. Still, Republicans would have gained a loving lot with those cuts and everything else Obama offered up. The hardcore Tea Party contingent was responsible for rejecting it on the basis of the tax increase. Like they would have gotten 95% of what they wanted (as was the norm in a typical Obama "negotiation") and they rejected it because they didn't get 100%. The same group is currently our potential saviors in rejecting the repeal-replace. They're only on board with repeal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:If they go with 2, there's still a decent chance that they can get by on whatever their godawful budget ends up being + Dems finding ways to lose again. If they go with 1 then yeah they're almost definitely boned. Making #2 a no-brainer for the GOP: Blame Democrats for not being able to pass repeal. More Dems get voted out of the midterms because of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I think in the long run, its best for the Democrats, and the country, that the bill passes, people hate it, and then it gives the Democrats room to campaign on replacing Trumpcare with Medicare for all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Costs related to other areas, such as operating room fees, hospital stay fees, ambulance travel, etc., those are some of the significant areas also of cost that need to be revisited. A few months ago I went in to ER. It was determined that I had gall-stones so later that day I had my gall-bladder removed. They were able to get it with laparoscopy and I was able to walk out the next day. The hospital charged our insurance company $40,000. The majority of that from three hours of operating room fees.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Cost to UK NHS for a woman to have a baby (uncomplicated birth) $3500. That's the complete cost that the NHS pays. It costs nothing for the patient.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Rad Valtar posted:That was the birth and ICU combined. Maybe it's because I live in a rural area of the country. Anyway, among her findings was that our closest, somewhat rural hospital, 30 minutes away charged about 30% more than the more urban hospital which was about an hour away. To any conservatives in this thread, of course as informed, tech savvy consumers we did this research while I was doubled over in pain crying for the ambulance and in that calm and collected headspace, I made a rational financial decision to go for the more expensive option because OF COUSE I loving DIDN'T. I WAS IN SOME OF THE WORST PAIN IN MY LIFE AND WANTED IT TO END. But seriously, once I was drugged up in the ER and a doctor explained that I had some huge gall stones and while they could pass (painfully), I'd very likely develop them again and he recommended removing the gall-bladder. Despite thoroughly explaining his reasoning and going over the likely procedures and possible backup plans, as soon as he left my wife and I dug out our iPhones and did our research to double check his recommendations and of course shop around and after that we made a rational financial decision to OF COURSE WE loving DIDN'T! HOW THE gently caress WOULD I KNOW BETTER THAN A DOCTOR? ALSO, I WAS ALREADY IN A HOSPITAL! gently caress all of those conservative talking heads about how patients can make informed decisions about this kind of poo poo. Even if my path to surgery wasn't through a panicked ER visit and instead through a "leisurely" path of making having it removed on the advice of my personal doctor and a specialist, it wouldn't occur to me to shop around.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I'm a Canadian living in the US right now and have had significant experience with health care in both countries. I live in Vermont so I'm close to the Canadian border. Our son has some issues with his ears so the specialist recommended tubes to help drain the fluid (both my wife and sister-in-law had similar problems growing up so it's not entirely unexpected). I was a little surprised and somewhat skeptical of the specialist's smug claim that he handles "a lot" of Canadian patients who "don't want to wait a year". Nothing political came up in our conversation so I did a mental-eye roll when he brought it up unsolicited. Is it possible for procedures like that to take so long to be scheduled in Canada?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Because switching between jobs is very easy and the employers are acting out of rational self-interest rather than a desire to punish the whores. Women will be chattel and won't be allowed to work anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Am I missing something to read into this that a good chunk of Americans are actually quite happy with their plans, can afford their plans, and are using their plans? While I'd love to believe that people who care/need to continue with ACA plans will read the fine print, we're talking about Americans. "But it doesn't cover 90% of what you need or actually currently use" will be overridden by "I can save 50% of any amount a month? YES!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Be sure to tell your friends about enrollment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=873z7x4RNZ4
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:When aging boomers start requiring long-term care en masse we're either gonna get UHC or we're gonna crash the entire world's economy as they blow through all of their assets and their kids assets and their grandkids assets, so strap in.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Jokes on the Boomer generation then because Gen X is hanging on to what capital they've accumulated with bailing wire and prayers - and Millennials are just hoping to make ends meet and not have everything blow up in their face because one thing goes wrong since they don't have the bailing wire (read: decades of experience and networking) that Gen X has. Healthcare loans will be the next crushing weight upon Americans. You and your kids might have escaped higher education debt, but are you really going to let mother/gramma go to live in a nursing home? She would be so much better in an assisted living facility that costs 4x your own monthly living expenses. All you need to do is to take out a $250k non-dischargable loan for her to live her remaining years in peace and comfort. What, you won't do it? You loving monster!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I think a major problem among wonks that think about the sliding-scale problem is that they're all economists or public policy people that have never spent a goddamned minute in the trenches of the social work field. I mean, it's depressing as hell but I appreciate having some understand about those mindsets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:my mother recently got a bill from a doctor she had never heard of before, but with seemingly correct information and with the letterhead of the hospital she has made an appointment at. the number listed on it is for a doctors office in a different state that closed in 2017. That beats mine but I bet your mother had a similar reaction of "What the everloving gently caress?" Earlier this year I received an additional bill from an anesthesiologist for surgery in 2017. I was pissed since I'd paid them some amount 2-3 months after the work when all of the other co-pay bills came in. And here was a bill for $2500. I raised hell with them and my insurance took care of it. My belief is that my surgeon died suddenly at the end of 2017, these fuckers were trying to squeeze patients they could tie to him. If it was only for $50, I probably would have shrugged and paid it. And maybe the timing was just coincidental and there was a "valid" reason for the bill coming when it did, a full year after the surgery. gently caress this country's healthcare system anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 16:37
|
|