Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1987)	11/3/2002 1:12:46 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

Hi CB....You said KLP, but that was Karen Lawrence you were replying to....and believe me, she and I certainly don't see eye to eye on all issues....

To: Ilaine who wrote (1987)	11/3/2002 1:57:44 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

Hi CB~ the real KLP here... :D Re: The medical insurance situation for everyone, all ages and the seniors as well...The current medical insurance (or lack of it)situation here in the US is really NOT good for anyone. --The Doctors really are going out of business, unless they are in a large medical group. (one of the family is a Doc so we know some of the inside story). They really run a business, and have the same expenses as you and I do running a business....rent, utilities, insurance, taxes etc. Where they differ is the HUGE amounts of money they have to pay for Malpractice ins, even if they have had NO claims against them. In addition, they have to pay LARGE amounts for nursing help, as there is a shortage, and they have to pay a good deal for testing facilities, especially if the tests relate to blood collection on site. If they take a SINGLE medicare patient, they have to use the medicare rules for payment. Medicare doesn't care what it ACTUALLY costs for the service to be preformed for the patient. Medicare says how much it will pay of the customary charge. The bill is sent in. THEN Medicare pays a ONLY portion/percentage of that-already altered bill.... The only choice the Doc has is just not to take a single, solatary Medicare patient. And for most Docs who joined the profession, that is simply not a tolerable situation. They are Doctors because they really did believe in doing a service for humans. Many Docs around the country are leaving practice because of this bad situation. And unless something changes, this situation will become much worse, IMO. The hospital services are something else again. I've had occasion to know their services pretty well over the last several years. The staff and surroundings and services preformed are by and large, all very good. The problem is the services are SO VERY EXPENSIVE it takes ones breath away. A stay for me about a year ago for an Emergency Room visit and then an admit for 2 1/2 days resulted in a cost of over $7,000! No surgery, no meals (IV's only), x-rays done from the emergency visit, and one additional set each day, some meds, and staff to check in every hour to see if I was still breathing. The Captain here had to go to the hospital overnight twice recently ...they were doing tests while he slept....The bill for each night was over $2300 for each stay. He said in his industry (aviation) that if they billed in the same manner, that most of his industry would have long ago been in jail. Yes, we have insurance. Good private insurance. Because his company is a small business (under 10 employees) our insurance for the 2 of us costs over $1100/per month!!!!! Because so many people don't have insurance, and feel is is their "due" to use the emergency room services at the hospitals, someone has to pay for them. Guess who??? For years, I have thought that the US could have a program that would be called The US Taxpayers Company Insurance. We as taxpayers, contribute to, and in some cases, totally pay the premiums for the US Government employees. Therefore, we as taxpayers, should be considered The US Taxpayers company. As a Company, and because the "so called Risk" would be spread among many, we could qualify for EVERY single insurance option that is currently provided to anyone in the US Government.....(with me so far) At one point, I called our US Senators office, asking questions, and found that at that time, the US Senators had a total of 17 (!!) different insurance companies from which to choose. The rates were LOTS smaller than the ones we were currently paying. And those companies were just the ones that the US Senate had access to.... By having access to ALL Insurance Companies that did business with the US Government, it would certainly be a win-win for most citizens. The rates ought to be smaller, as there are more of us and a larger risk base. People would have many choices/levels of coverage. The only rule is that the person who would qualify for this insurance would have to show proof they actually have paid Federal Taxes.....(or in the case of someone over 72, that they had paid Fed Taxes).... Heck, who knows....maybe people would start paying Taxes willingly. <choke, sputter>

To: Ilaine who wrote (1987)	11/3/2002 2:26:05 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

One more thing: On Medicare, Medigap, LT Care....In 1965 or so, when Lyndon Johnson sold his "Guns and Butter" plan to America...Medicare was intended then to cover the elderly when they retired. The A and B parts both were promoted that way. Part B was an option. Things certainly didn't work out that way, did they? We KNEW that Guns and Butter wasn't a viable plan....but the politicians sold it like it was.... Not sure when Medigap insurances became available, and eventually necessary, but believe it was in the 80's.... Don't know how much those policies are today, but will have to be checking them out soon. And Long Term Care.....This is going to be THE medical issue of the next 25 years, IMO. The costs are SO very high. And there will be much the same discussion there is today on hospitalization.....will it be available if someone has no insurance? Currently, the States will pay (taxpayers) if a person has under $15,000 income. If one pays privately to stay in the SAME nursing home, the cost is over $55,000 per year. My Mom has Alzenheimers, so I'm pretty aware of the costs, unfortunately. Long Term care is available, in all sorts of increments on how much they will pay per day. A good, but middle of the road cost per day we looked at was $400/Mo for each of us, or $9,600/Yr! I can't even imagine how much it would cost for a really top of the line place..... Maybe we should all work for the Government .... medical costs are considerably more reasonable for the employees.

To: Ilaine who wrote (1987)	11/3/2002 10:43:19 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6901

I'm certain your mom, busy raising her family never considered herself nor worried the future would be so bleak. I think it's a sad commentary that people like your mother who gave so much should be at the mercy of a system that doesn't address her needs. In the meantime, medicos scam the system and running up enormous charges to line their pockets and whore for pharmaceuticals. sfgate.com Doctors in CA are suspected of performing unnecessary heart surgeries or probes on hundreds of patients. I hope your mom's situation doesn't prevent her from getting medical attention when she needs it. In CA in the meantime, 2.2 million people are struggling to feed themselves though they have jobs. More than 2.24 million low-income Californians cannot always put food on the table and one in three have experienced hunger, according to a new survey released Sunday. Hunger and food shortages often are the result of job layoffs or illness and pose serious health risks, according to the California Health Information Survey conducted by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles. The survey found that statewide, 28 percent of adults who make more than $36,000 a year for a family of four -- that is, those earning twice the poverty level -- struggle to put food on the table. The situation is so dire that many families are forced to put off paying the rent, utilities and medical care in order to eat. "This groundbreaking survey shows that hard work is no guarantee against hard choices between food and housing," said Paul Ash, executive director of the San Francisco Food Bank. "Even families making more than $30,000 are having trouble affording the food they need due to the high cost of living." In Los Angeles, about 777,000 people, or 30 percent of low-income households, live with the threat of hunger. In San Francisco, San Bernardino and Sonoma counties, 28 percent of households struggled to buy groceries. The hardest-hit counties in the state included Tulare, Shasta and Fresno. Other counties with high rates of hunger included Sonoma, Solano, Marin and Napa. The telephone survey of 55,428 households, conducted in six languages, is the largest health survey ever conducted in one state. The interviews were conducted between November 2000 and September 2001. The survey found that poverty and hunger hit the most vulnerable populations, including: pregnant women, the elderly, undocumented residents and single-parent families. American Indians and natives of Alaska had the highest rates of hunger, followed by blacks and Hispanics. The survey also found low enrollment in two federal programs designed to aid those in need: the federal Food Stamp welfare program and the Women, Infants and Children Special Supplemental Nutrition Program, which gives low-income pregnant women and their children access to food and prenatal care. In California, 4.9 million low-income families are eligible for food stamps, but only 10 percent, or 496,000 people, receive them. Another 358,000 adults, or nearly 80 percent of those who live below poverty, were not enrolled in the Food Stamp program. The researchers make several policy recommendations to eliminate hunger including: streamlining enrollment in federal programs and eliminating the practice of fingerprinting applicants in California, which some believe is deterring eligible people from applying.

To: Ilaine who wrote (1987)	11/3/2002 11:02:54 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

She must not have had long term care insurance because they are keeping her in their home with a private duty nurse round the clock. CB, many LTC policies will pay for home health care. Furthermore, a private-duty nurse around the clock could be more expensive than a facility. We are sending my dad to adult day-care (which is fairly inexpensive), and the LTC policy is paying for it. It's probably worth my own while in the long run to pay for a LTC policy for my own mom. Be advised that the rates can later be raised quite a bit. My folks got into a situation where their ability to pay the ongoing premiums was threatened. I took over the finances a couple years ago and got things straightened out, with the help of a lawyer. They do come in handy. <g>