FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-ca...explained.html

Health Care Reform Explained

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
Your questions answered

by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

— Red James/Getty Images
Q. Does the new health care reform law eliminate annual and lifetime
limits on health care coverage in insurance policies?

Yes. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans
that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no
longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a
lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the
next few years, beginning this year.

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops
when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. The new rule
especially will help people with serious diseases that require
expensive treatment. Ten percent of cancer patients surveyed recently
said they hit their lifetime limit and their insurers would not pay
for further medical care. Federal health officials mention the example
of an Indiana teenager battling leukemia who reached the $1 million
lifetime limit on his family’s policy in a couple of months. To pay
for his bone marrow transplant, his desperate parents appealed to the
public for donations and raised more than $500,000.

The law phases out these annual limits over a period of three years:
in the first year, insurers must cover medical expenses up to at least
$750,000. That coverage rises to $1.45 million after Sept. 23, 2011
and increases to $2 million after Sept. 23, 2012. Limits will be
completely banned starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The ban on annual and lifetime limits applies to employer-sponsored
and individual plans, but only for the cost of what the law calls
“essential health benefits.” The law provides examples of these
benefits, but the specifics will be spelled out in regulations to be
issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient
advocacy groups are hoping that the government will decide that a wide
range of health care services must be covered.

There are other exceptions to the ban. It doesn’t apply to so-called
“grandfathered” plans, which are insurance policies in existence when
the health care reform bill was signed into law March 23, 2010 that do
not significantly raise premiums or reduce benefits.

• Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also
prohibited from limiting coverage?

Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform
law’s ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare
Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit
annual and lifetime limits. However, medigap policies sold before 1992
can impose limits.

Medicare Advantage plans have no lifetime limits because they have to
offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare, says
Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare
Advocacy in Washington, D.C. “There has never been a cap on the total
amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay,” she explains. So
Medicare Advantage plans have to follow suit.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:06:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT


Don already stated that he is able to provide for his family's medical
expense needs without any welfare from Obama, such as the type that is
needed by liberals.

Why don't you substitute your own sorry family into the story instead,
as an example, so the rest of us can better understand how sad it is
to be a sorry assed liberal?

On Mar 6, 12:17*pm, Boris Kapusta wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 00:06:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

Don already stated that he is able to provide for his family's medical
expense needs without any welfare from Obama, such as the type that is
needed by liberals.

Why don't you substitute your own sorry family into the story instead,
as an example, so the rest of us can better understand how sad it is
to be a sorry assed liberal

Facts are facts.

Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

Considering that cancer will affect many of us...

http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/index

......knowledge of how Obamacare has and will positively affect one's
finances is valuable to know.

Whether or not you want to admit it or not, Mary is benefitting
directly from Obamacare NOW.

And the cancellation of Obamacare would adversely affect Mary and her
continuing care....along with millions of other Americans in the same
situation.

Now if you have something positive to offer to the discussion, then
please contribute it.

But so far you are the one who is the "sorry assed" individual...par
for the course.

TMT

--OBTW Blue Cross just raised our rates again: 15% this time. Had my
secretary run the numbers: since 2000 Blue Cross has raised the rates for me
and my wife by 350%!! Wanna know where the recession came from? There's your
answer.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Whether or not you want to admit it or not, Mary is benefitting
directly from Obamacare NOW.

Wrong. Mary is benefitting from Medicare which dates back to 1965 and
into which we both contributed for decades. We've paid our dues.
Beyond that, she is benefitting from private supplemental insurance
which we have carried since retirement.

And the cancellation of Obamacare would adversely affect Mary and her
continuing care....along with millions of other Americans in the same
situation.

You obviously know little about Obamacare, nothing about Mary's
situation, or both. Obamacare is/will be of no benefit to Mary or
millions of other Americans in the same situation. Quite the contrary.
It will make some meds more expensive due to fees and taxes on
branded drugs and medical devices, and will make our supplemental
insurance more expensive due to annual fee on insurance providers.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That's right.

That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

But you continue to bandy our names about and snidely label her care
as "a cost to society" ignoring the fact that we paid into society
(FICA, Medicare, etc) via regular significant payroll deductions for
45 years.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:44:39 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
*

Your coverage has/had limits Don...and I am correct concerning what I
have posted..along with providing references...partially for your
benefit..

It doesn't/didn't and you aren't.

I know only what you tell us about Mary's situation...and you refused
to discuss financial details when asked.

I did and shall continue to, yet you pretend to know more than I do
about our coverage.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:58:02 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:27*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:

Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That's right.



That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

But you continue to bandy our names about and snidely label her care
as "a cost to society" ignoring the fact that we paid into society
(FICA, Medicare, etc) via regular significant payroll deductions for
45 years. *

Ever hear of freedom of speech Don?

I showed up to serve my country and defend the constitution. Did you?

The last time I checked we both have that right.

We do indeed, even snidely, ignorantly and with attempt to distort.
You are free to monitor or post here Don...

Thank you so much!

I started this separate
discussion to talk about cancer costs under Obamacare as an eduational
and hopefully helpful effort for both you, Mary and others...many of
who have or will walk the same tough road. I made this a separate
discussion so not to intrude in your other ongoing discussion...out of
respect for Mary and you.

Then I'll ask you to make your political speeches stand alone without
reference to Mary or me.

And yes Don...anyone who is drawing from Medicare represents a "cost
to society"..whether or not they contributed to the fund...and I did
not post it as a insult to either you or Mary...I was simply stating a
fact.

You stated an unsupportable opinion, not a fact. Redemption of
previous contributions plus accrued interest is not accountable as
cost until contract-defined redemption exceeds present value of
investment. The government decided to be in the medical insurance biz
(Medicare) back in 1965 under LBJ, a democrat, same guy that committed
significant numbers of troops to 'Nam starting about summer of 1965.

We citizens did not have a choice about enrolling or not but we
trusted the gummint. We dutifully sent in our contributions out of
every paycheck for most of our adult lives. We trusted that the
gummint would keep its promises.

As regards Medicare, the gummint has kept its promises thus far.
Responsibility toward veterans not so much.

You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government. Medicare was first
proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

No honor among thieves.

On Mar 8, 4:29*am, Don Foreman wrote:

You stated an unsupportable opinion, not a fact. Redemption of
previous contributions plus accrued interest is not accountable as
cost until contract-defined *redemption exceeds present value of
investment. *The government decided to be in the medical insurance biz
(Medicare) back in 1965 under LBJ, a democrat, same guy that committed
significant numbers of troops to 'Nam starting about summer of 1965. *

We citizens did not have a choice about enrolling or not but we
trusted the gummint. * * We dutifully sent in our contributions out of
every paycheck for most of our adult lives. We trusted that the
gummint would keep its promises.

As regards Medicare, the gummint has kept its promises thus far.
Responsibility toward veterans not so much.

You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government. * Medicare was first
proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

No honor among thieves. *

This something I learned from TMT. Quote a long post and then add
about three words.

Good Post, Don.

Dan

Don Foreman wrote:

You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government.

Isn't society the one that made the promise?
and is not society the one redeeming the promise?
What is the problem with calling it a "cost to society"?





Medicare was first
proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?
If you had a private insurance policy that was paying
the bills would that not be a cost to the insurance company?

BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.

The way the current system is structured it won't be very long
and Medicare won't be able to fulfill the promises that it has made
That Medicare crash-and-burn will not happen in his administration
so Obama could just like all the presidents before him
just say "its not my problem"



No honor among thieves.

On Mar 8, 2:31*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:



Your coverage has/had limits Don...and I am correct concerning what I
have posted..along with providing references...partially for your
benefit..

It doesn't/didn't *and you aren't. *

I know only what you tell us about Mary's situation...and you refused
to discuss financial details when asked.

I did and shall continue to, yet you pretend to know more than I do
about our coverage. *

We know what you have told us..which is close to nothing.

Reality says that you have limits..or had until Obamacare came along.

Again if you wish volunteer info, feel free to...or not...your choice.

But whatever the choice, it doesn't change the fact that I do know
what I am talking about.

And remember...I am the only one here who has provided references to
support my contributions...and experiences.

TMT

On Mar 8, 3:29*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:58:02 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:27 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:

Don refused to discuss the cost that Mary's ongoing care is costing
both him and society.

That's right.

That is his choice and I have respected it...and I do still wish Mary
the best.

But you continue to bandy our names about and snidely label her care
as "a cost to society" ignoring the fact that we paid into society
(FICA, Medicare, etc) via regular significant payroll deductions for
45 years.

Ever hear of freedom of speech Don?

I showed up to serve my country and defend the constitution. *Did you?



The last time I checked we both have that right.

We do indeed, even snidely, ignorantly and with attempt to distort.

You are free to monitor or post here Don...

Thank you so much!

I started this separate
discussion to talk about cancer costs under Obamacare as an eduational
and hopefully helpful effort for both you, Mary and others...many of
who have or will walk the same tough road. *I made this a separate
discussion so not to intrude in your other ongoing discussion...out of
respect for Mary and you.

Then I'll ask you to make your political speeches stand alone without
reference to Mary or me. *

And yes Don...anyone who is drawing from Medicare represents a "cost
to society"..whether or not they *contributed to the fund...and I did
not post it as a insult to either you or Mary...I was simply stating a
fact.

You stated an unsupportable opinion, not a fact. Redemption of
previous contributions plus accrued interest is not accountable as
cost until contract-defined *redemption exceeds present value of
investment. *The government decided to be in the medical insurance biz
(Medicare) back in 1965 under LBJ, a democrat, same guy that committed
significant numbers of troops to 'Nam starting about summer of 1965. *

We citizens did not have a choice about enrolling or not but we
trusted the gummint. * * We dutifully sent in our contributions out of
every paycheck for most of our adult lives. We trusted that the
gummint would keep its promises.

As regards Medicare, the gummint has kept its promises thus far.
Responsibility toward veterans not so much.

You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government. * Medicare was first
proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

No honor among thieves. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You might want to leave that chip on your shoulder at home Don.

I have done nothing but respect the situation that Mary and you are
currently in.

I am attempting to have an adult discussion on how Obamacare relates
to cancer care...and this might come as a shock to you but Mary and
you are not the only ones in the world who have had to deal with the
big C.

Hopefully the outcome of this discussion will be help and support for
those who are and will walk that lonely road.

That would also include both Mary and you.

TMT

On Mar 8, 7:38*am, " wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:29*am, Don Foreman wrote:





You stated an unsupportable opinion, not a fact. Redemption of
previous contributions plus accrued interest is not accountable as
cost until contract-defined *redemption exceeds present value of
investment. *The government decided to be in the medical insurance biz
(Medicare) back in 1965 under LBJ, a democrat, same guy that committed
significant numbers of troops to 'Nam starting about summer of 1965. *

We citizens did not have a choice about enrolling or not but we
trusted the gummint. * * We dutifully sent in our contributions out of
every paycheck for most of our adult lives. We trusted that the
gummint would keep its promises.

As regards Medicare, the gummint has kept its promises thus far.
Responsibility toward veterans not so much.

You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government. * Medicare was first
proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

No honor among thieves. *

This something I learned from TMT. *Quote a long post and then add
about three words.

Good Post, Don.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You used four words. ;)

TMT

On Mar 8, 8:02*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:
You choose to depict lifelong significant contributors as a "cost to
society" when we reach a time to redeem the promises made by social
contract devised and imposed by government.

Isn't society the one that made the promise?
and is not society the one redeeming the promise?
What is the problem with calling it a "cost to society"?

*Medicare was first

proposed by Harry Truman, a democrat, and came into existance in 1965
under LBJ, a democrat. Now, after decades of our compliance to
significant regular payroll deductions and contributions, you as a
mindless zeolot cheerleader for Obama label my redemptions per the
social contract made decades ago as a "cost to society".

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost? *
If you had a private insurance policy that was paying
the bills would that not be a cost to the insurance company?

BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.

The way the current system is structured it won't be very long
and Medicare won't be able to fulfill the promises that it has made
That Medicare crash-and-burn will not happen in his administration
so Obama could just like all the presidents before him
just say "its not my problem"





No honor among thieves.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said Jim.

Roughly 10,000 Americans are turning 65 every day now...and for the
next twenty years.

Each one represents a "cost to society".

All will be using Social Security and Medicare...and Obamacare.

One of Obamacare's goals is to make sure that society can pay that
cost.

As one who meets my financial obiligations, I think that is an
admirable goal.

TMT

On

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?
If you had a private insurance policy that was paying
the bills would that not be a cost to the insurance company?

Yes, just as the premium payments were credits. I'll assume that
your question is genuine and not disengenuous.

If I redeem my U.S. Savings bonds, from an accounting point of view
the payment to me would be a "cost to society", just as the money I
paid for them was a "credit to society". But there is an inferential
and rhetorical difference in that the term "cost to society" is often
used disparagingly as a net drain: the cost of fighting unpopular
wars, the cost of imprisoning felons, etc.

BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.

Yes, he has said that but he hasn't said how. He continues to offer
hope for change.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Roughly 10,000 Americans are turning 65 every day now...and for the
next twenty years.

Each one represents a "cost to society".

With that rhetorical construct you lump lifelong contributors with
lifelong deadbeats, prisoners, illegal aliens and other
non-contributors.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:10:29 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

But whatever the choice, it doesn't change the fact that I do know
what I am talking about.

Is that you Hawke? LOL.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:10:29 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Mar 8, 2:31*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:



Your coverage has/had limits Don...and I am correct concerning what I
have posted..along with providing references...partially for your
benefit..

Read your own cite!

Reality says that you have limits..or had until Obamacare came along.

Read your own cite!

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:10:29 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Your coverage has/had limits Don...and I am correct concerning what I
have posted..along with providing references...partially for your
benefit..

Wrong. See below.

Reality says that you have limits..or had until Obamacare came along.

Wrong. See below.

But whatever the choice, it doesn't change the fact that I do know
what I am talking about.

You clearly don't, per your own cited reference. See below.

And remember...I am the only one here who has provided references to
support my contributions...and experiences.

Here is an excerpt lifted directly from the reference you provided:

"• Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also
prohibited from limiting coverage?

Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform
law’s ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare
Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit
annual and lifetime limits."

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:02:52 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:
..

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?

That was a good question, Jim. I thought about that now and then all
day while doing other things like driving,walking and takin' a crap.
It certainly is a cost in the sense that it isn't income or revenue.
My objection was to TMT's rhetorical construct "cost to society" but I
wasn't quite sure why.

I may not be the quickest frog in the race but I am one persistent
sonofabitch.

It seems to me that the term "cost to society" has pejorative
connotation because it's general and vague. Warehousing felons,
deterioration of work ethic and values, criminal corporate greed,
government corruption and natural disasters are "costs to society".

That seems different from a planned and expected cost to a
government-mandated and government-conducted program. The government
is not "society" per se. We as a society have a government but our
government doesn't define our society -- at least not yet. Its recent
attempts to do so have met with significant resistance.

Programs like social security and medicare tax the populace for
income that is distributed as benefits, according to plan, to seniors
who are past working age. Those benefits are not unfortunate "costs
to society" to be minimized or eliminated unless you subscribe to the
premise that a promise broken doesn't matter unless asserted by
lawsuit and **** the creaks who die before litigation is done.

The subject costs are planned and expected distributions of benefits
according to plan. They are unquestionably debits on the current
year's balance sheets of those plans but they're not "costs to
society" in the same sense as plague, famine, hurricane, corporate
greed or corrupt politicians.

If, after collecting taxes against promise for decades the promised
program-defined distributions are not anticipated or expected, then
the government running those programs is clearly deficient and
probably malfeasant.

BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.
The way the current system is structured it won't be very long
and Medicare won't be able to fulfill the promises that it has made

Could be. So please show in this summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
or any other summary of your choosing, how Obamacare contains specific
and particular remedy for "the looming problem with the medicare
system."

That Medicare crash-and-burn will not happen in his administration
so Obama could just like all the presidents before him
just say "its not my problem"

Indeed! Smoke and feathers, no honor among thieves.

Medicare with carefully-chosen supplemental insurance is working well
for us. That's not an accident. We've paid our dues, still paying
some. We're by no means wealthy but we are conservative in the sense
of planning carefully. We're pretty much apolitical, not partisans.
If you earn your living then you're probably paying your dues too.

The vast preponderance of voters are younger than medicare age, many
not educated in critical thinking so gullible to vague undefined
promises like "hope" and "change", would like to think that the
government can and will provide better, more efficient, more
economical health care than private enterprise has done.

That could be a good thing but I don't think the hastily-conceived and
partisanly-ramrodded Obamacare will get it done. I think we can and
must demand that our leaders do a much better job of viable long-term
planning.

Obamacare does seem to have overlooked the hippocratic oath required
of every physician: "first, do no harm".

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:13:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Roughly 10,000 Americans are turning 65 every day now...and for the
next twenty years.

Each one represents a "cost to society".

With that rhetorical construct you lump lifelong contributors with
lifelong deadbeats, prisoners, illegal aliens and other
non-contributors.

That's what trolls do, Don. Buy a clue.

--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
-- Grant Frazier

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:20:44 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:02:52 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:
.

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?

That was a good question, Jim. I thought about that now and then all
day while doing other things like driving,walking and takin' a crap.
It certainly is a cost in the sense that it isn't income or revenue.
My objection was to TMT's rhetorical construct "cost to society" but I
wasn't quite sure why.

I may not be the quickest frog in the race but I am one persistent
sonofabitch.

It seems to me that the term "cost to society" has pejorative
connotation because it's general and vague. Warehousing felons,
deterioration of work ethic and values, criminal corporate greed,
government corruption and natural disasters are "costs to society".

Round 'em up and lock 'em up together without guards. Add a dash of
natural disaster and I'll guarantee that costs will diminish.


Obamacare does seem to have overlooked the hippocratic oath required
of every physician: "first, do no harm".

Those are no longer required or given, Don. Check it out.

"Contrary to popular belief, the Hippocratic Oath is not required by
most modern medical schools."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
-- Grant Frazier

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:02:52 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:
.

It is puzzling why you are so adamant that your
"redemption of your social contract" to not be called a cost?

That was a good question, Jim. I thought about that now and then all
day while doing other things like driving,walking and takin' a crap.
It certainly is a cost in the sense that it isn't income or revenue.
My objection was to TMT's rhetorical construct "cost to society" but I
wasn't quite sure why.

I may not be the quickest frog in the race but I am one persistent
sonofabitch.

It seems to me that the term "cost to society" has pejorative
connotation because it's general and vague. Warehousing felons,
deterioration of work ethic and values, criminal corporate greed,
government corruption and natural disasters are "costs to society".

That was my question - why that perception?


That seems different from a planned and expected cost to a
government-mandated and government-conducted program. The government
is not "society" per se. We as a society have a government but our
government doesn't define our society -- at least not yet. Its recent
attempts to do so have met with significant resistance.

Programs like social security and medicare tax the populace for
income that is distributed as benefits, according to plan, to seniors
who are past working age. Those benefits are not unfortunate "costs
to society" to be minimized or eliminated unless you subscribe to the
premise that a promise broken doesn't matter unless asserted by
lawsuit and **** the creaks who die before litigation is done.

Is your perception is that if is labeled "cost to society" that is the
first step in the process of taking away benefits?




The subject costs are planned and expected distributions of benefits
according to plan. They are unquestionably debits on the current
year's balance sheets of those plans but they're not "costs to
society" in the same sense as plague, famine, hurricane, corporate
greed or corrupt politicians.

Did somebody say they were the same?


If, after collecting taxes against promise for decades the promised
program-defined distributions are not anticipated or expected, then
the government running those programs is clearly deficient and
probably malfeasant.

So what do you suggest? More of the same?
Medicare was created to address a problem that existed 45 years ago. It
has been effective in the past but it may not be forever into the
future. That is not malfeasance, but to ignore what is predicted for the
future may be.

The cost of health care has grown far more expensive than anyone
predicted 40 years ago. And that magnificent increase in cost without
any commensurate increase in performance is a big part of the problem.

Just as an example of how bad things have become - You can get on a
plane and fly to India and have heart surgery in a hospital with a
better record of success at 1/10 the cost.



BTW President Obama has stated repeatedly that the main objective
of health care reform is to address
the looming problem with the medicare system.
The way the current system is structured it won't be very long
and Medicare won't be able to fulfill the promises that it has made

Could be. So please show in this summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
or any other summary of your choosing, how Obamacare contains specific
and particular remedy for "the looming problem with the medicare
system."

One problem is that medicare is not just for the elderly. It ends up
covering just about anyone that can't get private insurance. That
includes the elderly.

That is one issue the new law is supposed to address. Private insurers
can't just insure you until you get sick and then dump you.

The cost to society is an issue because if it is going to continue
providing current level of coverage then payroll taxes would have to
increase in the future to unrealistic levels or medicare would be
insolvent.

It is an economic issue that society has a stake in. In Europe where
health insurance is not included in the cost of production they have
been able to hang on to jobs that in the US have departed overseas
because in the US the cost of worker health insurance has become a
significant factor in the cost of production.

And don't tell me how much better the US health care is. That's baloney.

I don't think anybody believes the new law guarantees Medicare will stay
solvent forever. But it does mean the looming problem of medicare going
bankrupt is pushed farther into the future.

My personal belief is that the medicare and Social security problem will
work itself out over the next 20 years because the predicted problem is
based on the assumption that the folks that are now in their 50's and
60's are going to live as long or longer than their parents. It seems to
me that is just not going to happen - they will die younger then their
parents. Their parents lived longer because they were more fit.



That Medicare crash-and-burn will not happen in his administration
so Obama could just like all the presidents before him
just say "its not my problem"

Indeed! Smoke and feathers, no honor among thieves.


I have no idea what you mean by that.
Are you saying Obama should just go along with the other thieves and
not give a damn?

-jim




Medicare with carefully-chosen supplemental insurance is working well
for us. That's not an accident. We've paid our dues, still paying
some. We're by no means wealthy but we are conservative in the sense
of planning carefully. We're pretty much apolitical, not partisans.
If you earn your living then you're probably paying your dues too.

The vast preponderance of voters are younger than medicare age, many
not educated in critical thinking so gullible to vague undefined
promises like "hope" and "change", would like to think that the
government can and will provide better, more efficient, more
economical health care than private enterprise has done.

That could be a good thing but I don't think the hastily-conceived and
partisanly-ramrodded Obamacare will get it done. I think we can and
must demand that our leaders do a much better job of viable long-term
planning.

Obamacare does seem to have overlooked the hippocratic oath required
of every physician: "first, do no harm".

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:10:32 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:13:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Roughly 10,000 Americans are turning 65 every day now...and for the
next twenty years.

Each one represents a "cost to society".

With that rhetorical construct you lump lifelong contributors with
lifelong deadbeats, prisoners, illegal aliens and other
non-contributors.

That's what trolls do, Don. Buy a clue.

I know that, Larry, and I know that you know I know. Sometimes I feel
that troll bull**** needs to be called, particularly when it gets
personal about Mary.

Buy a clue? Imagine, if you will, a rhyming rejoinder. Hint: it
doesn't use the words kangaroo or Timbuktu. G

Feel free to ignore or plonk.

You won't plonk me, I know you won't. You'd miss ops to scold me!

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:25:49 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:



If I redeem my U.S. Savings bonds, from an accounting point of view
the payment to me would be a "cost to society", just as the money I
paid for them was a "credit to society".

Matter of fact, that redemption would not be a cost to society. It'd
be repayment of a loan to the treasury.

A "cost to society" is a financial burden that must somehow be met by
the treasury, either by borrowing as in creating debt for our children
and grandchildren, or by taxation which doesn't buy votes from the
mass populace who think the government should support them rather than
the other way round.

Since the government imposed the plan with mandatory payroll deduction
of taxes to support it, it is incumbant upon the government to make
the plan work when claims occur and are paid as promised. This is
only a "cost to society" if the government or bureaucracy
administering the plan is incompetent or malfeasant.

More to my point, a legitimate claimant should not be labelled as a
"cost to society" before paid services per social contract exceed the
present value of mandated periodic investment and accrued interest of
self and supporting spouse over 45 years.

Don Foreman wrote:


Since the government imposed the plan with mandatory payroll deduction
of taxes to support it, it is incumbant upon the government to make
the plan work when claims occur and are paid as promised. This is
only a "cost to society" if the government or bureaucracy
administering the plan is incompetent or malfeasant.

That arguments is a descent into childish absurdity. The beneficiaries
of Medicare have received as or more competent services than the health
care recipient population in general and at a cheaper cost.

The government is elected by the people. If the people come to the
conclusion that Medicare is not a good idea and they elect politicians
to pass laws to eliminate Medicare there is really not much you could do
other than try to persuade the majority to not go that route.

I see your point in trying to not paint Medicare as "cost to society" as
part of your strategy to convince society that Medicare benefits should
not be curtailed. You have a point, but I don't see it as a useful
point. I don't think the problem will be solved by simply dressing it up
as something that it really isn't. That doesn't address the real
issues.

The issue of Medicare (and social security) solvency is really an issue
of the health of the economy as a whole. The current method of paying
for Medicare has created huge distortions in the entire economy and the
labor markets in particular.

Consider this: Goods and services that are available in the US economy
have a labor component to their cost. If that labor was performed
outside the US then it is exempt and doesn't contribute anything to
Social Security and Medicare. If the labor costs occurs inside the US
then it is taxed and it does contribute.
Can you see how this might create a distortion that drives the economy
in an undesirable direction? And what's worse is that the current
payroll tax structure has the potential of creating a vicious downward
death spiral. As the US labor component of the US economy becomes a
smaller percentage of total GDP you have even more pressure on that
smaller component to pay the "cost to society" which in turn contributes
to further atrophy of that sector.

Now if you look at the rest of the industrialized world they also have
social contracts that provide benefits as good or better than the US
does, but they have also worked out ways to finance those programs so
that they are less likely to cause harmful distortions to the economy.



More to my point, a legitimate claimant should not be labelled as a
"cost to society" before paid services per social contract exceed the
present value of mandated periodic investment and accrued interest of
self and supporting spouse over 45 years.

But it never worked like that. You want to pretend you made an
investment and interest accrued on that investment. The reality is you
paid for the benefits of others while you were working and now others
are paying for any benefits you might now be receiving. Your calculus of
saving, investment, interest accumulating you insist upon has never
existed.
Had you broke your neck and been paralyzed in 1966 you probably would
have contributed little to Medicare and instead may have received
benefits for all those years.

-jim

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:18:02 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:10:32 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:13:58 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:23:25 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:



Roughly 10,000 Americans are turning 65 every day now...and for the
next twenty years.

Each one represents a "cost to society".

With that rhetorical construct you lump lifelong contributors with
lifelong deadbeats, prisoners, illegal aliens and other
non-contributors.

That's what trolls do, Don. Buy a clue.

I know that, Larry, and I know that you know I know. Sometimes I feel
that troll bull**** needs to be called, particularly when it gets
personal about Mary.

OK, I can see where he got personal, but that's perfect trollbait.
He KNOWS that will grate on you and feed his troll quota.


Buy a clue? Imagine, if you will, a rhyming rejoinder. Hint: it
doesn't use the words kangaroo or Timbuktu. G

You must be trying to say "Thank you." Jewelcome.


Feel free to ignore or plonk.

You won't plonk me, I know you won't. You'd miss ops to scold me!

I really want to plonk you on the days you reply to every asshole
troll on Earth, I really do. But I don't because I value your input
and enjoy your writing style, friend Don. I just wish you had better
sense some days, knowwhatImean,Vern?

I'm still waiting for the guy who can roll out the anti-spam software
which seeks out spammers and sends 100kV@200A through their keyboards.
Adapted for trolls, it would be the perfect killer app.

--
Life is full of obstacle illusions.
-- Grant Frazier

Don Foreman wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:25:54 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



More to my point, a legitimate claimant should not be labelled as a
"cost to society" before paid services per social contract exceed the
present value of mandated periodic investment and accrued interest of
self and supporting spouse over 45 years.

But it never worked like that. You want to pretend you made an
investment and interest accrued on that investment. The reality is you
paid for the benefits of others while you were working and now others
are paying for any benefits you might now be receiving. Your calculus of
saving, investment, interest accumulating you insist upon has never
existed.

Consider savings bonds and treasury bills, which are generally
regarded as investments. You give the government money which it
immediately spends, and you are repaid more at a future date from
future government revenues.

Yes it is similar as far as you went.

But I don't expect that some day the government
will inform you that you have received
the principal and interest due and close your account.

And you are free to sell your treasury notes for whatever you can get.
You can't sell your medicare benefits.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:39:49 -0600, jim
wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:25:54 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



More to my point, a legitimate claimant should not be labelled as a
"cost to society" before paid services per social contract exceed the
present value of mandated periodic investment and accrued interest of
self and supporting spouse over 45 years.

But it never worked like that. You want to pretend you made an
investment and interest accrued on that investment. The reality is you
paid for the benefits of others while you were working and now others
are paying for any benefits you might now be receiving. Your calculus of
saving, investment, interest accumulating you insist upon has never
existed.

Consider savings bonds and treasury bills, which are generally
regarded as investments. You give the government money which it
immediately spends, and you are repaid more at a future date from
future government revenues.

Yes it is similar as far as you went.

But I don't expect that some day the government
will inform you that you have received
the principal and interest due and close your account.

I hope not. That's when we'd become a "cost to society" which is
covered by the insurance program the government imposed upon us
decades ago and collected premiums by payroll deduction all that time.
Insurance is all about spreading cost over a large base according to
actuarial estimates of total expected cost divided by number of
participants, plus profit etc. Some will pay more than they redeem,
others will redeem more than they pay, all are protected from
financial catastrophe due to bad luck.

I don't think we've yet reached the point where we've consumed more
than we contributed, but that could happen as it can with any
insurance program whether voluntary or government-mandated.

I trust that you, as a responsible citizen, will keep sending in your
contributions to pay for the care Mary is getting at the rehab
facility in Roseville and at Mayo clinic. Thank you! She is getting
better. Not as quickly as we'd like and had hoped, but she's making
progress. Her attitude continues to be positive, her gentle generous
persona seems to be appreciated by her fellow inmates and staff, and
her sense of humor is intact. Nobody there knows how bad an idea it is
to **** her off. I've smuggled in some medicines and laundry but no
pistols thus far.

I am there every evening from suppertime to bedtime. I do what the
staff does for others because Mary likes how I do it better. We've
been a small team for many years. She had my six when I was stricken
two years ago, I'm OK now and it's my turn in the barrel.

The staff has noticed; they ask me if I'd like a bit of supper when I
join Mary at table and they shag it post haste if I indicate that I
might. I save Lizzie a lot of work and I'm glad that she notices. s

There are many far more unfortunate than Mary in that facility. We do
what we can to make at least a few minutes of their continued
existance as pleasant as possible. We get some smiles.

Perhaps you should take a tour of duty in such a facility before you
label recipients of care per promise and program as "cost to society".
Bathe some elders, wipe some butts, deal with some spills and messes
usually left to the minions who work there. You might learn to have
some respect for the dignity of those who have inevitably aged after
long, productive, contributive lives.

Mar is still contributing. She definitely brightened the day of
tablemate Kelly tonight. Kelly is terminal, 75 lb and wasting, but
she's a game gal who smiled big this evening. She shared unwanted
onion from her hamburger onto mine and was thrilled to do it. I
appreciated it because I about can't get enough onion on my burger.

There are better days ahead for Mary 'n me. Probably not as good as
days past, but better days than recent days and weeks, we hope.

And you are free to sell your treasury notes for whatever you can get.
You can't sell your medicare benefits.

Correct.

On Mar 6, 3:06*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
FYI...a timely discussion considering Don and Mary's plight and the
costs involved.

TMT

http://www.aarp.org/health/health-ca...010/hcr_explai...

Health Care Reform Explained

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
Your questions answered

by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

— Red James/Getty Images
Q. Does the new health care reform law eliminate annual and lifetime
limits on health care coverage in insurance policies?

Yes. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans
that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no
longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a
lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the
next few years, beginning this year.

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops
when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. The new rule
especially will help people with serious diseases that require
expensive treatment. Ten percent of cancer patients surveyed recently
said they hit their lifetime limit and their insurers would not pay
for further medical care. Federal health officials mention the example
of an Indiana teenager battling leukemia who reached the $1 million
lifetime limit on his family’s policy in a couple of months. To pay
for his bone marrow transplant, his desperate parents appealed to the
public for donations and raised more than $500,000.

The law phases out these annual limits over a period of three years:
in the first year, insurers must cover medical expenses up to at least
$750,000. That coverage rises to $1.45 million after Sept. 23, 2011
and increases to $2 million after Sept. 23, 2012. Limits will be
completely banned starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The ban on annual and lifetime limits applies to employer-sponsored
and individual plans, but only for the cost of what the law calls
“essential health benefits.” The law provides examples of these
benefits, but the specifics will be spelled out in regulations to be
issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient
advocacy groups are hoping that the government will decide that a wide
range of health care services must be covered.

There are other exceptions to the ban. It doesn’t apply to so-called
“grandfathered” plans, which are insurance policies in existence when
the health care reform bill was signed into law March 23, 2010 that do
not significantly raise premiums or reduce benefits.

• Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also
prohibited from limiting coverage?

Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform
law’s ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare
Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit
annual and lifetime limits. However, medigap policies sold before 1992
can impose limits.

Medicare Advantage plans have no lifetime limits because they have to
offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare, says
Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare
Advocacy in Washington, D.C. “There has never been a cap on the total
amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay,” she explains. So
Medicare Advantage plans have to follow suit.

Additional information related to the subject..

TMT

Ranks of cancer survivors growing fast, CDC says
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe, Ap Medical Writer
Thu Mar 10, 1:02 pm ET

ATLANTA – The number of cancer survivors in the United States is
increasing by hundreds of thousands a year, and now includes roughly
one in 20 adults, health officials said Thursday.

More people are surviving cancer, in part, because of earlier
detection and better treatment, they said.

In 2007, there were about 11.7 million Americans with a history of
cancer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Forty
years ago, the number of cancers survivors was about 3 million. That
increased to 10 million in 2001 and to 11.4 million in 2006.

Healthy eating, less smoking and other preventive steps may also be
playing a role in the increase, health officials said.

"There are some cancers that we can't prevent and they are terrible
tragedies," said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden. "But there are many
that are preventable, or if caught early can result in much longer
life."

Demographics are a factor in the survivor increase, too. Cancer is
most common in people 65 and older, and the nation's elderly
population is growing. The CDC said 7 million — 60 percent — of the
cancer survivors were 65 or older.

Women diagnosed with breast cancer made up the largest share of cancer
survivors, at 22 percent, followed by men with prostate cancer, at 19
percent.

The estimates from the CDC and the National Cancer Institute were
based on information from nine U.S. cancer patient registries.

The survivor count includes anyone who had a cancer diagnosis,
including people who had been successfully treated as well as those
still getting treated or who may be dying from the disease. About 65
percent had survived for at least five years, and 40 percent for 10
years or more.

___

Online:

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr