Obamacare = early retirement anyone?

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by LauderBoy

As for the government vs private debate, one thing to keep in mind is that private insurance companies are not in the business to keep health care costs down. They're in the business to earn profit.

And if the current system of $20 Tylenol pills suits their current profit system then don't expect any help from their end on a solution. All Aetna cares about is if they pay $16 per pill while their competitors pay $18.

And if customers feel like they have to go with insurance or pay $100 per pill, well that's all the better for them too.

That is a very interesting position. Funny though the insurance companies normally are accused of cutting back on services and not wanting to pay For the $20 Tylenol..... So are you saying the problem with private insurance is that they are overly generous?

[Dennis.G]

Originally Posted by Ziggy

No--under Obamacare the free healthcare for people with no income is still provided under Medicaid. To be eligible for Medicaid you need to have practically no assets (it may vary somewhat from state to state.) In other words, you need to spend your savings down to nothing first. I believe this test may also include non-liquid assets like your boat. I think the eligibility thresholds may rise to some extent under Obamacare.

This changes under Obamacare. Medicaid must be available to those with or without childeren, and without a "means" test (i.e., value of assets). Note that some states do this now, but in order to get federal dollars, all state Medicad programs will be required to meet these conditions.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by avb3

I have two meds I take. Checking today with my local Canadian Walmart pharmacy and a Walmart pharmacy in Tampa to see if I could get my prescription transferred, was I in for a shock!

For the identical drugs at Walmart Pharmacy, one is 5 times as expensive, and the other 3 times! I just about fell out of my chair.

I truly was shocked that a drug I pay 61.56 here, costs 284.00 there. Same drug, same company, coming out of I assume the same plant. The company is not even a US company... it is a European one. If this is any indication of the rest of the existing healthcare system, one has to wonder why?

Just in case anyone thinks that there are taxpayer dollars involved here in Canada, they are not. I don't carry supplemental insurance up here, so that is my out of pocket cost, the same that is charged to insurance companies for those who have a drug plan. Pure private enterprise in both countries, but what a difference in costs!!

The same applies to pharmacuticals manufactured in the US and exported for sale in Canada. More shocking is the fact that it seems to be against the law (in the US) to "re-import" these pharmacuitals to the US. A friend of ours tried this and had his medications siezed by Customs (according to FedEx). As it was explained to me, it seems the prices are "approved and set" by Medicare and so cannot be sold for less then that price. (Whether that is so or not, I don't know.)

[avb3]

I wear many hats.

This time I am putting on my hat.

Please do not make political posts. There has been good information in this thread, and if it is to stay open, we need to stay with facts, and not political comments. Some posts have been removed.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by capngeo

I I think the thread has run its course and ought to be closed HYMMV

I agree as mostly we are at the health insurance and US health care rant level now. So I am going to stop following this but look forward to a renewed discussion once we know more.

[Pete7]

It's been an interesting discussion and a bit of an eye opener for some of us that reside on the other little islands around the North Atlantic. However, everything needs to come to a close, so back to cruising.

Pete