More Than 4 Million Americans Have Lost Health Insurance Since 2016

Even before the GOP killed Obamacare's individual mandate back in December as part of their tax-reform plan, the number of Americans going without health insurance had been rising.

Obamacare

And now, according to a recent study, the number of uninsured US adults between the ages of 19 and 64 climbed to 15.5% in March 2018 compared with 12.7% in 2016. That's tantamount to 4 million people losing insurance, according to CBS.

The number of uninsured adults between the ages of 19 and 64 rose to 15.5 percent in March 2018, up from 12.7 percent in 2016. An estimated 4 million people lost individual coverage during that period, while the number of people with employer-sponsored coverage stayed steady.

Adults with lower incomes - about $30,000 for an individual and $61,000 for a family of four - saw a much higher increase: 25.7 percent in March 2018 compared to 20.9 percent in 2016.

Perhaps the biggest contributor to rising uninsured rates, according to the study, is the coverage gap, which leaves poor Americans in many states unable to afford health insurance. The gap first emerged in 2012, after the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare's mandate forcing states to expand Medicaid was "unconstitutionally coercive".

The biggest increases in uninsured rates in recent years have occurred in states that did not expand Medicaid, which shouldn't come as a surprise.

Another factor may be related to the so-called coverage gap. When the ACA was passed, it mandated that all states expand their Medicaid coverage, including increasing qualifying income limits. At the same time, the ACA ruled that people whose income fell below 100 percent of the poverty level would not qualify for the ACA's government subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums. The assumption was these people would be covered by expanded Medicaid coverage, Collins explained.

That plan went haywire when the Supreme Court later ruled that states were not required to expand Medicaid coverage but could do so voluntarily. As a result, people in nonexpansion states with incomes below the ACA subsidy limits often don't qualify for Medicaid. Indeed, the survey found the steepest increases in uninsured rates occurred in states that did not expand Medicaid.  

Collins predicted the rising uninsured trend is likely to continue. One reason: The repeal of the individual mandate, which required people to buy insurance or face penalties. The new tax law did away with that provision and eliminated penalties starting in 2019. Commonwealth found that 5 percent of people with insurance are planning to drop coverage once the mandate becomes obsolete. "That's not a huge number, but it is something," said Collins. 

At least one former ACA antagonist is warning that the repeal of the individual mandate was a mistake. Tom Price, former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said during a recent health-care conference in Washington that eliminating the individual mandate would almost certainly drive up premiums. Last year, the CBO forecast that 13 million people would lose coverage if the mandate was eliminated.

Of course, this trend can't continue for much longer until Obamacare experiences an all-out collapse as insurers decide that it's simply no longer worth it to offer health-care plans on the ACA's exchanges. As premiums soar, more and more people will be forced out of the market, deteriorating risk pools and forcing insurance companies to reconsider their participation.

In an interview last year, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini warned about the impending Obamacare "death spiral", saying "it's not going to get any better; it's getting worse."

Comments

Déjà view hedgeless_horseman Fri, 05/04/2018 - 21:39 Permalink

Español?

Gesundheit!

Ron Paul's former campaign manager died from complications caused by pneumonia because he couldn't afford health insurance, it has emerged. The details surrounding the 2008 death of Kent Snyder were revealed by Gawker after the Tea Party candidate indicated he did not agree with free state health care for the poor. 

Mr Snyder, 49, died on June 26, 2008, with hospital costs totalling $400,000 after he became ill with viral pneumonia. The bill for his care was sent to his mother, who was unable to pay, and so a website was set up by friends to secure donations. Mr Paul's election campaign did not provide workers with medical insurance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037330/Ron-Pauls-campaign-mana

10 Years Later...$800,000...

"Give Me Liberty...Or Give Me Death!" 

One can have their cake and eat it too...except momma!

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman

MoreSun slisa5751 Sat, 05/05/2018 - 01:07 Permalink

American citizens you have lost much, much, more than your medical insurance.

You have also lost your Republic, the jew supremacists have turned it into an marxist so-called democracy ran by the jew supremacists. You lost your borders, the jew supremacists led by zionist jew senator jacob javits shoved the 1965 immigration act down Americas throat and then he screamed "Open The Flood Gates" when the jews got it passed.

You lost your kids to the jew supremacist smut purveyors in the media and by the jew supremacists that infiltrated the entire U.S. school system many, many years ago.

You lost the sovereignty of your MONEY in 1913 with the jew supremacist creation of the so-called Federal reserve and their thug confiscation imprisonment arm the Irs.

And if you don't start standing up to the jewish elites at Aipac, Aclu, Splc, Zoa, Jwc, Jdl, Cfr, Trilateral Commission, and a thousand more jew supremacist organizations you will be another holocausted 1945 Germany. Not the faked, wholly exaggerated so-called jew holocaust- which has been unequivocally proven propagandized hokum. 

Here are the true eternal terrorist & destroyers in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TOYLr_P6hA&t=69s

Yip you heard it here !

In reply to by slisa5751

brushhog MoreSun Sat, 05/05/2018 - 07:14 Permalink

I see it like this; health insurance for me and my wife was 8k per year. We're both in good health and under 50. If we stay healthy for ten years without a major health crisis...thats 80k plus compounded interest, probably about 95k. 95k in a health savings account seems a safer bet to me than never ending premiums that increase year after year, slowly draining our life-blood and when something does happen the insurance company gives you the shaft anyway.

I learned this when I was a young guy...people go broke a little at a time. Its not the big things that come and take you down, its the slow payments that bleed you dry every month and then when the big expenses hit they dont have anything stored up to pay it. Of course nobody sees the slow bleed so they blame big expense instead of the slow bleed of taxes, insurance, cell phones, car payments, etc.

In reply to by MoreSun

johnQpublic brushhog Sat, 05/05/2018 - 07:44 Permalink

I agree but the wife doesnt. Its 10,000 before our plan starts to cover anything. It also doesnt cover chiropractic which we both need. We have never crested the deductible, so why have it? Its just a financial drain. The coverage before obammycare was actually insurance that covered things. Wife is stuck with that memory.

In reply to by brushhog

Endgame Napoleon Déjà view Sat, 05/05/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

We would have far more insured households if dual-high-earner parents took only one of the few good-paying jobs with so-called employer-provided health insurance per household. “Employer-provided” health insurance is not a 100% free-market market product; it is made possible by a very expensive $260-billion-dollar tax exclusion for employers that mirrors Medicare in terms of budgetary costs. 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-tax-exclusion-emp…

When dual-high-earner parents are above firing due to “needing the money,” and when they dominate all of the jobs with benefits—even though they are often absentee mornings, afternoons, days and weeks, in addition to PTO and pregnancy leaves—it leaves many college-educated citizens, with no spousal income and with no access to monthly welfare, working low-wage, temporary and part-time jobs or 1099 gigs with no benefits, while so-called working parents double up on benefits. 

Underemployed, college-educated people would have more of those decent jobs, rather than facing rent that soaks up more than half of their pay, if crony parents did not hire mostly fellow above-firing, frequently absentee parents.  

If one parent actually raised the children that the so-called working family created, rather than leaving that work to elderly grandparents, $9-per-hour babysitters with NannyCams or $9-per-hour daycare workers, more US citizens would be insured. 

In this rigged setup, many citizens face insurmountable rent costs, with no spousal income and no womb-productivity-based access to the wide array of monthly welfare products that cover the rent and groceries of single-earner, low-income parents who work part time, the same group that also gets an EITC refundable child tax credit up to $6,431.

In the fake-feminist era of above-firing and glorified working families, single, childless citizens with only one stream of earned-only income are often left to work the low-wage, temporary and part-time jobs. Or, they work 1099 gigs with twice-as-high SS-taxation rates and no benefits, while so-called working parents double up on the jobs with steady pay and benefits with no obligation to sacrifice anything for the job, never skipping a lengthy vacation, a morning off or an afternoon off due to needing to stay at work. 

They are free to put their personal lives ahead of work as long as they have seen birth-canal exits. 

In addition to weeks of absenteeism for things like soccer tournaments, moms often leave work every day in the afternoon, leaving phones unmanned and ringing off the hook with paying customers. I have never seen a mom fired for it except in one case, and that was due to all-day / every-day absenteeism in a management job. That mom was still retained far longer than most employees, working there for years.

Employers hire mostly moms with unearned income streams from spouses or government for the low-paying jobs with benefits, like the multitude of unlicensed moms working in the insurance industry, where managers often want moms with “somethin’ comin’ in” from spouses or taxpayers that covers their major household bills, meaning they want employees who do not need higher pay or more hours.  

This pushes those with one, earned-only income stream into self-employment, where there is often little cash flow and low and unpredictable net income, unlike dual-high-earner couples with steady jobs who are above-firing due to their personal lives. It is far harder to budget for any superfluous expense, including health insurance, when your income is  unpredictable and often low. 

In a sad kind of way, it is good that the mandate was removed, but it is absurd when politicians try to sell this situation as some kind of victory. It is an awful thing with lots of casualties. 

It is a deeply selfish thing, too, including all of these above-firing, double-covered parents on an excused, two-week vacation every two months, but still dominating the few jobs with decent pay and benefits in mom-protection rackets.

No, most of the jobs with benefits dominated by crony parents are not rocket science jobs. They are mostly jobs that any college-educated person could do. People without a college education could do most of the jobs with benefits, too, with some moderate training. 

Absentee parents hang onto the jobs, even though people without kids would be fired for a fraction of that absenteeism—for 1/16th of an inch of the miles of excused absenteeism that is tolerated for fellow parents in the fake-feminist workplaces voted best for moms.

Politicians keep accommodating two parents per household to work with social engineering projects, adding layer after layer of pay from governent for sex and reproduction to prop up their wages at the low end of the wage pool via the welfare code, and they accommodate both the low and high-earning parents via the progressive tax code and mandated-absenteeism privileges for working parents. 

Politicians on both sides of the aisle do not believe in a free labor market; they believe in a rigged labor market. 

They believe in a labor market, where at the top, working parents are coddled and advantaged to advance assortative mating, the concentration of good-paying in fewer households that has halved the size of the college-educated middle class and reduced the number of insured households. 

At the bottom of the wage pool, to help maintain a cheap-labor pool that is advantaged by low pay and part-time hours that keep them under the earned-income limits for welfare, politicians in both parties believe in rigging the labor market for the group that now dominates most of the jobs in the USA: childbearing-aged females. 

Childbearing-aged women are the most likely not to need wages that cover a full range of household bills due to spousal income, child support that covers rent or access to free rent, free groceries, free monthly cash, free electricity, up to $6,431 in refundable EITC child tax credits and nearly free daycare so that the moms can work part time to stay under the earned-income limits for these welfare programs.

Meanwhile, more than half of womb-less, male citizens — ages 18 to 34 — live with their parents in adulthood due to unaffordable rent, as do many non-womb-productive / non-welfare-eligible females, and many of them are the very young people that they needed to make the risk pools for Obamacare strong enough. Yet, Congress screws them by rigging the labor market for womb-productive females.

Because a few people make bank on it, like the Aetna CEO with his $300-million-per-year salary, politicians who support a rigged labor market do believe in so-called free markets for things like health insurance, no matter how many citizens go without it. 

They say governent-financed healthcare has bad outcomes. True. Politicians should not rig the healthcare system, removing quality options for a few. 

But it is fine for politicians to maneuver around, accommodating dual-high-earner parents and single parents with low incomes, piling on one social-engineering project after another to help the married ones dominate two jobs with private health insurance per household, and giving the womb-productive low earners free everything.

And that employer-provided health insurance is not really a free-market creation, either, not when those high-quality, employer-provided benefits depend on a hugely, bigly, $260-billion-dollar tax exclusion that is almost as costly as Medicare.

The truth is that most people under 65 do not (or rarely) use their health insurance, and with the pittance that most of us are paid, even in jobs where we are among the few employees coming to work every day, staying all day and meeting the quotas every month, we cannot justify the expense, not with rent eating up over half of our earned-only income.

And the country cannot afford to do anything for anyone who is not sexing it up and reproducing more than they can afford. 

But to prop up a welfare-subsidized labor market of womb-productive illegal / illegal immigrants to undercut 50 million out-of-the-workforce citizens in the labor market, Congress sure can afford to allocate heaps of money to hospitals for illegal alien healthcare, in addition to paying their grocery and rent bills, handing many of them free monthly cash and refundable child tax credits of up to $6,431. 

It costs $113 billion per year to pay just the illegal aliens for having sex and reproducing, not counting the welfare-consuming womb producers in the 1.1 million new legal immigrants added each year, and they send $28 billion per year out of the country just to Mexico. 

This country can afford that expense. These noncitizens have sex and reproduce. We cannot question any expense accruing to them without being accused of hating babies, even if they form a line that stretches out the door in the emergency room, where they are treated for free for minor ailments, while non-welfare-eligible citizens who compete with them for jobs pay for minor illnesses by using other types of healthcare, not by using the free stuff intended only for serious emergencies. 

When they go to the emergency room for serious reasons, citizens of this country also get large bills, paying more due to all of this free care for womb-productive illegal aliens. 

I happen to know that illegal aliens do not pay for their emergency room care from working at the Department of Human services, where bills were faxed or brought in from the best hospitals in town for every member of illegal alien households. Womb-productive illegal aliens in single-earner households got more in free food per month than I made in a week of working there as a college grad, and their hospital bills were paid-in-full by US taxpayers, too.

No matter how large, or for which member of their family, not just the US-born kids, the bills were paid in full by a separate Medicaid fund set up by the Swamp Congress to cover uncompensated care so that US hospitals will not go broke.

Like the other welfare-eligible working parents, the illegal alien households with male breadwinners on welfare for US-born kids DO NOT work full time for these benefits, not for traceable earnings, because they would go over the earned-income limits for the welfare programs if they did. 

They have to submit evidence of their pay when applying for benefits. We saw what they made.

The Swamp has set up a rigged  labor market, where sex and reproduction pays, whether you are a citizen or here illegally, but hard work does not pay for many American citizens, including on the jobs-with-benefits front. 

Citizenship is nearly meaningless, and many citizens are put dead last—far below cheap-labor noncitizens—when it comes to healthcare or any other issue. 

The cost of rent is a much, much, much bigger issue for most underemployed and out-of-the-workforce citizens, and there too, mass immigration drives up prices due to more people competing for units. More citizens could afford health insurance if rent did not consume so much of their earned-only income.

And it will stay that way, because unfortunately, this country has become corrupt to the core and not much of a Republic. Millions of US citizens are simply not represented by elected leaders on this issue or any other issue. Elected leaders represent womb-productive illegal aliens more than us.

In reply to by Déjà view

7thGenMO hedgeless_horseman Sat, 05/05/2018 - 10:05 Permalink

A baseline to negotiate with doctors directly is the cost for a procedure in an excellent hospital outside of the US.  I plan to travel for a minor procedure that will cost about 70% less than in the USA, even considering travel costs.  However, before buying a ticket, I'll appeal to the business interests of local medical professionals by asking, "You don't want me, as an American, to have to travel overseas because your services are too expensive, do you?"  This is a subtle way of suggesting to them that, even though your profession is a form of organized crime on the public (which Thomas Jefferson proclaimed all professions to be), market forces ultimately prevail.  Those medical professionals with business sense may ultimately discover that they'll have to give up their perks if they want the health system here to not completely collapse.

The healthcare system in the USA may be very good, but, if fewer and fewer working people have access, will it remain viable by only serving the very poor and the wealthy?  Obamacare was designed to force people into abject poverty.

BTW - Excellent article h_h!

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman

Endgame Napoleon 7thGenMO Sat, 05/05/2018 - 11:31 Permalink

Good for you. You may have a job that allows you a lot of time off, like the many crony parents that I described in my post who are above firing for far more frivolous stints of frequent and lengthy absenteeism. You may also have the extra income to spare after rent is paid. Many underemployed citizens do not, yet our emergency rooms are crowded with illegal aliens from a country with socialized medicine, namely Mexico. I have been lucky in that respect, not needing to spend much on healthcare, and it is a good thing, as I am not in the discrimination gangs of crony-corrupt, back-watching, womb-productive and above-firing mom employees with spousal income, child support that covers rent or layers of monthly welfare covering rent and groceries and EITC refundable child tax credits up to $6,431, who dominate the low-wage and high-wage office jobs with benefits, bullying out the non culture fits. They do all that bullying for baby, just like they indulge in libertine amounts of absenteeism for baby.

In reply to by 7thGenMO

bshirley1968 MasterControl Sat, 05/05/2018 - 09:48 Permalink

Screw insurance. Remove "insurance" from the picture and prices would become affordable......overnight.

I know this, the Republicans and Trump were put in office because they said they would remove obamacare, then Trump agreed and said he would also secure the border.

Two years later, the mandate is all that has been removed....it was illegal and about to be shot down anyway...and jack shit has been done about the border....and worst of all, we don't even hear about obamacare or much about the border anymore....much less see anything being done about them. It's all about Syria, Iran, NK, corporate tax cuts, Mueller, blah, blah, blah....and Stormy Daniels. We get nothing about the corruption in healthcare and how it is destroying the middle class....needlessly....to put more money on the hands of corporate America. We get next to nothing about the border....except crossings are up over 200% from last year.

In reply to by MasterControl

Bravo Two Zero MasterControl Sat, 05/05/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

..that started when they put up a 15 year-old re-hash of Hillarycare and demanded they had to pass it for "We the people..." to find out what was in it. Companies shed jobs, the middle class took on a disproportionate burden in paying for it while most of them couldn't afford it.

This article is just a "boo hoo" for the insurance companies who were making a killing and are now suffering from smaller margins. WAAAHHHHHHHH!!! Cry me a river asshats...

In reply to by MasterControl

Endgame Napoleon Bravo Two Zero Sat, 05/05/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

Since in addition to a useless college degree, I have 4 insurance licenses and have seen what goes on in that field, I am not crying too hard for them, either, other than for the little agents who were coaxed into buying franchises.

Given the way some who used their home equity from failed marriages, which accrued to them due to womb productivity, behave with employees, I really should not care.

But some of them are nice, and they have to buy into those businesses, signing contracts that are much less generous than the contracts in past eras. Multiple, older agents told me how it was in the past. The big corporations did NOT treat agents the same way in the past, but the CEOs probably did not make $300 million per year. 

Just like with the straight-commission pyramid salesmen working independently, with about 10 people they have never met taking a cut out of each $250 straight-commission sale, the big corporations dump more expenses on the franchise owners who pay between $10,000 and $190,000 for those franchises, while hiring almost all unlicensed moms for their low-paying corporate office positions.

Those unlicensed mom gangs have benefits, not that you could live on the pay without a spousal income or welfare and refundable child tax credits up to $6,431. Most of the licensed sales staff do not have benefits.

Insurance companies skimp on insurance benefits even for their own employees, specifically for their licensed employees who pay twice-as-high SS tax, licensing fees, etc. Well, they will pay the licensing renewal fee for you.

In reply to by Bravo Two Zero

drstrangelove73 Déjà view Sat, 05/05/2018 - 10:59 Permalink

What a hoax.Obamacare taxed young people,99% of whom don’t need health insurance because they are,duh,healthy.Obamacare had such high deductibles,it’s slaves couldn’t afford to use the useless product if they needed to.It was a massive wealth transfer to Obamas constituency,the ‘free shit’ crowd,from the working young.Good riddance.It was designed to fail and produce a demand to socialize the entire system.Wakeup,people.The/Marxist socialists of Obama’s regime were creating a police state to enslave you.Trumpmay wear his tie too long,but he’s doing all the right things.Wake thefuck up...

In reply to by Déjà view

Endgame Napoleon drstrangelove73 Sat, 05/05/2018 - 12:21 Permalink

All insurance works by collecting premiums mostly from people who do not use it. That is how they spread the risk, theoretically making premiums affordable. 

Insurance companies could blame elderly people for uprates, but Medicare covers the elderly. They are not in the private-market risk pool to drive premiums up.

Insurance companies would not cover even one elderly person; they are too much of a risk for insurers to make a profit. 

Many late middle-aged and older, but not Medicare-aged, people are healthy, too, and sure as hell cannot afford the higher premiums that all older people—even healthy nonsmokers—get just due to age, albeit young people are charged more for car insurance just due to age. 

Young or old, when you cannot afford something due to your rate of pay, you simply cannot afford it unless government is paying your bills, along with giving you bigly child tax credits for having sex and reproducing as a citizen or noncitizen.

The first thing most cash-strapped, non-welfare-eligible people do is dump health insurance or insurance on paid-for cars, but even when they are not going to dump it, because of the way insurance is rated, their insurance rates will still go up.

Insurance companies are much worse than FaceBook and Google about surveilling people and making assumptions, saying their actuarial models are foolproof. They aren’t. But they will use any excuse to charge more.

There is no such thing as a good, loyal customer. Insurance companies do not value customers who pay every month, never let their policies lapse and never make claims, even those who keep their policies over many years.

In fact, they have a “theory” that the longer people keep a policy, the more likely they will use it. So, it is counterintuitive, and the agents have no control over the uprating of good customers.

The only thing that counts is cross selling to get more products insured. People with more money, and thus with more things to insure, are charged less for their policies. It is like they bring in bulk business, so they are charged less. That is true in every type of sales.

But this mentality is making insurance less valuable to most citizens who own less since the top 20% take it all in the USA, meaning that insurance companies are going to need to charge even their favored family-friendly customers in the top 20% more, spreading the risk over a smaller group of insureds. 

They also face more claims due to multiple natural disasters, compounding that issue. 

They keep some customers on their books just through government mandates, but not all groups, especially not those who get the most freebies from governent.

When processing car insurance payments and policy endorsements, you see that those single moms and immigrants that are showered with free rent, free groceries, free monthly cash assistance, free electricity, EITC child tax credits up to $6,431 and nearly free daycare so that they can stay below the earned-income limits for the programs, are not the ones holding a lot of state-required policies. 

This is because they dominate the low-wage office jobs, like most of the insurance underwriting jobs and many of the call center jobs that just have one licensed “signer” on staff.

Employers in office jobs do not require proof of insurance, whereas non-womb-productive men whose household bills are not paid by government for their part in the sex and reproduction are often required to submit proof of insurance to employers due to the nature of their work. 

When those single moms and legal / illegal immigrants do not use their $6,431 refundable EITC child tax credits to cover state-required insurance, using it instead on another $900 tattoo or a beach trip with a boyfriend, we all pay higher premiums as a result. They still drive around, incurring risk.

Some people with low, earned-only income are just responsible, paying the insurance every month and maintaining the policies. Whether it is in a workplace, where absentee-mom gangs are favored over people who come to work every day and meet the quotas every month, or in the world of paying for insurance, that sort of behavior never pays off.  

 

In reply to by drstrangelove73

Zorba's idea Endgame Napoleon Sat, 05/05/2018 - 13:34 Permalink

A modest suggestion, Tear down the entire US HC labyrinth/Racket, and replace with an unfettered free market system which would remove all the protectionism the Insurance Oligarchs have leveraged out of the back pockets of middle class americans. Lastly, based on the principle..."You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit", END THE FED. Our nations denigrated currency exacerbates any solution towards an Affordable, Viable, and Sustainable Health Care System. 

In reply to by Endgame Napoleon

___ read.between___ JohannSennefelder Fri, 05/04/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

This article didn't get any traction whatsoever.

Whatever.

I have a friend who is a multi-millionaire.  He qualified for free Obamacare health insurance through Medicaid because he was able to zero out all of his income with expenses.  Obamacare never ask any questions regarding the total value of your assets, just your income.  This loophole allowed multi-millionaires to obtain free insurance.  What a system.

 

In reply to by JohannSennefelder

toady ___ read.between___ Fri, 05/04/2018 - 22:56 Permalink

Hey! Stop picking on me!

Just because I have several million in assets doesn't mean I shouldn't have free healthcare!

It quickly wasn't free tho.... a year later it was two hundred, a year after that it was four hundred, another year and it's eight...I had to drop it when it jumped to sixteen.

Thank God Trump killed the mandate or they'd be fining me. McStain and his thumbs down is gonna cost us all trillions before it's over.

The insurance companies are the problem. The must be cut out of any solution.

In reply to by ___ read.between___

AGuy toady Sat, 05/05/2018 - 01:45 Permalink

"Just because I have several million in assets doesn't mean I shouldn't have free healthcare!"

Denying wealthy people access to free healthcare is discrimination! If its illegal to discriminate against the color of skin, gender, etc, why is wealth OK? /joking.

In reply to by toady

AGuy Mikeyyy Sat, 05/05/2018 - 11:25 Permalink

"There is no way on this earth that a "multi-millionaire" is gonna use Medicaid when he could afford his own private sector health insurance. No way. And you're full of crap."

He not using medicaid but the subsidized Obozocare. Its basically private insurance, but subsidized, and probably the same plan if he paid the full amount.

In reply to by Mikeyyy

uhland62 Fri, 05/04/2018 - 21:31 Permalink

Just self-insure. Save some money every month for your own health fund and if the bill is higher than your savings, use the credit card and pay it off. Has this freedom been taken away?  

847328_3527 Fri, 05/04/2018 - 21:37 Permalink

I wish I could find a good dentist. My former one retired and the new ones are terrible. I may go to Vietnam where a crown costs $150 and a root canal is about the same. CAT scan of your entire jaw=$20 my friend said. He had some work done there and saved $$$$$$ and the teeth look very good.