Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

malibber2
malibber2
Apr 1, 2014
6:28am
Block User
Quote
Does this mean I can stop digging my apocalypse bunker now?



I'd wouldn't quit digging as they have yet to be hit with my family's medical bills.
forkushV
forkushV
Apr 1, 2014
6:34am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Does this mean I can stop digging my apocalypse bunker now?



I'd wouldn't quit digging as they have yet to be hit with my family's medical bills.
The pre-existing provision of Obamacare is saving you $200,000 to $500,000, according to what you stated before, right?

malibber2
malibber2
Apr 1, 2014
6:41am
Block User
Today Obama approved home health care for my wife in home she gets:
3 RN visits a week
1 OT per-week
1 PT per-week
and 2 personal aide days.

To answer your question I am not saving anything as I wasn't paying those bills before. Now insurance pays those bills and medical debt piles up at about 40k a year rate instead of 100-200k a year. So the hospitals get paid and the doctors get paid, but I am not saving any money nor do I have anymore to spend.

Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Does this mean I can stop digging my apocalypse bunker now?



I'd wouldn't quit digging as they have yet to be hit with my family's medical bills.
The pre-existing provision of Obamacare is saving you $200,000 to $500,000, according to what you stated before, right?


forkushV
forkushV
Apr 1, 2014
6:58am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
To answer your question I am not saving anything as I wasn't paying those bills before. Now insurance pays those bills...
Correction. Based on your previous estimates, Obamacare:
  • is keeping you from going another $200,000 to $500,000 in debt;,
  • is making sure that your providers are being paid, so they can stay in business, prosper, and not have to rely on government funds.

    And since uninsured patients are more likely to die in the ER, it is also making it more likely that you and your family survive.

    • Dan Svatass
    Dan Svatass
    Apr 1, 2014
    8:44am
    Block User
    Quote
    Originally posted by: alanleroyII
    Chilcoot at dinner, using his napkin.

    Ha! Love it.

    Paul Krugman today sees the unnecessarily complicated, Goldbergian mechanics of Obamacare the same way I do:

    I’ve always thought of Obamacare as a sort of Rube Goldberg device that awkwardly simulates the results of a single-payer system. It’s run through private insurance companies in part to buy off the industry, in part to let most people with good insurance keep it. It relies on a mandate plus subsidies, rather than full funding via the tax system, in part to keep down the headline spending number. And so on. The resulting system isn’t what anyone would design from scratch; it was, however, probably the only kind of system we could get.
    jatki
    jatki
    Apr 1, 2014
    11:21am
    Block User
    Quote
    Originally posted by: nuggetboy
    Quote
    Originally posted by: hoops2
    "Too many execs getting away with minimal salaries but gobs of untaxed benefits that contribute to their massive wealth"

    Such as?


    The list is endless depending on the corporation.
    Even small businesses have many of these "perks" they give to their managers.
    I have several members of my family that work for large corporations and some smaller ones (three are accountants). I am always amazed at what they tell me their company either pays for or they can bill off to the company. In some cases, their "benefits" or "billing offs" exceed their actual salaries (which aren't too shabby).

    Corporate retreats
    Use of company property (condo's, lake houses,etc. - they can be rented for next to nothing for private use)
    One company owns a compound in Belize. They execs use it for "planning sessions' every six months. Families come along of course, just have to pay air fare.
    Corporate/company car (don't have to buy your own)
    Health club membership
    Country club membership
    Entertainment expenses, both for home and outside
    Use of corporate sky box in stadium
    Clothing allowance
    Cell phone/mobile devices and accounts

    The list goes on. The individual does not have to spend their own money for these things therefore keeping their wealth intact. The typical blue collar or labor worker does not get these benefits and must spend his/her own money on cell phones, vacations, cars, car insurance, car registration, event tickets, etc...
    A company car alone, with all the operational expenses covered, is equal to more than a minimum wage employee earns in a year. No taxes paid on it.


    So is there something wrong that? Is there something wrong with a successful career that starts to include some perks? Anyone that thinks that there is , is simply crying sour grapes about the haves vs have-nots. My wife has had a very successful career, some in a corp atmosphere some in non corp. but all have been very successful and with a few small perks. None however have included some of the ones listed and we don't begrudge anyone any of those, why should we? Good for them. We feel pretty blessed about everything we do have especially after the last 5 yrs. with only one income on top off everything else taht we've been through.



    forkushV
    forkushV
    Apr 1, 2014
    11:30am
    Block User
    Quote
    Originally posted by: jatki99
    Quote
    Originally posted by: nuggetboy
    Quote
    Originally posted by: hoops2
    "Too many execs getting away with minimal salaries but gobs of untaxed benefits that contribute to their massive wealth"

    Such as?


    The list is endless depending on the corporation.
    Even small businesses have many of these "perks" they give to their managers.
    I have several members of my family that work for large corporations and some smaller ones (three are accountants). I am always amazed at what they tell me their company either pays for or they can bill off to the company. In some cases, their "benefits" or "billing offs" exceed their actual salaries (which aren't too shabby).

    Corporate retreats
    Use of company property (condo's, lake houses,etc. - they can be rented for next to nothing for private use)
    One company owns a compound in Belize. They execs use it for "planning sessions' every six months. Families come along of course, just have to pay air fare.
    Corporate/company car (don't have to buy your own)
    Health club membership
    Country club membership
    Entertainment expenses, both for home and outside
    Use of corporate sky box in stadium
    Clothing allowance
    Cell phone/mobile devices and accounts

    The list goes on. The individual does not have to spend their own money for these things therefore keeping their wealth intact. The typical blue collar or labor worker does not get these benefits and must spend his/her own money on cell phones, vacations, cars, car insurance, car registration, event tickets, etc...
    A company car alone, with all the operational expenses covered, is equal to more than a minimum wage employee earns in a year. No taxes paid on it.


    So is there something wrong that? Is there something wrong with a successful career that starts to include some perks?...
    I agree!

    But when a fast-food worker earns a dollar an hour raise, it's taxed. When executives earn much much more than that in perks and fringe benefits, sometimes it isn't taxed. Fair? No, it's class warfare.
    nuggetboy
    nuggetboy
    Apr 1, 2014
    11:41am
    Block User
    Quote
    Originally posted by: jatki99
    Quote
    Originally posted by: nuggetboy
    Quote
    Originally posted by: hoops2
    "Too many execs getting away with minimal salaries but gobs of untaxed benefits that contribute to their massive wealth"

    Such as?


    The list is endless depending on the corporation.
    Even small businesses have many of these "perks" they give to their managers.
    I have several members of my family that work for large corporations and some smaller ones (three are accountants). I am always amazed at what they tell me their company either pays for or they can bill off to the company. In some cases, their "benefits" or "billing offs" exceed their actual salaries (which aren't too shabby).

    Corporate retreats
    Use of company property (condo's, lake houses,etc. - they can be rented for next to nothing for private use)
    One company owns a compound in Belize. They execs use it for "planning sessions' every six months. Families come along of course, just have to pay air fare.
    Corporate/company car (don't have to buy your own)
    Health club membership
    Country club membership
    Entertainment expenses, both for home and outside
    Use of corporate sky box in stadium
    Clothing allowance
    Cell phone/mobile devices and accounts

    The list goes on. The individual does not have to spend their own money for these things therefore keeping their wealth intact. The typical blue collar or labor worker does not get these benefits and must spend his/her own money on cell phones, vacations, cars, car insurance, car registration, event tickets, etc...
    A company car alone, with all the operational expenses covered, is equal to more than a minimum wage employee earns in a year. No taxes paid on it.


    So is there something wrong that? Is there something wrong with a successful career that starts to include some perks? Anyone that thinks that there is , is simply crying sour grapes about the haves vs have-nots. My wife has had a very successful career, some in a corp atmosphere some in non corp. but all have been very successful and with a few small perks. None however have included some of the ones listed and we don't begrudge anyone any of those, why should we? Good for them. We feel pretty blessed about everything we do have especially after the last 5 yrs. with only one income on top off everything else taht we've been through.


    Jak,
    I agree with you in part and do not begrudge their success. I just want them to pay their fair share. These people may deserve these benefits, but why does a person earning 200k with 60k in benefits only pay taxes on the 200k? get those benefits if you can and you deserve them, just pay taxes on them. Again, it is all about taxing income and not wealth. We need to base our tax system on wealth. It would be impossible to properly calculate the actual "income" from many of these benefits. just tax wealth.
    jatki
    jatki
    Apr 1, 2014
    11:47am
    Block User
    Of course it's fair, you're crying sour grapes, plain and simple. The folks getting those perks"have more" those working for hourly wages "have less".Soo..the haves vs the have nots.Sour grapes.

    EDIT I was answering forky. You (nugget) snuck one in on me, sorry. I was trying to circumvent keeping the mile long quote chain going.
    jatki
    jatki
    Apr 1, 2014
    11:52am
    Block User
    I still say that some people have worked long and hard to achieve certain things in life(wealth) and because others don't have it, it should be taken away(lessened) because "it's not fair"?
    Already a LVA subscriber?
    To continue reading, choose an option below:
    Diamond Membership
    $3 per month
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Limited Member Rewards Online
    Join Now
    or
    Platinum Membership
    $50 per year
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Exclusive Member Rewards Book
    Join Now