Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > Texas > Dallas > The Sandbox - Dallas
test
The Sandbox - Dallas The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 281
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70796
biomed163315
Yssup Rider61036
gman4453296
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48678
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42772
CryptKicker37222
The_Waco_Kid37135
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-03-2014, 06:14 PM   #61
doug_dfw
Valued Poster
 
doug_dfw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1, 2010
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,103
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog View Post
The premiums at my two businesses have gone down since we got an ACA policy. Our premiums used to be $1,900-something/employee+kids. Now they are high $1,300- something/employee+kids. Saved he a shitload of money for me. Over $100,000 extra in my pocket.
You are the very first businessman I have ever heard to make that claim. Since small business has not been regulated yet, I presume your employees were taken off a good plan and replaced with a silver Obamacare and are earning less than 30,000 a year so they are subsidized by the rest of us. You get the $ 100,000 we pay for. That's smart. OOPs Poor employees . They have a 6,000 annual deductible. So they pay as well as us . But more tail for you, lucky guy. PS I am a small business guy and dread what will befall my business in 2016 when the personal mandates are imposed on small business. My people still enjoy the great low deductibles and copays until then. My hope is we get a Tea Party President and Republican Congress in 16.
doug_dfw is offline   Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 02:26 AM   #62
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldLRRP View Post
That is nearly a billion a year. Hell yes, they say no. The doctors and hospitals won't take medicaid patients anyway. We are going to take over the Senate in the midterms and defund this crap.
Most docs and hospitals in my part of the state would be flat fucking broke without Medicaid!
TexTushHog is offline   Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 02:28 AM   #63
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug_dfw View Post
Which Democrat? None on the scene yet. Questionable if a Republican Establishment or Libertarian would. A Tea Party Republican certainly. Vote for Ted Cruz.
Hillary is going to win the nomination, and likely the election. She won't even think about repealing the ACA.
TexTushHog is offline   Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 02:29 AM   #64
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug_dfw View Post
You are the very first businessman I have ever heard to make that claim. Since small business has not been regulated yet, I presume your employees were taken off a good plan and replaced with a silver Obamacare and are earning less than 30,000 a year so they are subsidized by the rest of us. You get the $ 100,000 we pay for. That's smart. OOPs Poor employees . They have a 6,000 annual deductible. So they pay as well as us . But more tail for you, lucky guy. PS I am a small business guy and dread what will befall my business in 2016 when the personal mandates are imposed on small business. My people still enjoy the great low deductibles and copays until then. My hope is we get a Tea Party President and Republican Congress in 16.
Gold. I have zero employees who make under $30,000. But, yes, the previous insurance was very good, as is the ACA policy.
TexTushHog is offline   Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 08:11 AM   #65
Grace Preston
Madame Moderator
 
Grace Preston's Avatar
 
User ID: 123904
Join Date: Feb 27, 2012
Location: Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Posts: 9,693
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Small employers who were providing EXCELLENT insurance before the ACA are, in general, saving money with the ACA. The ones complaining are the ones who provided the most barebones policies just so they could say that they "offered benefits". The bronze level of ACA is pretty basic (too basic to me, we have silver). So if a business's policy didn't meet that minimum standard, then they had to change. But if it met the minimum standard, they weren't forced to change. Ergo, those doing the "right thing" for their employees at the very least didn't see an increase-- and some saw a decrease.

You aren't gonna hear as many stories about those who are better off with the ACA than without. That doesn't make a good, sensational story on Fox news.
Grace Preston is offline   Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 06:34 PM   #66
doug_dfw
Valued Poster
 
doug_dfw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1, 2010
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,103
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog View Post
Gold. I have zero employees who make under $30,000. But, yes, the previous insurance was very good, as is the ACA policy.
That being the case I would appreciate the contact for you broker and I will fire mine.
doug_dfw is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 08:01 AM   #67
TexTushHog
Professional Tush Hog.
 
TexTushHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 27, 2009
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 8,959
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug_dfw View Post
That being the case I would appreciate the contact for you broker and I will fire mine.
Both policies were with BCBS of Texas. ACA mandated that they provide rates for ACA policies with renewal quote. They did, and it was cheaper ($1,900-something v $1,300-something/Mo.). Are you paying more than that? I'd be curious. Given how little health care we use, I still think the premium is too high. But it is better. But there is no way our group costs the insurance company $15,000/employee/year. Jessie James had to carry a gun to make money like that.
TexTushHog is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 09:09 AM   #68
mydallas1
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 13, 2014
Location: Dallas
Posts: 338
Encounters: 8
Default

I think one minor change would fix all this. Make patients pay doctors when they are healthy not when they are sick. Doctors visits should be more regular and more thorough with the doctors focus on keeping the person healthy instead of visiting doctors only when their is a problem. A once a year annual is probably not enough to keep that information up to date. When the doctors lose pay for illness they have an incentive to keep people healthy. Are their some problems with this that need to be worked out, sure their are. It would be better than what we have though.
mydallas1 is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 09:34 AM   #69
jbravo_123
Verified Member
 
jbravo_123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 7, 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,548
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydallas1 View Post
I think one minor change would fix all this. Make patients pay doctors when they are healthy not when they are sick. Doctors visits should be more regular and more thorough with the doctors focus on keeping the person healthy instead of visiting doctors only when their is a problem. A once a year annual is probably not enough to keep that information up to date. When the doctors lose pay for illness they have an incentive to keep people healthy. Are their some problems with this that need to be worked out, sure their are. It would be better than what we have though.
So part of the idea of getting everyone on insurance is that they can theoretically go in for regular checkups and more focus can be placed on preventative care as opposed to uninsured people going to the expensive ER every time they get sick (which was what was happening before).
jbravo_123 is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 12:42 PM   #70
mydallas1
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 13, 2014
Location: Dallas
Posts: 338
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbravo_123 View Post
So part of the idea of getting everyone on insurance is that they can theoretically go in for regular checkups and more focus can be placed on preventative care as opposed to uninsured people going to the expensive ER every time they get sick (which was what was happening before).
Not the same, imo. I don't know exactly how it would work. Let's just say, something like $1,000 a month goes to the doctor. He seems the patient once a month. Every month he is doing some different test. Allergy tests, blood tests, mris, whatever is out their. His job is to keep a person healthy. The moment a person gets sick, they pay nothing until healthy. The choice doctors should make is what is the best for the patient to keep them happy, healthy and living a long lif not what insurance will cover or what steps insurance requires them to do first. Doctors should run medicine, not insurance companies.
mydallas1 is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 03:40 PM   #71
jbravo_123
Verified Member
 
jbravo_123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 7, 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,548
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mydallas1 View Post
Not the same, imo. I don't know exactly how it would work. Let's just say, something like $1,000 a month goes to the doctor. He seems the patient once a month. Every month he is doing some different test. Allergy tests, blood tests, mris, whatever is out their. His job is to keep a person healthy. The moment a person gets sick, they pay nothing until healthy. The choice doctors should make is what is the best for the patient to keep them happy, healthy and living a long lif not what insurance will cover or what steps insurance requires them to do first. Doctors should run medicine, not insurance companies.
What if the patient doesn't agree to the treatment the doctor prescribes? Under the current system, patients have the freedom to take medication / treatments if they want to or get a second opinion. There often also isn't a clear "best choice" in treatment or treatments without risks.

Ultimately, we can't have a system where people are given whatever treatment is necessary to keep them alive. There has to be some limit as to what treatments can be given based off of how cost effective they are.

No one should be paid for doing essentially nothing. If a patient is healthy (we're not even going to get into a discussion about what "healthy" means), a doctor shouldn't be paid just because of that. Even if they run tests, if the patient is healthy, you're just wasting resources that could've been diverted to sick patients. You also can't control when a person gets sick or injured, even if you saw a doctor every day.
jbravo_123 is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 05:23 PM   #72
Look-at-Stupid
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 26, 2011
Location: South Dallas
Posts: 823
Encounters: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailBlazer View Post
The Unaffordable Care Act is a POS, just like the traitor Muslim POS occupying a certain building in D.C. on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Muslim? Traitor? Been watching too much Fox News there Bubba? From quotes he made on the campaign trail he most likely is a closet atheist, but with idiots like you out there, little wonder huh? I am out in the open, but I carry weapons in case I run into stupid bigots like yourself.
Look-at-Stupid is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 06:47 PM   #73
doug_dfw
Valued Poster
 
doug_dfw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1, 2010
Location: Arlington
Posts: 2,103
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexTushHog View Post
Both policies were with BCBS of Texas. ACA mandated that they provide rates for ACA policies with renewal quote. They did, and it was cheaper ($1,900-something v $1,300-something/Mo.). Are you paying more than that? I'd be curious. Given how little health care we use, I still think the premium is too high. But it is better. But there is no way our group costs the insurance company $15,000/employee/year. Jessie James had to carry a gun to make money like that.
Thanks I will check their rates for my employees.
doug_dfw is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 07:01 PM   #74
Roothead
Valued Poster
 
Roothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 22, 2011
Location: Metroplex USA, Europe and Asia
Posts: 1,474
Encounters: 10
Default

Hog is right on the money. People hate government healthcare and support except for Medicare, SS, etc.... And weren't those programs sponsored by Dem admins? Just sayin
Roothead is offline   Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 07:08 PM   #75
mydallas1
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 13, 2014
Location: Dallas
Posts: 338
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbravo_123 View Post
What if the patient doesn't agree to the treatment the doctor prescribes? Under the current system, patients have the freedom to take medication / treatments if they want to or get a second opinion. There often also isn't a clear "best choice" in treatment or treatments without risks.

Ultimately, we can't have a system where people are given whatever treatment is necessary to keep them alive. There has to be some limit as to what treatments can be given based off of how cost effective they are.

No one should be paid for doing essentially nothing. If a patient is healthy (we're not even going to get into a discussion about what "healthy" means), a doctor shouldn't be paid just because of that. Even if they run tests, if the patient is healthy, you're just wasting resources that could've been diverted to sick patients. You also can't control when a person gets sick or injured, even if you saw a doctor every day.
All these questions work pretty much the same way now.
If one doesn't agree with the doctors opinion, get a second one. And either keep the current doctor or switch to the new one. Their will always be doctors with differing opinions sooner would just pick a doctor they agree with.

I don't know about you. For me, I love living. I don't want my decision to stay alive or success rates to be based on what's most cost effective. I want it to be made on what is going to work. At some point though, hopefully logic would take over and a 90 year old that needs a new heart wouldn't request that from his doctor. Although I don't see why it shouldn't be his right.

What do you think incsurance companies get paid for? They get paid do to nothing until something tragic happens. They get paid incase shit happens. The thinking is similiar, the doctor gets paid to keep you healthy until something happens. then it is free. Now a doctor doesn't get paid until something bad happens. I would rather the incentive be to keep me healthy. It would be impossible to control all sickness or injury. A lot of sickness could be helped. Just a few examples. Say someone went to the doctor monthly and the doctor noticed weight gain or weight loss every visit. That could be a discussion that their might be some things to so now to prevent long term health issues. So instead of going to the doctor and him saying you need to lose fifty pounds. He the doctor says lose 5 lbs. Second example, what if someone is a closet alcoholic. The doctor might see a trend in change in liver enzymes and be able to get the patient help before they go into kidney failure.

The minor shift from changing a doctor to treating illness, to preventing illness would be huge.
Instead of paying an insurance company those payments would go to a doctor. I would guess their would be some kind of required reserves the doctor was required to maintain like a bank.

It would work.
mydallas1 is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved