So according to “local news” small town Iowans complaining “Where’s the Government?”
- Thread starter joelbc1
- Start date
That’s how insurance works….it’s their problem, not mine. How do you “know” that’;s what a knee replacement costs? Unless you “self pay” you dont really know what price has been negotiated between you and MediCare/your insurance carrier….do you?
I hadn’t heard. What happened in Greenfield with State Farm? Did they deny claims or something?
I had problems with state farm a few years ago, so I saw that as an opportunity to blindly vent. Sorry for my vague and obstinate post.
You pay 20% of all medical costs.
No cap. If you want a cap, you pay for supplemental, or you go to Medicare Advantage plans, which bring up entirely new sets of issues.
That's good to know. I currently have supplemental through ISU, but I am considering a change this coming November.
That is the most common option…..$174.70 to be exact…..and then there are income guidelines raising your premium IF your income exceeds certain levels….
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,406
- 208,833
- 113
Rural Iowans are some of the most welfare-dependent citizens in the country. One of many reasons their love of the GOP amuses me.
Agreed…what kind of stupid shit will people bring up next? 😳
Failures to those two groups/entities can cause a lot more systemic risk vs some people who have lost their homes.
Would you pay 50k if you had a knee replacement? Medicare is insurance but you know that.
Medicare is not insurance. It is a 20% co-pay for all care.
If you want the $50k knee replacement, you fork over $10k, unless you purchase a supplemental policy.
Or, you go on Medicare Advantage, which also may have co-pays; and with MA you will run into "network" issues between facilities that may make you pay way more OOP for an OON surgeon/physician or facility.
Medicare Advantage may be a great option for some people, but you need to learn what the pitfalls are or you may not be covered (they CAN deny coverage for things - Medicare cannot). And if you end up with some chronic condition on MA, you may not be able to "go back" to regular Medicare w/o paying a significant premium penalty for it.
Harkin Institute had a roundtable on this last month that was rather informative. probably available to re-watch.
You might want to go to the Medicare site. It states that it is a federal health insurance program.
Why would you use such a narrow area to try and dispute his claim?
SW Iowa and the bottom two tiers of counties in Mississippi North are some of the biggest welfare queens and predominantly rural.
Are you basing this on any sort of factual data or is this just kind of a gut feeling on your part?
Make sure you know what you have now…and be careful before buying a new plan. That is my advice.
ISU has great insurance so no worries there. But you're correct I need to be selective if I drop that insurance for something else.
Well, because half the rural areas probably aren't welfare queens. Give Missouri the bottom two tiers of counties and we've eliminated most of that. He shouldn't have used such a broad brush imo.
Last edited:
Beings this was made into politics about small town republicans asking where is the help.
I wonder what the response was when beth malicki the news anchor in Cedar Rapids was on the news crying for support after the derecho in that liberal town.
I wonder what the response was when beth malicki the news anchor in Cedar Rapids was on the news crying for support after the derecho in that liberal town.
The only problem with Torbee’s and Mitch’s claims is that they are almost entirely false. The bottom two tiers of counties in Iowa collectively receive less welfare per capita than Polk County (Des Moines), Scott County (Davenport/Bettendorf), and Black Hawk County (Waterloo/Cedar Falls).
Maybe that is because no one lives “MissIowa” and a whole lotta folks live in Polk, Blackhawk and Scott counties by comparison. The communities in these 3 Iowa counties are far better off than the majority of “MissIowa” towns. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Have one of your great-grandchildren explain the term “per capita” to you.
Is “per capita” the best measurement here? Community wealth and resources are more important and accurate measurements here, I believe. Larger populations are generally better able to handle (access) emergency situations…a lot of the complaints regarding “emergency aid” comes from smaller and more rural (self reliant) areas… except when they are affected. Again…Cohan’s Law applies….”the government is the enemy until you need a friend.”
joelbc1
So, since you didn't link the newscast for any of us to be able to formulate our own opinion...
How did you come to the conclusion that the people being interviewed on this supposed newscast you watched were Republicans or claiming to be mouthpieces for the Republican party?
So, since you didn't link the newscast for any of us to be able to formulate our own opinion...
How did you come to the conclusion that the people being interviewed on this supposed newscast you watched were Republicans or claiming to be mouthpieces for the Republican party?
I have a family member who feels they deserve everything and everyone else deserves nothing. There's no reasoning with those people, the problem is they vote.
Why wouldn’t it be? If we’re comparing populous counties to rural counties then per capita is the best way to make fair comparisons.
Torbee and Mitch established the parameters when they referred to rural Iowans as “welfare queens” and said they are some of the most welfare-dependent people in the entire country.
I was curious whether there was any truth to that or if they were just making bigoted generalizations. So I looked up the data and it turns out it was the latter.
Now you want to change the discussion to include community wealth and resources. I’m over here comparing apples to apples and you’re over there yammering about radishes.
Iowa’s official government website provides a detailed breakdown of food assistance distributed to each county each month. So I looked at that data and compared it to population statistics.
The 21 counties that comprise the bottom two rows of counties in Iowa have a combined population of 281,846 people. In March 2024, the most recent month for which data is available, the state of Iowa provided food assistance to 30,003 people from 15,071 households in those counties. The total disbursement was $4,808,363. That averages out to $17.06 per resident.
The five largest counties in Iowa are Polk (Des Moines) with 505,255 people, Linn (Cedar Rapids) with 228,972 people, Scott (Davenport/Bettendorf) with 174,270 people, Johnson (Iowa City) with 157,528 people, and Black Hawk (Waterloo/Cedar Falls) with 130,471 people.
Three of those five counties received more food assistance per capita than the so-called “MissIowa” counties. Scott County received $3,565,587 for an average of $20.46 per resident. Black Hawk County received $2,326,033 for an average of $17.83 per resident. And Polk County received $8,683,118 for an average of $17.19 per resident.
Here’s another interesting nugget from the data that I found. Of the 21 counties that comprise “MissIowa”, there are only three that have a population over 20,000. Wapello County (Ottumwa) has 35,166 people. Lee County (Ft. Madison/Keokuk) has 32,565 people. And Des Moines County (Burlington) has 38,253 people.
Those three counties had by far the most food assistance of the 21 counties. Wapello County received $22.97 per resident, Lee County received $21.42 per resident, and Des Moines County received $22.58 per resident. Those three counties, which aren’t as “rural”, actually skewed the numbers for the other 18 counties.
None of the other 18 counties in “MissIowa” have a population above 20,000 and none of them received more than $20.00 per resident. Collectively the 18 most rural, most sparsely populated counties in southern Iowa received just $13.87 per resident. That puts them below Linn County as well.
Those three counties had by far the most food assistance of the 21 counties. Wapello County received $22.97 per resident, Lee County received $21.42 per resident, and Des Moines County received $22.58 per resident. Those three counties, which aren’t as “rural”, actually skewed the numbers for the other 18 counties.
None of the other 18 counties in “MissIowa” have a population above 20,000 and none of them received more than $20.00 per resident. Collectively the 18 most rural, most sparsely populated counties in southern Iowa received just $13.87 per resident. That puts them below Linn County as well.
Last edited:
Just to finish out the exercise.
Johnson County: $1,625,245* / 157,528 = $10.31 per resident
Linn County: $3,601,352* / 228,972 = $15.72 per resident
*4/30/2024 Reported
Total Spend in the top 5 urban Counties: $19,801,335 **
Total People in the top 5 urban Counties: 1,196,496 **
**Relying on your data provided above from 3/31/2024
Per Capita Across the top 5 urban Counties: $19,801,335 / 1,196,496 = $16.55 per resident
As it stands, "MissIowa" appears to be the welfare queen winner by $.51 per capita when compared to your calculated $17.06 per capita and stacked against the five largest urban counties' $16.55 per capita. As such, I declare @torbee and @MitchLL's assessment correct. "MissIowa" is the welfare queen.
Last edited:
I suppose you can twist numbers to fit whatever narrative you want to spew. But the “MissIowa” counties received less aid per capita than Polk County, where Joel lives, and they received less aid than Scott County, where Torbee lives.
I simply met spewed narrative with spewed narrative. That said, I just took the pieces you put on the gameboard and brought them to their logical conclusion.
The real story here is Johnson County is an absolute all star evidently.
There are a lotta folks living in small town rural Ioway who are reliant on “the government” day to day… and politically rural small town Iowa is opposed and quite vocal regarding government “welfare” and “welfare queens”…more irony perhaps. But t he e point ya well taken. Abby plz. Let’s be honest here and admit that both sides engage in this game. The point here being these folks in Kellogg are looking for help and their help is going to be frim “the government”…
When you pay for the add-ons, it is (e.g. Medicare Advantage). Such as Parts C or D.
Otherwise, you pay 20% w/ no "cap".
On Medicare, you have access to ~99% of all physicians/networks. Very small number won't accept Medicare.
On Medicare Advantage, you have the same "networks" and referral limitations as any other insurance. You can be denied care on MA if that insurer chooses to not cover something.
It is a benefit; if you want to claim it works like "insurance" with an unlimited cap and 20% copay on everything, fine.
But not tacking on any actual catastrophic insurance "cap" means any major health incident can easily bankrupt you, if you end up with a $100k-500k hospital and continued care bill.
It's called a Medicare benefit.
Medicare Advantage works just like insurance, and you can end up w/ "uncovered" illnesses/conditions.
I'd go dig up the Harkin Inst roundtable on this, as they will give you lots of the pitfalls, which they warn people about. I'm still a decade-ish out from Medicare, but I tuned in to that to start learning how it works, because lots of folks end up in a lot of debt and uncovered by making poor decisions.
