ADVERTISEMENT

So according to “local news” small town Iowans complaining “Where’s the Government?”

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.
This is from Medicare.gov

About Us​

Medicare is health insurance for people 65 or older. You may be eligible to get Medicare earlier if you have a disability, End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), or ALS (also called Lou Gehrig’s disease). More than 66 million people in the U.S. get their health coverage from Medicare.
 
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”…
You can both sides this if you want to. Makes no difference to me. I’m simply dispelling the common myth that rural Iowans are among the biggest “welfare queens” in the entire country.
 
You can both sides this if you want to. Makes no difference to me. I’m simply dispelling the common myth that rural Iowans are among the biggest “welfare queens” in the entire country.

True. As a whole they appear to only be $.51 per capita more of a welfare queen than their urban counterparts.
 
This is from Medicare.gov

About Us​

Medicare is health insurance for people 65 or older. You may be eligible to get Medicare earlier if you have a disability, End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), or ALS (also called Lou Gehrig’s disease). More than 66 million people in the U.S. get their health coverage from Medicare.

And people BUY the Parts C and D for the insurance coverages.
 
Like I said: call it what you want.

When you have no "cap" on what you'll end up paying, that's not how any insurance I own works.

The cap is just a feature of the coverage. When my daughter turned 26 we were looking at insurance for her because her work insurance was extremely expensive. We looked at Obama care Blue Cross Blue Shield and the policy was much cheaper but it had no cap. She ended up paying for her work insurance because not having a cap can be too risky.
 
Do you consider Ottumwa, Burlington, Ft. Madison, and Keokuk to be rural?

I barely consider Iowa City to be metropolitan. But it doesn’t matter what I think is rural vs metro. I’m simply playing within the county based rules you set for this game.
 
Do you consider Ottumwa, Burlington, Ft. Madison, and Keokuk to be rural?
Maybe Burlington is not “rural”

Ottumwa, Fort Mad and Keokuk are rural…. Mere shells of what they used to be 40 years ago..
Ottumwa and Burlington gave a long tradition of welfare enrollees… my moms first job out of college was as a social worker in SE Iowa…Ottumwa and Burlington “shocked” her as Union/ railroad towns on rivers that flooded all the time the welfare requests were overwhelming to her…and this is back pre-WW2 days! Keokuk and Ft. Madison have lost a lot of decent manufacturing jobs and union positions over the past 30 years too. Both towns have fallen on hard times.
 
She ended up paying for her work insurance because not having a cap can be too risky.

Like I'd stated- that's not really "insurance" w/o a cost limit on what you'll end up paying.
Which is why she did not opt for that.

You can call it "insurance" if you want, but insurance is supposed to limit your risk, not just saddle you with a fixed copay.
 
If “Jeff” lives out in the country and his place gets blown over by a tornado, should the government help him?

If 30 houses in a town get blown over should the government help them?

I see no damn difference. Jeff certainly sees no difference. His house was lost just like those other 30.

It’s called insurance. It’s Not the government’s job if you ask me.
The problem is you have a lot of people in this world and good ol' USA that think they government is the answer to everything. And when it still isn't working, you just need more money towards that government project. Government does have its place but it was never meant to be everything to everyone.
 
Like I'd stated- that's not really "insurance" w/o a cost limit on what you'll end up paying.
Which is why she did not opt for that.

You can call it "insurance" if you want, but insurance is supposed to limit your risk, not just saddle you with a fixed copay.

This is one time I have to disagree with you. It is insurance, it might be bad insurance but it is insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelsers
This is one time I have to disagree with you. It is insurance, it might be bad insurance but it is insurance.
Like I said: call it what you want.

I likewise do not consider the "junk" policies as "insurance", that people buy to make themselves feel good, then go bankrupt when they end up with a major health crisis and find they are mostly not covered.
 
Like I said: call it what you want.

I likewise do not consider the "junk" policies as "insurance", that people buy to make themselves feel good, then go bankrupt when they end up with a major health crisis and find they are mostly not covered.
It is still insurance. You are just arguing to argue right now.
 
Like I said: call it what you want.

I likewise do not consider the "junk" policies as "insurance", that people buy to make themselves feel good, then go bankrupt when they end up with a major health crisis and find they are mostly not covered.

The insurance company calls it insurance, the doctors and hospitals call it insurance, it's called medical insurance, so I guess I'll just call it insurance.
 
  • Love
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
Like I'd stated- that's not really "insurance" w/o a cost limit on what you'll end up paying.
Which is why she did not opt for that.

You can call it "insurance" if you want, but insurance is supposed to limit your risk, not just saddle you with a fixed copay.
insurance does not limit the risk at all. you do. or the policy holder does. insurance is there to indemnify you or pay you back for a loss. sometimes you or the policy holder assumes some of the loss, to save money. if a co-pay is part of the assumed money put at risk, yes. that's fine. to save money.

if you have no insurance on your house or car or life or health, you put 100% of that money at risk. to limit that risk, with no insurance, you could not drive, don't burn open fires near your house, or not go parachute jumping. that limits the risk. in the event you do have a loss, when you have insurance, it limits the amount of loss, not the risk.
 
You really can NEVER admit when you are wrong. This is entertaining.
I know that something which does not limit your financial risk is nothing I would refer to as "insurance".

Like I've said several times, now: call it what you want. Junk "insurance" policies do not constitute "insurance" to me. Neither does a base Medicare system which has a straight 20% co-pay. Neither puts a cap on your risk.

Car insurance does (although they will tell you what your max-payout/coverage limit is; you buy the coverage limits you want).

Medicare (plain) has no limit on what you'll pay, per my understanding from the Harkin Inst Roundtable. And they were warning people about that, because people THINK it limits your risks like regular insurance. So, assuming it works like "regular insurance" is a risky gambit for people, and the Harkin panel was telling folks that.

They were likewise warning people about the pitfalls of Medicare Advantage plans, which DO work like "regular insurance" policies. Don't be lazy and call everything "insurance", when they are very different animals, with very different assumed risks - that was their primary message, which I was simply attempting to convey to you and others here.
 
LOLWUT?

We're talking about "financial" risk here, Cletus.
Insurance does exactly that - limits your financial risk/exposure.

I know that something which does not limit your financial risk is nothing I would refer to as "insurance".

Like I've said several times, now: call it what you want. Junk "insurance" policies do not constitute "insurance" to me. Neither does a base Medicare system which has a straight 20% co-pay. Neither puts a cap on your risk.

Car insurance does (although they will tell you what your max-payout/coverage limit is; you buy the coverage limits you want).

Medicare (plain) has no limit on what you'll pay, per my understanding from the Harkin Inst Roundtable. And they were warning people about that, because people THINK it limits your risks like regular insurance. So, assuming it works like "regular insurance" is a risky gambit for people, and the Harkin panel was telling folks that.

They were likewise warning people about the pitfalls of Medicare Advantage plans, which DO work like "regular insurance" policies. Don't be lazy and call everything "insurance", when they are very different animals, with very different assumed risks - that was their primary message, which I was simply attempting to convey to you and others here.
obama made up the term "junk policies" to totally drag down insurance companies and to totally pump up his ACA insurance which really is garbage. he sold insurance without a license as well. what a goof.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kelsers
I know that something which does not limit your financial risk is nothing I would refer to as "insurance".

Like I've said several times, now: call it what you want. Junk "insurance" policies do not constitute "insurance" to me. Neither does a base Medicare system which has a straight 20% co-pay. Neither puts a cap on your risk.

Car insurance does (although they will tell you what your max-payout/coverage limit is; you buy the coverage limits you want).

Medicare (plain) has no limit on what you'll pay, per my understanding from the Harkin Inst Roundtable. And they were warning people about that, because people THINK it limits your risks like regular insurance. So, assuming it works like "regular insurance" is a risky gambit for people, and the Harkin panel was telling folks that.

They were likewise warning people about the pitfalls of Medicare Advantage plans, which DO work like "regular insurance" policies. Don't be lazy and call everything "insurance", when they are very different animals, with very different assumed risks - that was their primary message, which I was simply attempting to convey to you and others here.
Okay, Joe.
 
obama made up the term "junk policies" to totally drag down insurance companies
Uh, no.

Those "junk policies" do not provide what we typically refer to as "insurance".
Which is why people who bought them got hosed by them. They did not have the coverage they thought they had.
 
If I understand the situation in Kellogg correctly, the problem is that the flooded houses were largely not in a flood zone according to the official flood maps. Thus, the homeowners could not have purchased flood insurance. I will not fault someone for failing to have insurance when it is not actually available.
What? So wrong...you can buy flood insurance outside a flood zone I.
 

I brought it up once already but maybe a link will help.
Why was it fine for a bigger city and liberal news station to cry for help but not ok for small town hick maga country to cry for help??
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT