Health Insurance Deductibles Up 212 Percent Since 2008

it costs our family $36,000 in deductible and monthly premiums before we get any payout from our insurance company. THAT IS NUTS!!!!!

 

"Blue-Dog Conservative?" A Bredesen spokes-idiot just slimed Tennesseans over the 2nd Amendment.

Bredesen Spokesman: "Gun Nuts" Are "Biggest Terrorist Organization on The Planet"

 

Well, that is this individuals own facebook post from 2015, not Bredesen, who had an A rating from the NRA until this election season. Funny that.

 

His NRA rating is a D.

NRA endorsed Blackburn

Bredesen was recently rebuked by NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox over an ad that made it appear Bredesen had a good rating from the NRA. On September 21 Breitbart News reported that Cox asked Bredesen to “stop lying” and pointed out that Bredesen’s NRA rating is a D.



Chris Cox

✔@ChrisCoxNRA
@PhilBredesen It’s not 2002, you’re not governor and you’re not A-rated by the NRA. Its 2018, you have earned a D rating for turning your back on self-defense and supporting the Hillary/Schumer/Bloomberg gun control agenda. @VoteMarsha is a 2A champion. You’re not. #stoplying

5:30 PM - Sep 19, 2018

 

In 2008 I paid the same premiums I am paying now every 2 weeks. Back then my costs with the insurance was a $20 copay for regular doctor visit and $40 copay for a specialist. That was it.

Today, with the same premiums because I am in a high deductible plan, I have to pay the first $7,500 in medical costs each year. And I have met that deductible in 2018.

And prescription medications have gone through the roof as well. What was costing me $30 per quarter or $120 a year for one medication in 2008 would now cost me $1,400 each year if I was still taking it.

 

the NRA lowered his rating this year....funny that. Not political at all....nope, not at all. duh

 

On Thursday, Bredesen tweeted a photo of him shooting a rifle along with the quote, “I’ve been a lifelong gun owner. As Governor I had an “A” rating from the NRA.”

There’s just one problem for Bredesen. His current rating is nowhere close to an “A.” And he has been called out once before for misleading Tennessee voters.



Here he is, lining up on Dick Cheney's lawyer who has just been shot out of a catapult.

In late September, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) asked Bredesen to retract his false and misleading ad. Bredesen is citing an “incorrect grade” that “misleads voters by claiming to support the Second Amendment.” Bredesen’s real rating is much, much lower.

"Phil Bredesen is a ‘D’ rated candidate, and he will not protect our constitutional rights in Washington, D.C. Tennesseans should not be fooled by his false and misleading campaign ads.”

Bullshitin' Bredesen’s real track record on the Second Amendment and gun control legislation.

Phil Bredesen has earned a “D” rating from the National Rifle Association. He supports criminalizing private firearm transfers between lifelong friends and many family members. He also supports a federal gun database and refuses to oppose burdensome and unnecessary restrictions on ammunition. As governor, Phil Bredesen vetoed protections for concealed carry permit holders and opposed allowing law-abiding Tennesseans to carry a firearm for self-defense in the manner that best suits their needs.​

Democrat candidates who run for office in traditionally red states often present themselves as "moderates" on issues like the Second Amendment in order to appeal to independent voters and Republican voters. This strategy is a challenge for Democrats like Bredesen as they can’t afford to alienate their gun-grabbing progressive base.

https://bearingarms.com/micah-r/201...-candidate-touts-nra-rating-he-no-longer-has/

 

That is total hogwash. I already told you the NRA didn't lower his grade until this election. How prefect, right?

And the bill you were talking about was to allow guns in bars. duh.

 

Tennessee Democrat Phil Bredesen: D-Rating from NRA, Wants More Gun Control

Democrat Phil Bredesen is running for U.S. Senate in Tennessee with a D-rating from the NRA and a campaign built upon pledges of more gun control.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that Bredesen wants universal background checks, which is leftist-speak for outlawing private gun sales. He announced this position in March and cited the February 14, Parkland high school shooting when he did it. What Bredesen did not mention was the fact that the Parkland attacker acquired his gun through a background check at retail, not via a private sale. So Bredesen’s background check gun control would not have done anything to prevent that attack. Smart gunowners don't support lying gun-grabber politicians like this.

Background checks necessarily lead to a database on gun owners. One can learn this by observing California, where the passage of universal background checks in the 1990s was followed by the passage of firearm registration laws, then the dam broke and Californians were flooded with gun control after gun control.

Universal background checks require a firearm registry in order to be enforceable. How else, save a gun registry, can the government be sure a neighbor is not selling a gun to a neighbor nor a co-worker selling a gun to a fellow employee?

When Democrats like Bredesen talk about universal background checks they do not mention the insidious nature of the specific gun control, they do not say that other gun controls may be required to make the checks doable. Rather, they describe it in a way that appeals to emotions and makes listeners feel safe.

California has such checks and they also have high profile public attack after high profile public attack.

Ironically, the NRA-ILA reports that Bredesen supports a “federal gun database.” In other words, the government would have the name of every gun owner on a list, including information like the serial numbers of each gun owners’ firearms, the location in which the guns are stored, etc. And that is a scenario that historically—including world history—provides tyrants with the tools they need to disarm their citizens, reducing them to the status of subjects.

Marsha Blackburn is the Republican running against Bredesen. She will oppose the gun controls supported by Bredesen and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Bredesen will fight for gun control. Blackburn will fight for the Second Amendment.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-phil-bredesen-d-rating-nra-more-gun-control/

 

lies. it's ok though. we will see in November.

 

Marsha Blackburn draws campaign fire for shepherding bill that undercut DEA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.9cd6f6fb26fb

She blocked the DEA from investigating drug distributors. \

She is the swamp in essence.

 

Bredesen had an A rating from the NRA for two terms as TN governor. Now he is lowered to a D. hilarious.

 

You didn't exactly help your case here. If we went with Medicare for all, there wouldn't be any American citizens without insurance. Or underinsured, which is a whole other set of misery.

I'm a teacher, and one of the few perks of the job is excellent health care (much better than Medicare), but I would vote for medicare-for-all in a heartbeat. It's inexcusable that in a country as rich as ours, millions don't have access to health care.

 

Well, my point was that the claim of 'tens of millions' uninsured was bogus, so I was right on that. As for expanded medicaid, I am ok with that.

 

I don't know the exact numbers, but that's a red herring, because we agree that millions of Americans don't have access to health care, and millions more are being bankrupted by their high deductibles. Why bother with Medicaid and private insurance? Get rid of both: medicare for all.

The only catch is how to pay for it, but nobody cares about debt and deficits anymore. Certainly Republicans don't, and Democrats never have.

 

You're paying thousands a month for shitty insurance with insanely high deductibles? Why are you bothering? Get a Bronze plan on the exchanges. It will be VASTLY cheaper, and will keep you out of bankruptcy, which is all your current plan is doing.

 

I pay close to 5 grand as a single male under 35 and still have a $7500 deductible.

It’s absurd. I’m probably going with a co-op for 2019, one of the few that still exist.

 

Tireless Marsha Blackburn, after trailing all summer caught the Kavanaugh bump and will ride it to the US Senate.

Red Wall holds against Blue Wave!

 

Health insurance premiums are so expensive many people with insurance don't have anything left over to afford to pay out of pocket for what their insurance doesn't cover.

 

THIS. To infinity and beyond. THIS is THE issue with Obamacare/ACA, and it has been from the beginning. THIS is what is responsible for Dem losses since 2010, and for Trump in 2016.

 

AND for how many years....8 years? The GOP had been thumping their chest about how they will repel the ACA and replace it with their own plan. Trump during his campaign said many things about how great HIS plan would be and how it would cover more people and be cheaper. During the whole time the ACA has been in place the GOP has done everything in their power to weaken it, destroy it, make it worse, is it any wonder why it has not been as successful as first thought. I didnt think the ACA was the best thing around BUT what is the GOP alternative that they have had 8+ years to work on....WHERE IS IT?

 

The mere fact that doctors and hospitals give lower prices to those who have insurance and NO ONE KNOWS how much their procedure will cost until AFTER it is all done and the bill arrives.WE BUY COMPLETELY BLIND!!!Would you buy a house or a car this way or anything else where you had no idea of the cost in advance.It is a COMPLETELY CORRUPT SYSTEM DESIGNED BY THIEVES!!!!

 

Nothing the GOP has done or not done has anything to do with why the ACA has not been successful. It was doomed from the start. Most of the opposition initially was not looking to "replace" the ACA -- we wanted it repealed and things back the way they were. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. What WAS successful about the ACA was throwing in enough "goodies" and subsidizing enough people on the front end, and delaying the worst effects on those with employer-provided insurance. 8 years of time works its magic -- people make peace with the new normal, even if it sucks, and try to find the positives about it. Anyone who thinks we can have more people covered for more things and it will be paid for by taxpayers but will be somehow be cheaper for those who actually have to pay for it is NUTS. And apparently, most of the country is nuts. As we are finding out, you can't have both. What really frosts most of us though, is that we are the ones tasked with paying for it, and now WE can't afford to use what we're paying for. But hey, lots of people who didn't have insurance before now get everything for free, and really sick people are covered by the rest of us for exhorbitant costs. Yes, it was a problem for them before, now they are sitting pretty and it's a problem for us. But there's a lot more of us.....and yes, it's true, everyone has a risk of getting the losing end of the stick. Our risk was heightened because now we can't afford the preventive care. The ACA was sold as being cheaper because we'd treat all those people without insurance b4 their problems became critical. Unfortunately, now the rest of us have to put off care until we're critical.

 

I wont really disagree with much of what you said but what is the GOPs plan for Healthcare. To just let it ride and do nothing? It is clearly something that needs to be dealt with and the GOP had ran for basically 6-8 years about repelling AND replacing it and still have no plan at all for it, so it was all a big lie. I truly do hope they can come up with something or both parties can work across the aisle to at least solve something that is important to ALL of us whether you are a Dem, Repub, Independent or other.

 

The GOP started off wanting to simply repeal ACA, then it became the repeal and replace mantra..because people really liked the pre-existing conditions coverage and the keep your kids on til age 26, and this was before all the REALLY high costs started kicking in. The GOP then published their plan for health care. It wasn't a lie. You can google it and I know it has been posted with links and excerpts here on PF before. Was I crazy about it? No, but I preferred it to the ACA. Frankly, I can't have what I want, which is to go back to what we had before. THAT worked for my family much better than Obamacare. I am tired of paying ridiculous premiums and having only ONE choice of insurer in my county, and having to jump through 85 hoops to get any medication covered that isn't a $2 generic. Would it be great if they could all work together to solve this? Absolutely! But I really don't see it happening, because what one side considers an absolute necessity the other side considers anathema. And frankly, I resent the way the Dems rammed ACA down our throats and then have the gall to say that those of us who never wanted it are responsible for fixing it. I know we have to, but I'll never forget who did it to us.