- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 54,926
- Reaction score
- 43,277
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because the trial lawyers in Nevada paid for the privilege.
Thanks, Superfly. I learned something. I was shocked to see your $4,000 estimate for Minnesota; but further investigation shows you're correct. Wow.
That's the greedy ass doctor's fault. If he can take one patient for $115, he can take 20 patients at $115.
So employers shouldn't be able to expense employee insurance? WTF.
Until ACA Insurance coverage had no requirements.
What shall we let people die in the streets? Walk around with infections and illnesses to infect the rest of us?
The only medical malpractice regs have been in favor of lower pricing in that the only regs are to limit the ability of patients to sue and those are at the state level not federal.
Doctors want medical billing companies, not the gov't, not regulated or required.
Doctors and patients want lawyers, not a regulation
A person in a position is not a regulation
Medicare and medicaid actually keep prices down a bit, but I gather you're ignorant about that.
Obamacare is yet to be determined but should help cut costs.
As I said, talking out your ass. Everything you mention is either something wanted by docs, or simply makes sense (employer expensing expenses, there's not extra tax consideration, and not having poor people sick and dying in the streets)
Regulations--Tax incentives for employer-based insurance, insurance coverage requirements, free treatment requirements at the ER, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare
Layers--Medical malpractice, insurance companies, medical billing companies, lawyers, the secretary of health & human services, IPAB, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare.
All of these are fairly obvious. Yeah, you can still go to a doctor and pay cash, but the damage has been done. The few who still do that aren't enough to control costs.
People who are paying cash are paying more for their treatment than the insurance companies would reimburse. I guess you don't pay for your medical care in cash. I've done it, and unless I ran it through my insurance company? I was paying double.
I've done both. Mine was within 10 or 15% of what the insurance company rate was. Nowhere near enough to cover my premium + deductible.
You beat the odds. Insurance is for the times you don't. And you have no idea what the insurance company rate was. So please don't pretend you do.
I do know exactly what the insurance company rate was. If you ever care to know what yours are, the admin at your doctor's office will be able to look it up and tell you. It's not something you need a super-secret decoder ring to find out. Most people just can't be bothered to give a **** as long as they're able to get somebody else to pay their bill...
The insurance company sends a Explanation of Medical Benefits form that gives the amount billed, the amount written off (usually at least 2/3) and the amount the patient still owes. Most people probably just look at what they still owe, but the amount billed is quite revealing. If you're paying cash, I wonder if you're liable for the entire amount?
If you're paying cash, they will give you a discount as well. Ask next time you go to the doctor's office. I'm not real sure what would happen if they billed you the full amount and pressed the case in court. My guess is they would win legally, but I think enough of them have questionable billing practices that they don't want to expose to discovery...
My mom just told me about this. Her new doctor she was forced to have because of Obama care demands payment upfront.
BS!!!!!!! The ACA does NOT demand payment upfront, the doctor/hospital does. If you are 61 your mother should qualify for medicare/aid. You tell some 'interesting' stories! :roll:
Patients Pay Before Seeing Doctor as Deductibles Spread - Bloomberg
wasn't Obama care supposed to keep the uninsured from flocking to the emergency rooms for any little illness?
Now it will be the insured and uninsured doing just that because they cant afford the deductibles and co-pay
so there goes another liberal talking point down the drain
Medicare starts at 65, not 61.and ACA does require that you pay the premium. Edit: Oh, I see it is the son that is 61, so Mom does, indeed qualify for Medicare. Medicare, however, is not free, there is a premium to pay, and it only pays 80% of medical bills.
Sawyer tells some interesting stories about his income and what the ACA will do... I am to the point if he said the sky was blue I'd have to take a peek myself.
You are thinking of the 'Part D' medicare coverage that pays for drugs. Part A medicare is free if you receive or are eligible for SSI or railroad retirement. Part B costs those making a REPORTABLE income of 85K per person or 170K as a couple or under- 104.90 a month. Not a big expense.
The issue some doctors have with medicare is the doctor must agree to only charge what medicare is willing to pay. Some doctors refuse to see medicare patients.
Yes, I'm aware that he likes to tell stories.Here's another story that just happens to be true: I'm on Medicare, don't make 85K individually, my wife and I together don't make 170K. We pay a little over $100 a month each for Medicare part B. It's not a huge burden, no, but neither is it free. The cost also goes up as the patient's age goes up. Yet another: Medicare pays only 80%. Doctors don't charge just what Medicare will pay, but that plus the patient's 20%. That's why seniors still need a supplement. If the doctor's visit is $100, and Medicare pays $80, that's not a big deal, but if the cancer cure costs $200,000 and Medicare pays $160,000, most of us will need some help.
Perhaps I didn't type very well.... you have to make OVER the 85/170K in taxable income to pay more than 104.90 a month for Part B. here in Oklahoma a doctor may not charge more than what Medicare pays. We have doctors who refuse to take Medicare patients because of that restriction.
Given my wife and I once had an insurance policy with a 5K deductible with no AFLAC type riders and an 70/30 copay that cost us about 550 a month I am not going to bemoan the Medicare plans like our Dear Sawyer....
They may give you a discount. They may not. If they don't have a procedure in place for that discount, you're not likely to see it. At least, that's been my experience. I have a $5,200 deductible policy. Pretty straight forward. I pay the first $5,200 a year -- the insurance pays everything else. At first, I would simply PAY for a doctor visit, not anticipating that I would meet my deductible that year. I asked for a discount and was refused. The office charge was $130.
Then someone told me I should be running EVERYTHING through my insurance company so I wouldn't have to backtrack if I DID meet the deductible. The insurance company discounted the $130 to $50 (or something like that) and said, "We're applying the $50 to your deductible." And that was all I paid the provider.
Insurance companies have contractual arrangements with providers. Doctors don't care if they get the money from YOU or from your insurance company. But if you don't run it through an insurance company, you're not likely to get the benefit of the steep discount they'd give Blue Cross Blue Shield.
If the mother goes to the ER, she's still going to pay her deductible. But instead of a $30 co-pay at her doctor? She's on the hook for the $1,500 the ER charges until she's satisfied her deductible.
??
I mean, really. If you don't have a $30 co-pay for the doctor visit? You shouldn't be having kids. Right?
My sister just found out she has to pay a co-pay of $290 for her medicaid once ACA is launched. You have to make less than $500 a month to be exempt from paying it. People are going to be pissed.
Can you post a link to this information?
What state is she in?
My sister just found out she has to pay a co-pay of $290 for her medicaid once ACA is launched. You have to make less than $500 a month to be exempt from paying it. People are going to be pissed.
Can you post a link to this information?
What state is she in?
It does sound like we are missing some informationSounds to me like a state of confusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?