Reply With Quote
I don't want to game the system, I want to merely use it.
And I don't want to pay nothing. I have a copay for that drug, which I would gladly pay should the insurance actually let me.
Or maybe it's because you're all a bunch of dumb ing hypocrites.
I don't want to game the system, I want to merely use it.
And I don't want to pay nothing. I have a copay for that drug, which I would gladly pay should the insurance actually let me.
Just buy the drug; no one is stopping you.
Or.
Wait thirty days and let the insurance company pay for it again (even though no one has the flu)
I can't. I'm out of town. That's the actual reason the doctor wrote a script for 30 pills instead of 15. But the insurance company doesn't give a what the doctor thinks. They're going to do whatever the they want.
Cost control! Cost control!!!!!!
[quote=ElNono;3623936]How dare I actually try to USE the insurance I pay dearly for every month!
I mean, the shame!!! I should just pay out of pocket and not inconvenience them, right?[quote]
You did use the insurance;
They paid for you to see the doctor who wrote a prescription for something you THINK you might get while traveling overseas.
(i was gonna get drunk and drive like an idiot, so I asked my auto insurance company to sent $2,000 to the body shop up the street to cover any damange that I might incur) - They wouldn't do it - AND I PAY MY PREMIUMS!!!!)
You might need 60 pills; if you're doctor says so you'd be kind of stupid to not get them. Problem is: YOUR INSURANCE CONTRACT DOES NOT COVER A 60 DAY SUPPLY OF THAT DRUG!!!Again, the misconception here is that I write scripts and I arbitrarily decided I need 30 pills. The prescription was written by a doctor, including the amount, based on his professional opinion.
But I guess I should completely disregard that, and should take your word instead. I mean, after all you write insurance policies!
And neither will a government run plan.
Pay for it.
There are reasons insurance companies only write short prescriptions, especially when it's not necessary. The swine flue is less of a problem than the seasonal flue. Then I'm curious. What are the potential side effects? If it one that can lower your immune system for other things? Maybe damage liver, kidneys, etc. with prolonged usage?
You claim it's preventative care. I disagree. If there was data showing it was more cost effective to have the pills than treating potential problems, the insurance companies would be on it. Get the new vaccination that came out instead.
Hypochondriac by change?
If the insurance company is controlling costs, what is it you are doing?
what i do not understand is this trust people have in the corporate sector. as if having something vested in big business is inherently more secure than having an industry run through the government. this seems to ignore the obvious marriage that the corporate sector has enjoyed with the government for several decades now. so many are not comfortable with the government being behind the scenes for health care but they are okay with wall street calling the shots. many are quick to point out frivolous spending by the government but say little about the wanton spending habits of big business (administrative costs represent over 30 percent of the industry's expenditures) when it comes to CEO bonuses (the CEOs of the 7 biggest insurers averaged $14.2 million in compensation in 2007), salaries and stock options. and the most unusual aspect of all this is that people are calling the proposed health care reform by the obama administration "socialist". when one reads between the lines of this diluted reform they see that obama is going out of his way to ensure industrial profit remains intact.
as a result, the single payer plan is getting railroaded. HR 676 is not getting the support it once would have had from president obama as he has recently indicated that had we been starting health care from scratch he would be in favor of single pay but he would not do so now since this would be too vast of an overhaul to the system.
as bill moyers quipped, the banks were too big to fail and the health industry is now too big to fix. and this is socialist reform? hardly. no matter what all the conservative hyperbole tries to assert.
I'll ask again. Who in this thread said they wanted or intended to buy into a public option plan?
I want a choice for me, myself and my family.
I want the freedom to pick a plan I like; and offer it for my family; or not have a plan at all.
I do not want the government to control any more of my life, they control too much alread. It is already too big, and too powerful.....just see the recent meltdown; spurred largely by Fannie and Freddie as evidence. A government needs to be limited in scope and pervue; as small as is possible.
I am no fan of big corporations; I compete with them in the insurance industry every single day. I am David to their Goliath. I do a good job for my clients, controlling costs for them and their employees in healthcare; but guess what? The bill out of comittee in the House, that includes the public option? Ends me completely - but leaves the insurance companies in tact; they will have time, and they have the money, to change what they do as inevitably people move to the public option; by the time they are their, the carriers will have revamped (and gotten favorable laws written) - to do business in other ways.
I simply want the freedom to keep doing what I'm doing; to keep the business that me and my brother have built over 25 years alive and thriving. I want a government that isn't powerfull enough to end it with the stroke of a pen.
That's the thing; there ultimately won't be a choice.
That's paranoid.
what choices do people have now? most people do not want to be required to purchase health plans at premiums they cannot afford, and then be stuck with inadequate coverage designed to keep premiums from climbing even higher
They paid for us to go see a doctor and get his professional opinion. Based on that informed opinion, he wrote a prescription he deemed necessary, which promptly was ted all over by the insurance company.
Maybe I should have paid out of pocket for the whole experience, so you would be happy and proud that I cut costs...
No, it's more like your car insurance giving you a discount because you installed an alarm system in your car. Something most insurance companies indeed do, because it can save them money on the long run.
This is exactly the kind of fine print bull you find out when you actually need the drug/procedure. Again, I'm not claiming that the government run insurance won't have said fine print. But that doesn't mean that I have to bend over and pretend it's allright.
The bill out of comittee in the House, that includes the public option? Ends me completely - but leaves the insurance companies in tact; they will have time, and they have the money, to change what they do as inevitably people move to the public option; by the time they are their, the carriers will have revamped (and gotten favorable laws written) - to do business in other ways.
Well, if insurance companies write prescriptions, then we're really ed.
A potential problem basically includes a visit to the ER, which under no way, shape or form can be any cheaper than $75. My doctor understand this. And I would definitely look for the vaccine if available. I'm not going to Kansas, I'm going to a country where H1N1 was declared a nation-wide medical emergency. Not that the insurance co gives a .
Not really. I mean, the only medication I take is Prevacid, and an OTC allergy pill here and there when needed. And I don't even use the insurance when I go see my doctor because he's friend of mine. My wife does have an autoimmune deficiency disease that she didn't choose to have, and that can only be kept in remission, but she's doing fine with merely a steroid shot every 4 months or so, some steroids eye drops and vitamins. I don't think we really use insurance a whole lot (at least I personally don't), which is what really pisses me off.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...th-panels.htmlDeath Panels Without the Panels
by Robert Wright
What more is there to say about Sarah Palin’s now-famous claim that President Obama’s health-care plan features “death panels” that will give patients the thumbs up or thumbs down? Just that, if this were Obama’s plan, it would have more in common with our current system than you might think.
In Palin’s fantasy, the death-panel “bureaucrats” were going to pick winners and losers based on a judgment about their “level of productivity in society.” Well, if you view income as a gauge of a person’s productivity in society—and God knows there are Republicans who do—then the quality of health care is already correlated with “productivity in society.” Obama’s plan, by making health care more affordable to lower income people, would make that less true.
This is just another way of making a point already made by Peter Singer in response to less delusional concerns about the possibility of rationing under Obama’s plan: we already ration health care; we just let the market do the rationing.
Any government health care plan will bring some new form of “rationing,” since no government can afford to guarantee everyone all possible medical treatment. But let’s be clear: the people who are trying to sabotage reform by telling mind-boggling lies about its hidden rationing agenda seem, in fact, pretty content with rationing; they seem happy with a system in which the least “productive” members of society get bad health care, including, occasionally, health care so bad that it leads to death.
And if these opponents of health-care reform are going to conjure up images of fascism to caricature the pro-reform side, it seems fair to conjure up a comparably hyperbolic symbol of their side of the argument—social Darwinism. As Herbert Spencer put the social Darwinist credo, “The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many ‘in shallows and in miseries,’ are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence.” But I guess a picture of Herbert Spencer on a placard doesn't pack quite as much punch as a picture of Hitler.
I'm trying to use the insurance plan my wife pays for every month. Is it so hard to understand?
I'm not why insurance should solve your problem of going to a dangerous country. If it's dangerous, don't go.
A deductible only partially solves the problem of patients getting treatments they don't need (whether it's initiated by the physician or the patient). Having to pay for it is a strong incentive to cut costs.
But the insurance company didn't buy the alarm system, did they?
The ONLY reason I'm going is because of a procedure that the insurance co won't cover (which I'm actually not against), but costs upwards of 20K+ out of pocket over here, while it costs 5K over there. Even when you tack in the 2K in plane tickets and the 2K I won't be making at work, we're still not even at the half.
But that's just another facet of the failure of a system we have here, and it's besides the point. What's the point of seeing a doctor if they're going to all over his opinion? Might as well not even pay for the doctor visit if you're not going to give a . I mean, I have little doubt they would do that if they could.
And deny care... but let's not talk about those that can't even afford insurance. Those people don't really exist.
With the discounted rate, they sure paid for it in a matter of months.
And I'm not asking them to pay for the entirety of the drug. I'll pay my part if they pay theirs.
I heard a day or two the vaccine was available.
Thing is, it's less dangerous than the annual flue. That was it? $5 x 30 or $150 for 30 days. I'd be glad they were willing to give 15. Even though the flue may cost $1,000 if treatment was necessary, I'm pretty sure the chances are well under 1% of needing any medical care. So if we take that $150, x 100, we have a cost of $15,000 per 100 people, at 1% sickness without the preventative care, and $1,000 for the 1%... Look at the math. Under this hypothetical situation, the preventative care is 15 times more expensive. At them giving 15 days without much consideration, it would cost $7,500 to treat 100 people to save a statistical $1,000 in the health care cost. Looks like a $6,500 loss to me.
Before you jump on my example, remember this is to illustrate a point. Not to be accurate costs.I wonder if it really is? This is money in the form of foreign aide for countries to claim this, especially when it was the USA that first became over zealous on the issue. Is it really a problem, or a way for these nations to milk foreign aide?
That's one reason why insurance has become so expensive. People see no need to save on the costs when they expect insurance to pay for it.
It was hilarious for me to watch the liberals cry when they made Prilosec an over the counter drug. It made it so consumers like me could buy it for under $1.00 each when the prescription was running over $3.00 each. Two of my relatives were complaining, because their insurance doesn't pay for over the counter drugs.
Funny how that works.
How much of the drugs costs do you thing go to pay for pharmaceutical regulations, the storage and control and pharmacists pay? If paying less than 30% of the original price is an example of all prescription drugs... The again, I'll bet it's more like a per unit cost.
i have to agree if its dangerous dont go
its like those adults who ask is it safe for me to go to nuevo laredo?, piedras negras or acuna
yes of course it is if youre not a 16 year old 100 lb girl trying to buy drugs with cashflow falling out of your purse. if youre that much of a - dont go
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions