Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 21:48:45 GMT -5
Also though, nothing would be paid on your behalf if you DON'T go to a doctor, would it? The different companies which handle the Medicaid plans don't get a monthly "premium" from the state as if you were a regular insured. Wouldn't the state only pay out for actual claims? That was more the point of my second question. The $2500 subsidy which is currently paid to an insurance company for your coverage would not exist in my understanding of it. Any knowledge if that is correct? To be honest, I'm not sure if there's a cost for people enrolled in TennCare but not incurring medical expenses or not... However, that's irrelevant to the fundamental difference of: With TennCare people can get things treated BEFORE they require an ER visit... With "bronze level" (the only level I can afford... 100% paid by subsidy) people CAN'T get things treated before they require an ER visit. The whole point of the (so called) "Affordable Care Act" was to make healthcare AFFORDABLE. Something it clearly doesn't do if things have to be left untreated to the point that an ER visit is/becomes necessary. Simple question: What costs the insurance company less for (just as an example) an infection? > Two doctor visits, some blood work (between the visits), and a prescription. Total bill ~$600 (maybe). > No doctor visits, no blood work, no prescriptions... followed by a trip (likely by ambulance) to the ER + a 3 day stay in the hospital + seriously huge amounts of drugs, IV's and other things. Total bill - Upwards of $20,000. *Note: while I haven't seen the ER+Stay bill nor do I know for a fact that two doctor visits + lab work would be ~$600, I do know someone that did not see a doctor due to an infection (don't know if it was by choice or by unaffordability... so cannot comment on that) and had that second example as his experience. He told me that while he was in the hospital, one of his docs told him it could have likely been cleared up by doing the first example that I listed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 21:55:00 GMT -5
So, you cant pay the 600$ ( if it is that after adjustments) ... Not even in payments? ... And no infection with antibiotics is likely to run near that actually.
Have you gone for your annual covered exam?
Your subsidies wouldn't cover a higher plan?
So, you are says you are at the same place as without insurance... Basically?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 21:56:22 GMT -5
Annual care for female bits include paps and Are no boy bit items covered? Have you had a physical? An eye exam? Last "physical, just to have a physical" I had was when I worked at the campground I used to work for and we had AWESOME insurance... that was... 9? years ago. I haven't had my eyes tested since I applied to go into the Air Force (eyes aren't covered in my current plan either... neither is dental). As to the question about "boy bits"... nope. Well... I take that back. During the one "SCHEDULED annual checkup" they could TEST for hernia (feel around the scrotum and have the male cough... twice), that doesn't require any "sent to a lab" tests... just requires a glove. Couldn't do anything preventative about it though... even if there was some indication it might become an issue. Have to wait until it IS an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 22:01:45 GMT -5
So, you cant pay the 600$ ( if it is that after adjustments) ... Not even in payments? ... And no infection with antibiotics is likely to run near that actually. Have you gone for your annual covered exam? (1) Your subsidies wouldn't cover a higher plan? (2) So, you are says you are at the same place as without insurance... Basically? (3) Bolded: If it was me? Nope. Docs around here don't do "payment plans" it's "payment is required before services are rendered". Remember though, this situation wasn't mine... it was just a good "Real world example" that I personally knew about. (1) Nope. Don't really need to see a doctor if I'm healthy and can't see her for any OTHER reason. If I could see her when I NEED a doctor, I'd do the checkups as well because that would give her a "baseline" to compare with and would make sense. (2) Nope. That "plan" maxes out my subsidy. It was the "best" available for the funds I could spare. (3) Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 22:03:54 GMT -5
This is just coverage for you, yes, not the kid?
Why would you bitch about preventative care and then not go for a physical?
Free preventive services All Marketplace plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages Blood Pressure screening for all adults Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50 Depression screening for adults Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965 HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary: Hepatitis A Hepatitis B Herpes Zoster Human Papillomavirus Influenza (Flu Shot) Measles, Mumps, Rubella Meningococcal Pneumococcal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis Varicella Lung cancer screening Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 22:06:24 GMT -5
So, you cant pay the 600$ ( if it is that after adjustments) ... Not even in payments? ... And no infection with antibiotics is likely to run near that actually. Have you gone for your annual covered exam? (1) Your subsidies wouldn't cover a higher plan? (2) So, you are says you are at the same place as without insurance... Basically? (3) Bolded: If it was me? Nope. Docs around here don't do "payment plans" it's "payment is required before services are rendered". Remember though, this situation wasn't mine... it was just a good "Real world example" that I personally knew about. (1) Nope. Don't really need to see a doctor if I'm healthy and can't see her for any OTHER reason. If I could see her when I NEED a doctor, I'd do the checkups as well because that would give her a "baseline" to compare with and would make sense. (2) Nope. That "plan" maxes out my subsidy. It was the "best" available for the funds I could spare. (3) Exactly. Actually, since I've had my exchange high deductable health plan, I have paid NOTHING up front. All bills go through insurance first because most of the time, even if my deductable applies, there are adjustments in what I can be charged. Maybe you should actually try using it before you bitch about it? And if you aren't worse off, why the complaining?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,289
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 9, 2015 22:53:44 GMT -5
Also though, nothing would be paid on your behalf if you DON'T go to a doctor, would it? The different companies which handle the Medicaid plans don't get a monthly "premium" from the state as if you were a regular insured. Wouldn't the state only pay out for actual claims? That was more the point of my second question. The $2500 subsidy which is currently paid to an insurance company for your coverage would not exist in my understanding of it. Any knowledge if that is correct? To be honest, I'm not sure if there's a cost for people enrolled in TennCare but not incurring medical expenses or not... However, that's irrelevant to the fundamental difference of: With TennCare people can get things treated BEFORE they require an ER visit... With "bronze level" (the only level I can afford... 100% paid by subsidy) people CAN'T get things treated before they require an ER visit. The whole point of the (so called) "Affordable Care Act" was to make healthcare AFFORDABLE. Something it clearly doesn't do if things have to be left untreated to the point that an ER visit is/becomes necessary. Shouldn't your anger really be focused on the decision not to expand Medicaid then? If the justification to expand Medicaid was to help people in your situation, it is not really a failing of the ACA if you are not helped by it. There was a fix, and your state among many others chose not to avail themselves of it. Whether it was because of a legitimate concern over future costs, or a simple attempt to deny any benefit accruing to the President if the ACA was shown as helping people, it still appears to be that decision that has put you in the situation you are in.
I have always thought it to be a very dangerous political play to intentionally hurt your citizens the way these states did. But then, these are the nameless and faceless poor. It doesn't matter as much if those people are hurt. Even if those states are correct, and the future costs outweigh the benefits of expanding Medicaid, it is the wealthier that will benefit through not having to pay higher taxes. Those in need are still hurt. Those like you. The ones that conservative governors and legislatures don't care about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 22:59:36 GMT -5
Bolded: If it was me? Nope. Docs around here don't do "payment plans" it's "payment is required before services are rendered". Remember though, this situation wasn't mine... it was just a good "Real world example" that I personally knew about. (1) Nope. Don't really need to see a doctor if I'm healthy and can't see her for any OTHER reason. If I could see her when I NEED a doctor, I'd do the checkups as well because that would give her a "baseline" to compare with and would make sense. (2) Nope. That "plan" maxes out my subsidy. It was the "best" available for the funds I could spare. (3) Exactly. Actually, since I've had my exchange high deductable health plan, I have paid NOTHING up front. All bills go through insurance first because most of the time, even if my deductable applies, there are adjustments in what I can be charged. Maybe be you should actually try using it before you bitch about it? And nd if you aren't worse off, why the complaining? I't not complaining just for the sake of complaining... I'm complaining because of the complete and utter waste of taxpayer funds... money that could be used elsewhere (like paying down the debt, for example). As to "try using it before you bitch about it"... I've looked into trying it. Can't afford to use it. (what... did you think I got it and just threw everything away without reading/researching it?)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 23:06:46 GMT -5
You didn't seem to realize that bills get submitted to insurance before you pay...? Or that the negotiated price can be les even though the deductable applies. I can't imagine that is so different where you are?
My daughter had like 5 appointments for warts on her foot. They didn't Bill me until about a month aftert The last appointment. For less than I would have paid without the insurance. I paidi t lump, but they would have allowed me payments if that was. Necessary.
You admit you have no idea how much it actually costs to go to the doctor for an infection, get blood work and an antibiotic... Which is not routinely going to cost anywhere near 600$...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 9, 2015 23:48:46 GMT -5
Bolded: If it was me? Nope. Docs around here don't do "payment plans" it's "payment is required before services are rendered". Remember though, this situation wasn't mine... it was just a good "Real world example" that I personally knew about. (1) Nope. Don't really need to see a doctor if I'm healthy and can't see her for any OTHER reason. If I could see her when I NEED a doctor, I'd do the checkups as well because that would give her a "baseline" to compare with and would make sense. (2) Nope. That "plan" maxes out my subsidy. It was the "best" available for the funds I could spare. (3) Exactly. Actually, since I've had my exchange high deductable health plan, I have paid NOTHING up front. All bills go through insurance first because most of the time, even if my deductable applies, there are adjustments in what I can be charged. Bingo! Almost no doctor bills up front when you have insurance. Lab work is generally discounted 70-90% and is crazy cheap unless it is a really unique test. I've gotten lab work bills for under $5. And in general most do payment plans and are more than happy to work with you. Seems unbelievably short-sighted to pass up a needed visit to the doc because of cost and wait until you need the ER. All the stuff you mentioned - $60-80 for a doc visit, $10-30 for most prescriptions, and standard lab work probably $5-50. An ER visit because you were worried about the cost $1k+. I've been on a high deductible plan for 5 years now. I've can't recall ever being billed up front. I've never had a doctor refuse to work with me on a payment plan. And I can tell you the stuff you are quoting would be more in the range of $150-200 total except in extreme circumstances and could be stretched out over a period of months. If you can't manage to pull together $10 or so a month to save for medical bills for a doctor's visit, then I think the insurance isn't your problem. The problem is you are too broke to care for your health. Either you are doing something wrong or it is really sad that Medicaid didn't get expanded in your state to help people like you.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 10, 2015 1:32:02 GMT -5
He is definitely hurt by the politics the Tennessee governor is playing with his constituents health. I guess the repo family values don't extend to the poorest citizens as they may not be voting R. Nice people these 23 R guvs.
Perhaps Richard should not have the plan, pay the fine, and just pay out of pocket when necessary.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,289
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 10, 2015 8:54:27 GMT -5
link
So it required both a Supreme Court decision and the states opting out to "trap" these working poor in the coverage gap. All the while, these states are effectively subsidizing to a degree the expansion of Medicaid in those states that did so in that more federal dollars are going to those states instead.
On the bright side, this does at least in small part shift the balance of which (red or blue) states are really "takers" a little bit more toward balance....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 10, 2015 8:57:01 GMT -5
ObamaCare was sloppily and hastily written and passed along strictly partisan lines by 100% Democrats and 0% Republicans. The mess that it is, and is becoming is 100% the fault of the Democrats who wrote and passed it, and Obama who signed it into law. There is virtually no aspect of the problem-ridden government-inspired, highly government regulated healthcare and health insurance system we had that was not exacerbated by ObamaCare. ObamaCare still remains wildly unpopular with 59% still opposed. ObamaCare has never enjoyed majority support.
So, we know it is going to be dramatically altered- effectively, though not as I have repeatedly stated, in actuality "repealed". It will, because it has to be, transformed into something workable. GOP ideas have been ignored to this point, but now with the Supreme Court poised to uphold the law as it was written by Democrats, and as it was signed into law by Obama, we are going to be forced to revisit it and start to rework it.
The new plan MUST be something that:
1. Encourages competition in the marketplace- ObamaCare has forced many insurers out of business leading to fewer, more expensive options for consumers.
2. Tort reform. The idea that damages can have no practical limit is absurd. It's well past time for caps in all areas, but for the sake of access to affordable healthcare, the medical liability crisis has to be urgently addressed.
3. Eliminate the mandate. Actually, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to urgently end the confusion created by the Supreme Court re: the notion that the federal government can force a citizen to buy a product or service. It should clearly be out of bounds. This is one of the greatest dangers to emerge from this era of ObamaCare fiasco that could outlive this farcical period and remain a looming threat forever.
The bottom line is that we cannot wait much longer to provide Americans with a clear patient-centered, market-based alternative to the confusing, expensive, and disastrous ObamaCare mess.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 10, 2015 12:11:25 GMT -5
Perhaps Richard should not have the plan, pay the fine, and just pay out of pocket when necessary. If I read correctly before, his plan is free to him covered 100% by subsidy. So opting not to have a plan & paying a fine would cost him more. In addition, it is when you are paying out of pocket that many doctors want up front payment.
As much as his hates his insurance & doesn't use it. I don't see any way that he is actually worse off for having it. And now if he needs surgery, has a hospital stay, gets cancer, he has coverage. It may not cover the first 5K, but that is pretty small potatoes compared to what this stuff can cost & people won't require up front payments for this type of stuff when you are insured. So whether or not you have 5K at that moment, you can get the cancer treatment, surgery or whatnot.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jun 10, 2015 13:16:34 GMT -5
GOP ideas have been ignored to this point...
Other than the fact it was modeled after GOP ideas that came out of the Heritage Foundation and implemented in a state with a GOP guv.
Or the fact that during BushCo., with total control of all branches of government, they had no ideas other than the idea it would be good to do nothing while deciding to waste trillions on their stupid wars which could have, in fact, paid for something much better than the ACA.
Of course the 'no Repos voted for it' is just politics. When the other side has all the votes to pass legislation, refraining keeps one's hands clean for future reference, the old "well I didn't vote for it'. So what. It also tells me that the repos had no ideas even worth discussing and they preferred to continue down the road where 43 million Americans had no insurance, 40+ thousand died every year because of it (putting a bit of a stain on the 'family values BS', and now 23 Repo guvs that are still blocking access to their poorest citizens...the ones that don't vote for them. They should be ashamed of themselves for cashing their paychecks and enjoying the fabulous government supplied healthcare they receive. The swine!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2015 13:26:20 GMT -5
I'm curious. If Tennessee had gone ahead with the expanded Medicaid would you qualify? And would your complaints about "fleecing" the taxpayers disappear as well? I would have qualified for the "expanded" TennCare... yes. And of course I wouldn't complain that that was "feeecing"... because, as a TennCare client I COULD go to a doctor when I have a need for one, something I CAN'T do now. However... that said. When Obamacare implodes (as it will, eventually), the state would likely pull back the requirements to pre-Obamacare levels. ETA: to clear up any confusion... it's only "fleecing" because the funds are spent on something completely pointless and utterly useless. like the Iraq War, for example....?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2015 13:29:06 GMT -5
I pay over $1,000.00/ month for a plan through work on the private market for my wife and I. Our deductible is $6,000.00. It does cover routine checkups and some tests and things. Our max out of pocket is something like 10K. this is quite similar to what i have. and yes, i would love to spend hours a day bitching about it, but such is life.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 10, 2015 17:52:46 GMT -5
GOP ideas have been ignored to this point...
Other than the fact it was modeled after GOP ideas that came out of the Heritage Foundation and implemented in a state with a GOP guv.
Or the fact that during BushCo., with total control of all branches of government, they had no ideas other than the idea it would be good to do nothing while deciding to waste trillions on their stupid wars which could have, in fact, paid for something much better than the ACA.
Of course the 'no Repos voted for it' is just politics. When the other side has all the votes to pass legislation, refraining keeps one's hands clean for future reference, the old "well I didn't vote for it'. So what. It also tells me that the repos had no ideas even worth discussing and they preferred to continue down the road where 43 million Americans had no insurance, 40+ thousand died every year because of it (putting a bit of a stain on the 'family values BS', and now 23 Repo guvs that are still blocking access to their poorest citizens...the ones that don't vote for them. They should be ashamed of themselves for cashing their paychecks and enjoying the fabulous government supplied healthcare they receive. The swine! Doing nothing is generally the best idea of all. The only way to top doing nothing would be to undo what's already been done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2015 18:11:11 GMT -5
GOP ideas have been ignored to this point...
Other than the fact it was modeled after GOP ideas that came out of the Heritage Foundation and implemented in a state with a GOP guv.
Or the fact that during BushCo., with total control of all branches of government, they had no ideas other than the idea it would be good to do nothing while deciding to waste trillions on their stupid wars which could have, in fact, paid for something much better than the ACA.
Of course the 'no Repos voted for it' is just politics. When the other side has all the votes to pass legislation, refraining keeps one's hands clean for future reference, the old "well I didn't vote for it'. So what. It also tells me that the repos had no ideas even worth discussing and they preferred to continue down the road where 43 million Americans had no insurance, 40+ thousand died every year because of it (putting a bit of a stain on the 'family values BS', and now 23 Repo guvs that are still blocking access to their poorest citizens...the ones that don't vote for them. They should be ashamed of themselves for cashing their paychecks and enjoying the fabulous government supplied healthcare they receive. The swine! Doing nothing is generally the best idea of all. The only way to top doing nothing would be to undo what's already been done. since when?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:35:40 GMT -5
Perhaps Richard should not have the plan, pay the fine, and just pay out of pocket when necessary. If I read correctly before, his plan is free to him covered 100% by subsidy. So opting not to have a plan & paying a fine would cost him more. In addition, it is when you are paying out of pocket that many doctors want up front payment.
As much as his hates his insurance & doesn't use it. I don't see any way that he is actually worse off for having it. And now if he needs surgery, has a hospital stay, gets cancer, he has coverage. It may not cover the first 5K, but that is pretty small potatoes compared to what this stuff can cost & people won't require up front payments for this type of stuff when you are insured. So whether or not you have 5K at that moment, you can get the cancer treatment, surgery or whatnot.
You see it correctly... except for one small issue. MOST "hospital stays" that the uninsured (or "underinsured") end up needing could USUALLY have been solved by preventative care when the issue first presented itself and was simple to treat by a couple of visits to a GP. That's my whole gripe. It pushes care to the wrong end of the "care window".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:37:38 GMT -5
I would have qualified for the "expanded" TennCare... yes. And of course I wouldn't complain that that was "feeecing"... because, as a TennCare client I COULD go to a doctor when I have a need for one, something I CAN'T do now. However... that said. When Obamacare implodes (as it will, eventually), the state would likely pull back the requirements to pre-Obamacare levels. ETA: to clear up any confusion... it's only "fleecing" because the funds are spent on something completely pointless and utterly useless. like the Iraq War, for example....? Somewhat... but, even then, the bombs that were dropped actually exploded.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2015 19:36:21 GMT -5
The new plan MUST be something that: 1. Encourages competition in the marketplace- ObamaCare has forced many insurers out of business leading to fewer, more expensive options for consumers. 2. Tort reform. The idea that damages can have no practical limit is absurd. It's well past time for caps in all areas, but for the sake of access to affordable healthcare, the medical liability crisis has to be urgently addressed. 3. Eliminate the mandate. Actually, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to urgently end the confusion created by the Supreme Court re: the notion that the federal government can force a citizen to buy a product or service. It should clearly be out of bounds. This is one of the greatest dangers to emerge from this era of ObamaCare fiasco that could outlive this farcical period and remain a looming threat forever. The bottom line is that we cannot wait much longer to provide Americans with a clear patient-centered, market-based alternative to the confusing, expensive, and disastrous ObamaCare mess. 1. If Obamacare forced any insurance company out of business then it was a substandard issuer of shitty policies that nobody needs. The law directly allows plenty for a profit margin under the medical loss ratio rules- no reason to go out of business- are you aware of any specific companies that went out of business?
2. Tort reform is a tired argument- although some reform might be needed the idea of caps on actual damages is absurd. Why should a plaintiff injured have to settle for some arbitrary limit?
3. We can eliminate the mandate right after we eliminate insurance companies
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 19:49:42 GMT -5
The problem is it's not universal. Here in PA I have over 80 plans to choose from.
Does Geisinger make an impact on this? Anyone who knows PA? Are there organizations like Geisinger in other states?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 10, 2015 20:10:14 GMT -5
If I read correctly before, his plan is free to him covered 100% by subsidy. So opting not to have a plan & paying a fine would cost him more. In addition, it is when you are paying out of pocket that many doctors want up front payment.
As much as his hates his insurance & doesn't use it. I don't see any way that he is actually worse off for having it. And now if he needs surgery, has a hospital stay, gets cancer, he has coverage. It may not cover the first 5K, but that is pretty small potatoes compared to what this stuff can cost & people won't require up front payments for this type of stuff when you are insured. So whether or not you have 5K at that moment, you can get the cancer treatment, surgery or whatnot.
You see it correctly... except for one small issue. MOST "hospital stays" that the uninsured (or "underinsured") end up needing could USUALLY have been solved by preventative care when the issue first presented itself and was simple to treat by a couple of visits to a GP. That's my whole gripe. It pushes care to the wrong end of the "care window". But it helps. When my ex went to the doctor when uninsured they required $150 upfront. When I go to the doctor I pay nothing upfront and pay a discounted bill 30-90 days later. It may not be free, but I would think if you cared about your health, then you would go to the doc and figure out how to cover the $80 bill over the next few months. Especially if you think the issue may turn into something that costs thousands down the road.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 20:42:01 GMT -5
You see it correctly... except for one small issue. MOST "hospital stays" that the uninsured (or "underinsured") end up needing could USUALLY have been solved by preventative care when the issue first presented itself and was simple to treat by a couple of visits to a GP. That's my whole gripe. It pushes care to the wrong end of the "care window". But it helps. When my ex went to the doctor when uninsured they required $150 upfront. When I go to the doctor I pay nothing upfront and pay a discounted bill 30-90 days later. It may not be free, but I would think if you cared about your health, then you would go to the doc and figure out how to cover the $80 bill over the next few months. Especially if you think the issue may turn into something that costs thousands down the road. But that's the problem... it DOESN'T help. You and others keep saying "go, just make payments"... and I've clearly said ( post #1980) doctors here require payment up front. "Go, just make payments" isn't something that's universally available. And, again, the "fix for those that can only afford the least expensive policies" is ass backwards. It shouldn't be a "catastrophic only policy" (which is basically what mine is, even though it's not "sold" as one)... because without treatment ANYTHING can BECOME "catastrophic". The lowest plans should cover routine stuff at close to 100% (including lab work and treatments). That's how the poor avoid the "catastrophic".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 20:45:17 GMT -5
You think health care should cover all doctors appointments for everyone all the time?
We can't afford it, frankly.
And I guess those of us actually using our high deductible plans might know a bit snout how they operate...
Are you not finding anyone in network?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,289
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 10, 2015 21:05:49 GMT -5
But it helps. When my ex went to the doctor when uninsured they required $150 upfront. When I go to the doctor I pay nothing upfront and pay a discounted bill 30-90 days later. It may not be free, but I would think if you cared about your health, then you would go to the doc and figure out how to cover the $80 bill over the next few months. Especially if you think the issue may turn into something that costs thousands down the road. But that's the problem... it DOESN'T help. You and others keep saying "go, just make payments"... and I've clearly said ( post #1980) doctors here require payment up front. "Go, just make payments" isn't something that's universally available. And, again, the "fix for those that can only afford the least expensive policies" is ass backwards. It shouldn't be a "catastrophic only policy" (which is basically what mine is, even though it's not "sold" as one)... because without treatment ANYTHING can BECOME "catastrophic". The lowest plans should cover routine stuff at close to 100% (including lab work and treatments). That's how the poor avoid the "catastrophic". I assume you were assigned to a primary care provider. You should also be able to go online and search for other in-network providers to whom you could switch if you chose. Have you gone and talked to the staff at any of these other places to ascertain exactly how they handle things? Or what things may be covered free or at reduced rates?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 2, 2024 22:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 21:20:24 GMT -5
But that's the problem... it DOESN'T help. You and others keep saying "go, just make payments"... and I've clearly said ( post #1980) doctors here require payment up front. "Go, just make payments" isn't something that's universally available. And, again, the "fix for those that can only afford the least expensive policies" is ass backwards. It shouldn't be a "catastrophic only policy" (which is basically what mine is, even though it's not "sold" as one)... because without treatment ANYTHING can BECOME "catastrophic". The lowest plans should cover routine stuff at close to 100% (including lab work and treatments). That's how the poor avoid the "catastrophic". I assume you were assigned to a primary care provider. You should also be able to go online and search for other in-network providers to whom you could switch if you chose. Have you gone and talked to the staff at any of these other places to ascertain exactly how they handle things? Or what things may be covered free or at reduced rates? I wasn't "assigned" to any specific PCP... but I do have a list of them to choose from. Yes. I contacted the ones in the area, I know what the rates are for me with my "coverage" (ETA: I have them written down, in my insurance folder, in my filing cabinet... I don't "know them" off the top of my head so I can quote them here). They all say they will be happy to see me, payment due at time service is rendered (they will make sure it get's properly credited towards my deductible). Maybe if I bold it, make it bigger, and make it red... people will get it: Around here, for everything EXCEPT E.R. VISITS (by law they have to take you regardless of ability to pay), payment is due at time service is rendered. "Payment plans" are NOT an option.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2015 21:24:36 GMT -5
I have a $4000 deductible- I can go to the doctor and the bills run through the insurance company and I get a bill about a month later. I was worried about how it worked and got my answer on this very forum.
So now up to 4K all costs are on me- but the way my company did it- they provided a low deductible policy or matched deductions on a high deductible plan-I took the latter. I put $200 a month into it and take a company match- and I still get a free annual checkup.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 10, 2015 21:30:16 GMT -5
But it helps. When my ex went to the doctor when uninsured they required $150 upfront. When I go to the doctor I pay nothing upfront and pay a discounted bill 30-90 days later. It may not be free, but I would think if you cared about your health, then you would go to the doc and figure out how to cover the $80 bill over the next few months. Especially if you think the issue may turn into something that costs thousands down the road. But that's the problem... it DOESN'T help. You and others keep saying "go, just make payments"... and I've clearly said ( post #1980) doctors here require payment up front. "Go, just make payments" isn't something that's universally available. And, again, the "fix for those that can only afford the least expensive policies" is ass backwards. It shouldn't be a "catastrophic only policy" (which is basically what mine is, even though it's not "sold" as one)... because without treatment ANYTHING can BECOME "catastrophic". The lowest plans should cover routine stuff at close to 100% (including lab work and treatments). That's how the poor avoid the "catastrophic". You and PBP both hate the law but for opposite reasons. He hates that insurance cover preventative stuff because insurance should only be for catastrophic. You hate that it doesn't cover much beyond catastrophic. I find that interesting. All I can say is that for me health is a priority and I would do whatever it takes to see a doctor if I needed to, even if it meant putting the visit on a CC that it took months to pay off. It still beats ending up hospitalized and owing thousands.
|
|