O/T: Amazing

Page 8 of 10  
wrote:

Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net pay and gross pay are very different. I would dearly like to know how to cut down on those administrative costs. Having reently joined the retired crowd, and now having to deal with Medicare billing, supplemental insurances, deductibles and copays, it is mind boggling and loudly crying for simplification.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state and insurance but my cost is $230/month.
For those of you nearing Medicare time, a given plan, Plan F, Plan C, etc are all the same no matter who the provider is. Rates may vary, but the plan is the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/29/2012 09:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

And add about $30/month for plan D (drugs).
Not a bad deal, but with Obamacare, certain to go up drastically. The biggie for retired folks is the half trillion bucks that will come out of medicare to help pay for Obamacare. That will make the supplementals go up in price to cover the difference,
The biggie for the younger generation is the ten years of taxes to pay for 6 years of benefits. The next ten years after that will be a real shocker.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:12:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I went with B. No co-pay or paperwork, but doesn't pay the doctors deductible. It does pay the hospital deductible. I found that the difference between B and C was greater than the cost of the deductible. And yes, C does cover a few other things but I though those were minor.
We pay about $140 each thru AARP. I don't remember what you get additional for F over and above the deductible, but I didn't think it was worth an extra $90 a month.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 12:41 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

different companies, and compare the cost for what you are getting.
Especially watch the out-of-pocket expense maximum and the deductible. For some companies these items are additive. ie. if your out-of-pocket maximum is 3000 and your maximum deductible is 3000 you will have to come up with 6000 if the cost of the procedure is large enough.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:01:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle

We're talking Medicare supplements. Plan C is plan C no matter the company. Plan ? is Plan ? no matter the company. This is mandated by the government. Only difference is cost. I was able to save $35 a month with AARP over Blue Cross but it is the same policy with either company. Start here https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:01:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

See Ed K's response.
Remember, engage brain before putting mouth in gear :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 7:12 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

I did compare insurance company and found that while the basics were the same the price varied significantly for the additional that was provided between the various companies and policies. These additional included co pays, and what was deductible and not, eye glass, dental, etc..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:14:14 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

I don't know what you looked at Keith, but if they were indeed Medicare Supplement Policies they did not vary in benefits within a federally defined level (A,B,...).
I suspect you were looking at MedAdvantage plans or plans that had nothing to do with Medicare.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely. My father-in-law was also a general practitioner (doctoring tends to run in my wife's family). He ran his clinic with just a nurse and a front desk person who also handled the business operation. Very low overhead and, thusly, very low costs to his patients.
On the other hand, it was a cash only business. He did his patient notes in his own shorthand on 3x5 cards, owned the building he worked in, and ended up marrying his nurse.
Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or private) takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per practitioner.
--
Frank Stutzman



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 2:35 PM, Frank Stutzman wrote:

There are former doctors who quit being doctors because they couldn't afford the $100,000 a year or more the insurance companies demanded for malpractice premiums.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:

What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It makes no difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory takes away your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you believe denying me and others our freedom is a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Personally, I would be fine with you refusing to pay for healthcare insurance. But how would you then pay for care that you really need or want? So you have no insurance whatsoever. You have an accident and break your leg (like I did). The choice is then of necessity sometimes made for you. It is so bad that unless immediate care is given, it would be more painful, with worse outcome possibilities, and more costly to wait and discuss with you, your loved ones, or whoever, what should be done and who is going to pay. Therefore the rule is now that under certain circumstances care is given, and cost is discussed later. And sometimes then there is nobody able or willing to pay. Should the doctor, hospital, ambulance just take the loss? If you are willing to show a card that says "I am unwilling to pay for medical care until I have given consent" then a law has to be passed to allow medical personnel to let you lie where you fall.
I think Obamacare is better, though not ideal. I think everyone should pay for compulsory, basic and catastrophic medical care, and be given the option to pay for added coverages. Then if a preexisting condition pops up that is discovered before you get it covered by insurance will mean you're shit out of luck. In other words, you gamble you won't get diabetes, so youre fuse coverage for dialysis, kidney transplant, eye diseases, and other consequences of diabetes. Great reduction in premium. You're ahead. But if you then develop diabetes, you should be shit out of luck. Pay full cost for any and all treatments for any result of diabetes. Good luck, buddy. I will get that extra coverage, just in case. I'll eat out less to pay for the premium.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the difference?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.

Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I get charged an 8.5% surcharge (even if the insurance company pays it, I ultimately pay via my premiums), it is immaterial whether it is a federal or local charge. It is money out my pocket.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2012 12:12 PM, Han wrote:

It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial. Again, read the 10th amendment.
It would be best for all those who wish the federal government to be involved in all aspects of life to start a movement to repeal the 10th rather than just ignoring it.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:26:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

I do believe the Civil War (among other things) more or less ignored the 10th amendment. The Constitution, or at least the literal interpretation of it, was on life support even before that.
Do you really believe that health care even entered the founders minds, considering its primitiveness at the time? See death of G. Washington.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/30/2012 04:19 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

I believe the founders were intent on limiting the power of the federal government. That is exactly the reason for the 10th and the remainder of the bill of rights. They were not about to have the same issues in the new government that they fought to escape from.
Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution or the intended power of the federal government.
A refresher of "enumerated powers" may help to enlighten.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.
They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable - others need adjustments for reality.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.