PDA

View Full Version : Hemorrhoid Relief....



Hew
08-04-2010, 08:11 AM
....the Dems are going to need it. 71% of the voters of Missouri rejected their forced participation in ObamaCare in a state-wide referendum. Missouri is a big-time swing state. That they're overwhelmingly rejecting a major component of the Democrat's agenda has to be unsettling for the DNC with November elections looming.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100804/D9HCF3I80.html

(sorry, RK, you beat me by 2 mins.)

road kill
08-04-2010, 08:16 AM
....the Dems are going to need it. 71% of the voters of Missouri rejected their forced participation in ObamaCare in a state-wide referendum. Missouri is a big-time swing state. That they're overwhelmingly rejecting a major component of the Democrat's agenda has to be unsettling for the DNC with November elections looming.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100804/D9HCF3I80.html

(sorry, RK, you beat me by 2 mins.)


Yardley, RP and DNF will be confused on which one to spin/attack first.
Sorry guys........:D



RK

dnf777
08-04-2010, 08:49 AM
Yardley, RP and DNF will be confused on which one to spin/attack first.
Sorry guys........:D



RK


No spin or attack here. It definately spells trouble for dems in November. If i were a republican on the other hand, I would not rest on my laurels at this news...it in no way reflects a favorable view of their handling of anything domestic either. Remember, the same voters "overwhelmingly rejected" the republican congress in '06 and the republican presidential candidate two years later.

The independents should be poised to jump at this news.

YardleyLabs
08-04-2010, 08:56 AM
One of the problems is that, while mandates for health coverage are very unpopular, laws preventing insurance companies from excluding people based on prior conditions are very popular. The two go hand in hand. Either allow exclusions, or require coverage. There is no good middle ground since the alternative would permit people to buy coverage only when they become ill enough to need it.

BonMallari
08-04-2010, 09:09 AM
No spin or attack here. It definately spells trouble for dems in November. If i were a republican on the other hand, I would not rest on my laurels at this news...it in no way reflects a favorable view of their handling of anything domestic either. Remember, the same voters "overwhelmingly rejected" the republican congress in '06 and the republican presidential candidate two years later.

The independents should be poised to jump at this news.

exactly...nothing has been won yet...still have to get people to the polls in Nov..lots of races that the Republicans thought were sure winners are now toss ups...Reid vs Angle...Crist vs Rubio

Buzz
08-04-2010, 09:18 AM
Sheesh, talk about deceptive headlines.

I came to this thread looking for, well, relief!

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 09:54 AM
One of the problems is that, while mandates for health coverage are very unpopular, laws preventing insurance companies from excluding people based on prior conditions are very popular. The two go hand in hand. Either allow exclusions, or require coverage. There is no good middle ground since the alternative would permit people to buy coverage only when they become ill enough to need it.

You are correct but the existing system which serves well 85% of the country well shouldn't scraped to help those that choose not to purchase insurance. Those individuals that can't afford insurance or can't buy insurance because of health problems need to be taken care of but not at the expense of wrecking the entire system. Giving coverage to these folks and not futzing with the existing system would be favorable an less expensive than the crap Congress passed and Obama signed.

Buzz, sorry about your problem.

Gerry Clinchy
08-04-2010, 11:25 AM
You are correct but the existing system which serves well 85% of the country well shouldn't scraped to help those that choose not to purchase insurance. Those individuals that can't afford insurance or can't buy insurance because of health problems need to be taken care of but not at the expense of wrecking the entire system. Giving coverage to these folks and not futzing with the existing system would be favorable an less expensive than the crap Congress passed and Obama signed.



There were probably a whole lot of better ways to address the 15% that needed addressing.

Nobody seems to be watching that the UK is finding its system is not working so well after 40 years. It seems it took that long before they realized they had run out of other people's money.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 12:58 PM
How do you come up with the 85-15% numbers?
Many who thought they had insurance, find out in bancrupcy that they don't, or didn't have enough, after its too late. I think 85% is probably very generous.

Cody Covey
08-04-2010, 01:23 PM
the number always yelled about is 40 million Americans (well people because illegals are counted there as well) are uninsured. Thats actually less than 15%. These are the numbers used by liberals...

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 02:36 PM
How do you come up with the 85-15% numbers?
Many who thought they had insurance, find out in bancrupcy that they don't, or didn't have enough, after its too late. I think 85% is probably very generous.

Dave, since I'm sitting in the service department waiting on my Polaris, I'm not going to go back and dig all that stuff up again as we have gone over this many times in the past. As I recall, proponents of national health care were initially saying they were 45 million uninsured. They, including Obama, finally admitted that after you take out illegals the number drops to 33 Million. The number is further reduced to 15 million when you take out those who could purchase but simply don't. These 15 million people who are unable to get insurance due to financial or medical reasons, should and could be covered by a national program funded by tax dollars and "premium" contributions from those who are uninsurable. The cost of this program should be pennies compared to the overall cost of Obamacare. This could be done cheaper and without upsetting what works for the majority of the country.

I don't know what you are referring to when you talk about people who thought they had insurance. Either they do or they don't. You may be talking about those who purchased some limited benefit policy thinking they were getting more than what they bought. In that case they should have been aware that when the price is too good to be true, it probably is a bad deal. We as a people cannot be expected to protect ignorance in the buying public.

Oh, and I didn't call you an idiot one time.:D

dnf777
08-04-2010, 03:57 PM
I don't know what you are referring to when you talk about people who thought they had insurance. Either they do or they don't.



Some people are very diligent, and read and understand their entire policy. Many policies however, are not clear until a claim is filed, and a medical claims director sitting in a mahogany office issues a denial.

I work for one of the largest health care providers in the area, with hospitals in 4 countries, and would think that my "comprehensive coverage" would include common ailments such as cancer, and its accepted treatments. Some people have discovered that their surgery is covered, but not chemotherapy or radiation therapies. I can't cite the source, but I think we all remember hearing that ~60% of all bankruptcies in the US are medical-expense related, and of those, half had health insurance.

Also, if a policy covers 90% of a bill, and that bill is 200k, you still owe 20,000 smackers. For many of fixed incomes, that means a For Sale sign in front of their house, or a trip to the bankruptcy judge. While it may be their own fault, many don't think of that until their in up to their eyeballs.

I'm just answering the question of 'thinking' you have coverage.

road kill
08-04-2010, 03:59 PM
Some people are very diligent, and read and understand their entire policy. Many policies however, are not clear until a claim is filed, and a medical claims director sitting in a mahogany office issues a denial.

I work for one of the largest health care providers in the area, with hospitals in 4 countries, and would think that my "comprehensive coverage" would include common ailments such as cancer, and its accepted treatments. Some people have discovered that their surgery is covered, but not chemotherapy or radiation therapies. I can't cite the source, but I think we all remember hearing that ~60% of all bankruptcies in the US are medical-expense related, and of those, half had health insurance.

Also, if a policy covers 90% of a bill, and that bill is 200k, you still owe 20,000 smackers. For many of fixed incomes, that means a For Sale sign in front of their house, or a trip to the bankruptcy judge. While it may be their own fault, many don't think of that until their in up to their eyeballs.

I'm just answering the question of 'thinking' you have coverage.

What exactly is a "fixed income?"

I always wondered.
Is that like a salary vs. commision?

What??




RK

dnf777
08-04-2010, 04:05 PM
What exactly is a "fixed income?"

I always wondered.
Is that like a salary vs. commision?

What??

RK

Pension. Retirement savings plan. SS.

People who can't easily absorb unexpected expenses.

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 04:42 PM
Some people are very diligent, and read and understand their entire policy. Many policies however, are not clear until a claim is filed, and a medical claims director sitting in a mahogany office issues a denial.

I work for one of the largest health care providers in the area, with hospitals in 4 countries, and would think that my "comprehensive coverage" would include common ailments such as cancer, and its accepted treatments. Some people have discovered that their surgery is covered, but not chemotherapy or radiation therapies. I can't cite the source, but I think we all remember hearing that ~60% of all bankruptcies in the US are medical-expense related, and of those, half had health insurance.

Also, if a policy covers 90% of a bill, and that bill is 200k, you still owe 20,000 smackers. For many of fixed incomes, that means a For Sale sign in front of their house, or a trip to the bankruptcy judge. While it may be their own fault, many don't think of that until their in up to their eyeballs.

I'm just answering the question of 'thinking' you have coverage.

Most, I won't say all, but I would guess that 99% of reputable group and individual policies have a stop loss feature which limits calendar out of pockets usually to $5,000 or $10,000 plus the deductible and then pay at 100% for the balance of the year. This out of pocket can be higher if that policyholder wants to share more of the risk in order to save premium.

Most policies have reasonable and customary charges limitations which is to keep providers from charging more than the going rate for a procedure. You know how this works. If your office were to charge $1000 for a procedure that everyone else in your area charges $750, the carrier will cap the reimbursement to $750. This keeps providers from gouging the carriers and at the same time lets the patient know that he's been overcharged.

I don't know of of any policies that limit chemo or radiation therapy. All policies that I am aware of have "experimental treatment" exclusions which often applies to cancer patients. This is to keep from paying for non proven and usually very expensive experimental treatments. Many times these treatments are not offered when there is no insurance in place. This usually comes in to play with terminal patients.

I personally think that "cost saving" items like pre-certification, mandatory second opinions, PPOs,etc. are just crap that runs up everyone's cost of doing business.

I do know that a Polaris doctor gets $75 an hour.:cry:

dnf777
08-04-2010, 05:56 PM
Most, I won't say all, but I would guess that 99% of reputable group and individual policies have a stop loss feature which limits calendar out of pockets usually to $5,000 or $10,000 plus the deductible and then pay at 100% for the balance of the year.


I do know that a Polaris doctor gets $75 an hour.:cry:


There are definitely policies that exhaust coverage, especially for ancillary services such as PT, VNA, and medical supplies, not to mention comprehensive coverage in many cases. Our hospital just had to eat an expensive bill for a lady who exhausted her inpatient coverage, yet needed to be readmitted. I see it happen, not every day, but often enough.

Try bundling the charges on your Polaris....and tell the shop since more than one service was provided, without proper modifiers, you'll only pay for the first item, then 20% of the other items. Also, since Bubba's ATV shop will do the same for less, you're not even paying THAT! :(

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 06:14 PM
There are definitely policies that exhaust coverage, especially for ancillary services such as PT, VNA, and medical supplies, not to mention comprehensive coverage in many cases. Our hospital just had to eat an expensive bill for a lady who exhausted her inpatient coverage, yet needed to be readmitted. I see it happen, not every day, but often enough.

Try bundling the charges on your Polaris....and tell the shop since more than one service was provided, without proper modifiers, you'll only pay for the first item, then 20% of the other items. Also, since Bubba's ATV shop will do the same for less, you're not even paying THAT! :(

It's hard to believe that State Insurance Departments allow that stuff to be marketed but it should be reflected in a much cheaper price. When I started doing this a hundred years ago, we were selling policies with lifetime maximums of $50,000 & $100,000 which was plenty. The cost for raising the max to $500,000 was $.20 and to $1M was .05 more.

As far as the Polaris, $300. Half parts and half labor. Those damn mechanics are getting rich. You would think they would do it out of the goodness of their heart or at the very least turn their hat around.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 06:39 PM
When I started doing this a hundred years ago, we were selling policies with lifetime maximums of $50,000 & $100,000 which was plenty.

Then you're old enough to remember "The Six Million Dollar Man". Today, such a title would refer to a second-string NFL quarterback or someone who just had a knee replacement with complications!

The show could be based on Oscar Goldman fighting with the insurance carrier to get two bionic legs, one arm, AND an eye all covered under one hospitalization! ;)