The bills are inflated, insurance executives receive compensation of as much as $24,000,000 per year, even during the recession. (That's about $46 per minute of every hour of every day.)
But, it doesn't matter so long as you have insurance.
Because people you don't know made their premium payments and companies chipped in - but did received tax deductions.
Recently I was directed to have extensive blood work performed.[br>[br>The bill breakdown follows:[br>$742.00 = Total Charge[br>- $199.90 = Amount the insurance paid[br>- $519.90 = Contractual Adjustment (no definition provided in the bill)[br>$ 22.20 = Patient responsibility[br>[br>Questions come to mind:[br>[br>1. If I did not have insurance, would I have been billed the Total Charge? (probably)[br>[br>2. Why did the insurance company receive a "contractual adjustment" of 70 percent OFF?[br>[br>3. Did the medical practitioner inflate the cost of the lab work because they knew in advance there would be a (huge) discount?[br>[br>4. Since it appears that inflating numbers bothers no one, what is the advantage? (Bigger billing may look good to stockholders, both for the practitioner and the insurance company.)[br>[br>5. If I had to pay the total charge out of pocket, would I have had the work performed?[br>Actually, I can answer that. HELL NO. I would have negotiated for a reasonable fee, but failing that I guess I'd just have hoped for the best without the tests.[br>
Did you notice?
I didn't crow over the fact that I only paid $22.20 out of my pocket.
So long as the majority who have the insurance advantage have no compassion for those without insurance, the exploitation will continue.
And forcing insurance for all will help insurance executives increase their pitiful salaries.
When I was young (1950's and 1960's), we paid our own bills. And if a family member or close friend was in a bind, we helped each other out. We KNEW who to thank for helping.
I hereby Thank those whose premium payments allowed me to pay $22.20 for supposedly $742.00 worth of service.View Thread
Reluctantly, yes, I believe there should be universal health care in these United States. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, the fiscal well-being of every citizen is at stake.
I say that because while there would still be enough corruption and greed to fill the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, it would put a clamp on the current outrageous profit motive.
It would be far, FAR, better if there was NO health insurance and every employee had a mandatory payroll deduction. 10%? That money to be deposited in the bank of choice having withdrawals ONLY allowed for medical bills. Individuals would shop for the provider of their choice, at the best price they could find.
Pay their bills when receiving service with no further paperwork or hassle.
But, with the powerful insurance lobbies, that has no chance of happening.
To cross-pollinate, I started a thread on this on another site:
I presume the tax code was written when having children was to be encouraged.
Or possibly because the writers had children and wanted a break for themselves.
Now that we are consuming natural resources at an incredible rate, it would be better to reduce the rate of increasing population .
Since the thread was tax-based, another way to look at it is if there are increasing numbers paying into the various government run bureaucracies, the systems can support themselves longer. On the other hand, if the increasing numbers are not contributing, are committing crimes, consuming via government bureaucracies, thus Reducing the available benefits, then the plan is backfiring.
Sadly, it becomes more difficult on an ongoing basis to be optimistic.View Thread
I have to agree with the Lovely Ladies of WebMD (Alaska_Mommy and FCL)
Two parties are involved in medical service.
With that said, If a doctor recommended my child be vaccinated and I was unfamiliar, I would ask for more information. If uncertain, I would say I'll have to check into it first. Then check with reputable online information like mayoclinic and webmd.
For an example, many question flu shots. After reading information on reputable sources, I get the flu shot each year.
I have encountered doctors who seem annoyed when their advice is questioned at all. While I've never had to, I would politely remind the doctor that his/her service is for payment and I am the customer. Further, I want complete assurance the recommended vaccination is in the best interest of my child.
Like I said, I've never had to.
But I did change dermatologists when one said that I should continue use of two steroids for a skin condition until it was completely cleared. The package insert said to use no more than two continuous weeks. In that case, I felt better proceeding as the drug developer recommended than my doctor. And I chose changing doctors instead of having what could have been a confrontational meeting.View Thread