I saw that it was a followup to that, but saying states don't mandate that a single mother can't have care is irrelevant to his claim that HIS insurance won't cover prenatal care for a woman he is not married to.
Of course no state mandates that a single mother can't have care. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Duke wrote: I saw that it was a followup to that, but saying states don't *mandate* that a single mother can't have care is irrelevant to his claim that HIS insurance won't cover prenatal care for a woman he is not married to. Of *course* no state mandates that a single mother *can't* have care. Or am I misunderstanding you?
I think we're just misunderstanding each other. 
He mentioned that sometimes states will mandate what insurance companies do.
I took that as justification as to maybe why a single mother might not be receiving care. (Covered by insurance, that is.)
And then we have my response.
I agree that overall, it's largely irrelevant since such a thing doesn't exist anyways.
Oh, i see the misunderstanding, I was saying the single mom couldn't use MY insurance, not that she couldn't use it in general.
madmallard wrote: Oh, i see the misunderstanding, I was saying the single mom couldn't use MY insurance, not that she couldn't use it in general.
Ah, well that makes more sense. If she's not on your policy, then no, she couldn't use YOUR insurance. But, you can certainly add her to your policy either as a dependent or a domestic partner.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
yeah, but that was what i was getting at as being the inequity of the situation. The guy could never use the pre-natal care, even if he had 5 children thru 5 women, not unless he married one, or they were a dependant.
madmallard wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: yeah, but that was what i was getting at as being the inequity of the situation. The guy could never use the pre-natal care, even if he had 5 children thru 5 women, not unless he married one, or they were a dependant.
And she could never have a vasectomy or prostate surgery. It's a weird argument/comment that i don't really understand.
If the guy gets her pregnant, he can (and should, i might add, if she doesn't have any other insurance) get her the prenatal care she needs.
Male or female-specific policies don't exist. I don't think you really want that extra complexity being administered by some of these companies. (Not to mention, the government) The policies aren't written for people necessarily so much as they're written... and then people are put into them.
And if you have employer-driven health insurance, (as the majority of insurance handled by the private sector is) it's the employer that determines what they want covered.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Vasectomy is mostly elective, tho.... and btw, they've named a female part a 'prostate' in recent years. I actually had to look this one up ~_~
Look, I wasn't speaking of the guy's ethical responsibility to the woman or kid, I was speaking to the idea that this coverage is being thrust upon some and they received absolutely no benefit from it. It will never mitigate any risk for those parties, and it is a financial burden that they bear on behalf of other's life choices despite their own life choices.
For example, declaring that you are not a tobacco user, your personal insurance rates can be considerably lowered in many states. This lifestyle choice is okay to filter by, but almost no others are?
and its not even an issue of gender specific care plans and insurance policies in the private care field, how about elective individual/lifestyle policies? if people think these things (prenatal for example)cost too much now, then they don't understand that the CURRENT cost is being mitigated across alot more people that can't use the coverage, so the actual cost is even higher if it wasn't for these people they spread the costs to.
A post menopausal woman who's single with no dependants should be able to opt out of any coverage calculation for pregnancy/reproductive issues, male specific issues (ed, testicular cancers, ed).
And while i agree with this remark:
policies aren't written for people necessarily so much as they're written... and then people are put into them.
...i strongly feel that its STILL this way because outside forces are moving to keep things stalled this way. But for intervention of politically motivated self-interest, someone would've figured out a way to offer insurance/care plans like this and still make money by now.
madmallard wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: Vasectomy is mostly elective, tho.... and btw, they've named a female part a 'prostate' in recent years. I actually had to look this one up ~_~ Look, I wasn't speaking of the guy's ethical responsibility to the woman or kid, I was speaking to the idea that this coverage is being thrust upon some and they received absolutely no benefit from it. It will never mitigate any risk for those parties, and it is a financial burden that they bear on behalf of other's life choices despite their own life choices. For example, declaring that you are not a tobacco user, your personal insurance rates can be considerably lowered in many states. This lifestyle choice is okay to filter by, but almost no others are? and its not even an issue of gender specific care plans and insurance policies in the private care field, how about elective individual/lifestyle policies? if people think these things (prenatal for example)cost too much now, then they don't understand that the CURRENT cost is being mitigated across alot more people that can't use the coverage, so the actual cost is even higher if it wasn't for these people they spread the costs to. A post menopausal woman who's single with no dependants should be able to opt out of any coverage calculation for pregnancy/reproductive issues, male specific issues (ed, testicular cancers, ed). And while i agree with this remark:policies aren't written for people necessarily so much as they're written... and then people are put into them....i strongly feel that its STILL this way because outside forces are moving to keep things stalled this way. But for intervention of politically motivated self-interest, someone would've figured out a way to offer insurance/care plans like this and still make money by now.
I mean... prenatal care is also elective. You chose to have the sea monkey.
Doing what you're proposing, that being creating "buckets" that people go into in terms of what they want to pay for, such as your example of the menopausal woman, (Who at that age, is hitting the point in her life where medical costs statistically will be rising anyways) would result in GREATLY increased administrative costs.
Costs that make insurance coverage itself more expensive. (partially, if not completely negating any potential gain.)
And on top of that, with "Health Care Reform," insurance companies do not have that extra money to spend on administering and micro-managing their customers while staying in compliance with the minimum payout percentage mandates.
It'd be a logistical nightmare, and the government has made it impossible even IF the insurance companies wanted to do such a thing. Or even the employers, since they're who drives most of the business anyways. (And none of them want it anyways)
thats an assertion that can't be tested at this time, so it seems like a safe assertion.
I disagree, of course, :p.
But we have many other examples of well administrated things (away from the government), or even things where the administrative burden (thanks to technology) is shared more among the consumers themselves. I can't be so pessimistic myself to believe it is simply an impossibilty. Thats not enterprising~
madmallard wrote: thats an assertion that can't be tested at this time, so it seems like a safe assertion. I disagree, of course, :p. But we have many other examples of well administrated things (away from the government), or even things where the administrative burden (thanks to technology) is shared more among the consumers themselves. I can't be so pessimistic myself to believe it is simply an impossibilty. Thats not enterprising~
Well sure.... but just bear in mind that most of the big insurance companies have had significant layoffs and have been outsourcing just to be able to conform to the minimum percent payout mandate in the Health Care Reform Act. (You hear that? That's Health Care Reform costing US citizens THEIR JOBS.)
Additional cost, while POSSIBLE, would likely again come with the loss of more jobs in the US.
Some companies would be able to do it and stay afloat. (Wellpoint, UHC...) Other smaller companies would go under, bringing the two juggernauts closer to a monopoly. (Which is inherently evil according to society, even when they are heavily regulated by the government!)
My wife had one of those “unnecessary” head and neck MRIs (out of pocket, about $500, insurance portion about $900, contractual adjustment down from something asinine like $3800, blah blah blah…) to look for the cause of her chronic migraines. We’d been through everything else and were trying to rule out a brain tumor. Great news- no cancer! Come to find out, though, there’s a relatively-easily-correctable malformation of the canal between her brain and spinal cord, causing fluid not to be able to flow back and forth as intended. Boom, crippling migraines. She’s been in the hospital since last week, and will probably get out tomorrow or the next day. My out of pocket total is probably going to be a couple grand for brain surgery and a week or so in the intensive care unit. I’ll take it. Am very curious to see what the total bill looks like, though.
Here’s where I am today: Is the system perfect? Not just no, hell no. (And I say that as someone who works in healthcare…) But does it provide a good quality product, lots of choices, options, etc? Yep, most of the time, at least. Are nice things expensive or cheap? Expensive, right?
A Lamborghini is going to cost more than a Yugo.
survivability increases exponentially with the point that cancer is caught & that treatment begins sooner.
So even if nothing at all was found for her head in the process, do you feel a peace of mind because this diagnostic was ordered?
In reply to madmallard: Yes and yes. The MRI was worth it, just to rule out "you have an aggressive brain tumor." The fact that a surgical correction to the back of her head might just cure a lot of her chronic health problems was/is just gravy. Tasty, tasty gravy.
At this point I'm curious to see what that bill looks like- I feel like I should highlight this month on my calendar, though. This may be one of the only times in my life where I don't completely resent the thousands each year that I pay in healthcare premiums/copays, along with having an appreciation for my employer's contributions to same.
I would like to point out something I found out about some nation's procedures on MRIs. -_- They basically setup laws that forecfully restrict what the state will pay for in such procedures, and leave it up to the medical provider, wether its single payer, or a social medicine branch, to figure out how to make it cost only that much.
Not all MRIs are created equal. So some of these nations have more 'affordable' MRI machines that only have a fraction of the resolution of 'modern' scans. This was true in Japan of all places the last time I read about it in 04~06. Their brain scans were under like $800, but had only 1/5th the resolution and detail.
Jake wrote: A Lamborghini is going to cost more than a Yugo.
And that may be part of the problem. We seem to have a lot of "high end Italian exotic" health care options and when you have insurance, getting those seems to be the default even when a "Ford or Chevy" (hell - even a BMW or Audi) option may be more appropriate.
While others have posted shopping around for lower cost options is possible, it doesn't seem to be particularily intuitive and let's face it - people tend to be lazy and take the easier option.
Regardless, this has been a useful discussion and has given me some things to think about as I make plans to get my wisdom teeth pulled.
Ian F wrote: While others have posted shopping around for lower cost options is possible, it doesn't seem to be particularily intuitive and let's face it - people tend to be lazy and take the easier option.
All the more reason hospitals should show what they charge up front instead of billing you after service.
A friend and his wife found a bat in their newborn's room. They caught it and let it go. They found out later they should've kept it as bats are rabies carriers. Their pediatrician suggested that they should all get rabies shots as you can't tell if you've been bitten by a bat. If you're bitten by a rabid bat and don't know it...you won't until it's terminal. So they all got rabies shots which was an ordeal in and of itself. His insurance would only cover it if they all went to the emergency room and paid for the emergency room rate. They had to go 3 times.
After all was said and done...he was billed for each visit to the emergency room individually. The kicker? Same procedure. Same place. Same group of doctors. 3 different prices. He called the hospital to call them out on the asshattery. They called him back and offered to "settle" with him. The agreement was he would pay the lowest price on one of the bills for all 3 visits.
Wife is schedule for surgery next Tuesday.
god speed~
3 hours of surgery and it was a success. The cyst was really berkeleying big.
It came out intact and all the test show low malignant potential.
Woo~~~~~~
Glad to hear it went well.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Well sure.... but just bear in mind that most of the big insurance companies have had significant layoffs and have been outsourcing just to be able to conform to the minimum percent payout mandate in the Health Care Reform Act. (You hear that? That's Health Care Reform costing US citizens THEIR JOBS.) Additional cost, while POSSIBLE, would likely again come with the loss of more jobs in the US. Some companies would be able to do it and stay afloat. (Wellpoint, UHC...) Other smaller companies would go under, bringing the two juggernauts closer to a monopoly. (Which is inherently evil according to society, even when they are heavily regulated by the government!)
Yup. We're losing a lot of jobs here to India and the Philippines and I don't think it's going to stop. Lot of my friends got the ax and I'd say the writing is on the wall for the rest of us.
It seems if there were more doctors, they wouldn't be as overworked/sleep deprived and people would receive better care. More doctors would mean shorter waits. If more people were admitted to med school, med school would likely become cheaper, helping to bring down doctors salaries as tuition prices fall. Furthermore if there were more doctors, there would be more competition for patients and thus lower prices. With this in mind, I wonder if the number of doctors allowed to practice is artificially kept low?
How well does the MCAT correlate to knowledge gained in med school and in medical practice?
What role does the AMA play in influencing admission standards for medical schools in the U.S.?
How do countries with easier admission processes for med school compare to the U.S. for treatment (mortality for particular injuries and diseases, malpractice rates, etc)?
I freely admit I haven't looked into this at all and just thought of it now, but I wonder if anyone has?
mpolans wrote: More doctors would mean shorter waits. If more people were admitted to med school, med school would likely become cheaper, helping to bring down doctors salaries as tuition prices fall.
Doctors are not part of the 1% and therefore not the people sucking up all the cash these days. For the person making mad cash on medical you need to look higher up the financial food chain than doctors. Try Medical supply CEO's like John H. Hammergren of McKeeson Medical. Want to save on medical costs? Try lowering this guy's $46,149,360.00 yearly compensation.
Glad to hear the surgery went well!
The cost of medical is in no small part driven by outrageous compensation like this Hammergren guy. But as far as docs not being part of the 1%: I disagree. I had a customer with a multimillion dollar vacation house on Kiawah Island who used an Aston Martin as his 'beach buggy', about every 2 months his secretary would call us a week ahead of time and we'd pick it up, make sure the battery etc were good, wash and detail, then deliver it back so he'd be ready to go when he got there. He was a surgeon of some sort in Connecticut, IIRC.
Curmudgeon wrote: Glad to hear the surgery went well!
Oh E36 M3. I'm an ass. Glad to hear the surgery gave some positive information. I'm really grateful for the outcome.
Curmudgeon, well damn! I can't buy a valid comment today! There are definitely some well off doctors per your story. Most I know are younger and doing their damnedest to pay off student loans.
You'll need to log in to post.
