Social security by the numbers

[JCS]

Been impressed so far and enjoyed the conversation page 7 it begins the spiral

Because its not about social security

 

[Bonasababy]

Because its not about social security

Which also has nothing to do with hunting....

 

[cgasner1]

Which also has nothing to do with hunting....

Your are right but I know a lot of guys have better handle on numbers of life than I do. Some day when I retire the ss check will be my fun money I’m trying to set myself up so I don’t need it. So some day for me it will have a lot to do with hunting.

 

[Nick87]

Which also has nothing to do with hunting....

Yet, here you are.

 

[BigHornRam]

Been impressed so far and enjoyed the conversation page 7 it begins the spiral

The conversation started to spiral after this insensitive comment, IMO.

 

[cgasner1]

The conversation started to spiral after this insensitive comment, IMO.

View attachment 362729

Facts matter

 

[WildWill]

Yet, here you are.

He usually is when it has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yet, here you are.

I propose a new quota system here. 1 grip and grin for every 3 politically laced rants posted. @Bonasababy won't know what to do!

 

[Nick87]

1 grip and grin

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[WildWill]

I’d actually have to agree with you on this. When you look at what we get charged for a band aid or a bag of salenne it should be criminal

As someone who bills health insurance companies all day I can attest to the truth of this.

 

[Treeshark]

Be careful what you wish for.

I see what you did there- the ol’ “Russian selfie.”

 

[BigHornRam]

I see what you did there- the ol’ “Russian selfie.”

Sir. This is a hunting site.

 

[406dn]

As someone who bills health insurance companies all day I can attest to the truth of this.

My father in law was on a hospital board for many years. He said that it was common practice to charge high prices for...say aspirin. This was so that they could recoup losses from other procedures, say a MRI, that the insurance companies would not pay the actual cost of the service provided.

This is an unending cat and mouse game between insurers and medical and dental providers. Really this applies to EVERY insurance covered loss. Those making the insurance claim, try to find and stay at the ceiling of what an insurance company will pay, on a claim. Insurance companies make decisions on how much they will pay for claims. When you think about it, it is not worth an insurance company's time and effort to push back on the price of small items.

Some years ago, I was getting a crown on one of my molars. My dentist told me directly, he was going to price it aggressively, to determine what my insurance would cover. From his business perspective, not charging the maximum an insurance company would pay, is leaving money on the table.

The only real losers are... the person paying the premiums. As I posted earlier, insurance companies have an never ending option, to assure they are profitable.

 

[BrentD]

My father in law was on a hospital board for many years. He said that it was common practice to charge high prices for...say aspirin. This was so that they could recoup losses from other procedures, say a MRI, that the insurance companies would not pay the actual cost of the service provided.

This is an unending cat and mouse game between insurers and medical and dental providers. Really this applies to EVERY insurance covered loss. Those making the insurance claim, try to find and stay at the ceiling of what an insurance company will pay, on a claim. Insurance companies make decisions on how much they will pay for claims. When you think about it, it is not worth an insurance company's time and effort to push back on the price of small items.

Some years ago, I was getting a crown on one of my molars. My dentist told me directly, he was going to price it aggressively, to determine what my insurance would cover. From his business perspective, not charging the maximum an insurance company would pay, is leaving money on the table.

The only real losers are... the person paying the premiums. As I posted earlier, insurance companies have an never ending option, to assure they are profitable.

Hospitals typically charge insurance companies much less than they charge private persons paying out of pocket. They rarely pay the cost that in stated on the invoice, as I understand it.

 

[406dn]

Hospitals typically charge insurance companies much less than they charge private persons paying out of pocket. They rarely pay the cost that in stated on the invoice, as I understand it.

Many hospitals and insurers have worked out some sort of agreement on charges. All of the networks are an example of it. Medical care is expensive generally. One of my horses got a case of colic, recently. The charges for the visit, that lasted maybe 45 minutes was $700. That did not really surprise me.

 

[The_Jim]

Hospitals typically charge insurance companies much less than they charge private persons paying out of pocket. They rarely pay the cost that in stated on the invoice, as I understand it.

Check out some podcasts with Brigham Buhler. He’s been on Rogan a couple times and does a pretty good job explaining how the insurance companies are hosing us. If what he says is true it’s not quite that simple.

One point he makes is for pricing at a pharmacy you’ll get a much lower price if you do not have insurance than if you have insurance. In the end the insurance company will negotiate that price with the pharmacy and pay less than you would have uninsured but will still put the higher price that the pharmacy quoted you toward your co-pay/deductible. I believe the same thing happens with your copay/deductible for doctors visits.

 

[Irrelevant]

Maybe this is more spiraling down or maybe there's value; IDK. But we've gone to pay-to-play providers even though we have insurance. We have a high-deductible plan, so if we go to an in-network provider, we're still on the hook for the entire cost (minus whatever insignificant "savings" we get by being associated with that insurance provider), and because the entire family is on the plan, we've never hit that deductible, which makes my insurance functionally irrelevant. And the $24k my employer contributes to that coverage, a waste.

But I can see a pay-to-play provider, day of, for 1/4-1/2 the price of any given service. It is the only medical care I've received in the last decade that I could support. The only way to reform the system we have is if enough of us ditch it entirely. I recognize there's a huge risk out there for catastrophic events without insurance, but the costs outweigh the benefits.

 

[Nick87]

Maybe this is more spiraling down or maybe there's value; IDK. But we've gone to pay-to-play providers even though we have insurance. We have a high-deductible plan, so if we go to an in-network provider, we're still on the hook for the entire cost (minus whatever insignificant "savings" we get by being associated with that insurance provider), and because the entire family is on the plan, we've never hit that deductible, which makes my insurance functionally irrelevant. And the $24k my employer contributes to that coverage, a waste.

But I can see a pay-to-play provider, day of, for 1/4-1/2 the price of any given service. It is the only medical care I've received in the last decade that I could support. The only way to reform the system we have is if enough of us ditch it entirely. I recognize there's a huge risk out there for catastrophic events without insurance, but the costs outweigh the benefits.

One thing that has been a huge savings for us is switching to having the copay in-network. I swear before as a family by the time we hit our deductible we were like 2 or 3 months out from starting our year over again. Now we have no deductible. My youngest had his tonsils out last year cost me a flat $150 iirc. Our local has actually opened several clinics that are staffed by members cutting out the middle man. So anytime we go there it is free to us. No specialists but still helps quite a bit.

 

[MTGomer]

Maybe this is more spiraling down or maybe there's value; IDK. But we've gone to pay-to-play providers even though we have insurance. We have a high-deductible plan, so if we go to an in-network provider, we're still on the hook for the entire cost (minus whatever insignificant "savings" we get by being associated with that insurance provider), and because the entire family is on the plan, we've never hit that deductible, which makes my insurance functionally irrelevant. And the $24k my employer contributes to that coverage, a waste.

But I can see a pay-to-play provider, day of, for 1/4-1/2 the price of any given service. It is the only medical care I've received in the last decade that I could support. The only way to reform the system we have is if enough of us ditch it entirely. I recognize there's a huge risk out there for catastrophic events without insurance, but the costs outweigh the benefits.

I would be completely content with a catastrophic type of plan that would cover a brain tumor, broken back, etc., and leave us to pay cash out of pocket for everything else like antibiotics, cuts etc.

I believe those kind of plans are more or less obsolete after the ACA, due to minimum coverage requirements, though are they not?