Healthcare Reality

2wlady wrote: But the insurance companies are OK paying for Viagra for erectile dysfunction.

Joe wrote: I am not sure I understand it JMC, it was $18 ???? Was that a typo? Don't you think processing "insurance claim" paperwork costs more than that? Is that efficient? Wouldn't a health savings account and debit card work better?

I bought 2 windshield wipers for my truck today, 20 bucks. WTF? Where is my Obama "windshield wiper care" insurance? SOBs!

Who needs insurance for an 18 dollar item? Did I miss something here?
BTW I hope you are feeling better and healing. Cheers.

Of course, Barack Obama and the members of an “independent” — presumably unelected — commission would have a radically different notion of the kind of “services seniors need.” Obama recently displayed his great bedside manner when he told the daughter of a woman considered too ill for treatment doctors may tell her mother, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the pain killer.”

The president admitted this afternoon that Sarah Palin was right; he does want to establish “death panels.”

Science Chic wrote: I had a friend who, when she got married, switched to her husband's insurance. The first time she tried to fill her birth control prescription, the new insurance company refused to cover the expense that the other insurance company had been paying. She called them up to ask why and to get it changed, and the rep asked her if she had any medical conditions that would require the hormones, like hysterectomy and it being hormone replacement therapy. She incredulously said no, it's just because we aren't ready to have kids yet, we just got married. To which the operator said "Too bad, if it was for a medically acceptable reason, then we'd have no problem covering it for you, but if it's only for birth control then you're on your own - $50/month versus her co-pay of $5. She was speechless, but finally managed to ask, "So if I lie, or go have my ob/gyn write me a new script, for the same drug but for "acceptable medical reason" then you'll pay for the same drug?"

Insurance companies are in it for the profit, pure and simple. In my friend's case, they demonstrated their short-term thinking/stupidity - it would've cost them more if she'd gotten pregnant because $45/month (if they even pay that much) is a hell of a lot cheaper than $12,000 for a hospital birth. (She eventually got them to change their policy and cover her birth control, but it took way too much of her time on multiple phone calls - it's not like she was asking for multiple months worth of oxycodone).

SS109 wrote:

Science Chic wrote: I had a friend who, when she got married, switched to her husband's insurance. The first time she tried to fill her birth control prescription, the new insurance company refused to cover the expense that the other insurance company had been paying. She called them up to ask why and to get it changed, and the rep asked her if she had any medical conditions that would require the hormones, like hysterectomy and it being hormone replacement therapy. She incredulously said no, it's just because we aren't ready to have kids yet, we just got married. To which the operator said "Too bad, if it was for a medically acceptable reason, then we'd have no problem covering it for you, but if it's only for birth control then you're on your own - $50/month versus her co-pay of $5. She was speechless, but finally managed to ask, "So if I lie, or go have my ob/gyn write me a new script, for the same drug but for "acceptable medical reason" then you'll pay for the same drug?"

Insurance companies are in it for the profit, pure and simple. In my friend's case, they demonstrated their short-term thinking/stupidity - it would've cost them more if she'd gotten pregnant because $45/month (if they even pay that much) is a hell of a lot cheaper than $12,000 for a hospital birth. (She eventually got them to change their policy and cover her birth control, but it took way too much of her time on multiple phone calls - it's not like she was asking for multiple months worth of oxycodone).

I don't even think that is a profit decision but a stupid decision, companies make them from time to time. 10 years of paying for birth contol is cheaper than paying for one birth.

But one issue I have with health insurance, insurance was originally designed to cover you in the event of a major expense you couldn't handle. Like a bill for a $500 or more hospital visit. Car insurance policies that have a $500 deductible are much cheaper than one with a $50 deductible, the less you have to involve the insurance company, the less you should be paying. But for health insurance, people expect to be compensated for $20 prescriptions.

If it was $100 less per month for your health insurance if low cost doctor visits and prescriptions weren't covered, would you sign up for that plan or would you pay the extra to have it all covered?

I know if people were paying for their own prescriptions and office visits, there would be more whining and shopping around and prices would go down. Instead, insurance is paying for this so I will go to the doctor's office that is most convienent. Laser eye and cosmetic surgery have gone down in price because insurance usually doesn't pay and people shop around for the best prices.