- This topic has 210 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
abell.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 7, 2009 at 9:17 PM #466276October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM #465462
ucodegen
ParticipantIt’s not a fallacy, it’s real. I just checked my summary of charges for 2008. My total charges were $3,884. My insurance (Aetna) paid $1,972.91, and I paid $170. Providers (for this year, coincidentally, it was 100% Scripps Clinic) took a discount of $1,741.90 or 44.8%. For 2009, the numbers are similar (total of $2827, insurance paid $1606, i paid $90, net discount of $1131 or 40%).
You also did not include what you are paying per month for the insurance. What were the charges for? Your total is a lot higher than what I spent when I had ‘complications’.. you have kids?.. just trying to figure out how you incurred $3,884.
Those are mostly incurred regardless of cash payers or third party payers. (There would be some savings obviously if they didnt have to process all the insurance/medicare stuff.)
The insurance involves more than ‘some’ of the overhead. This is why several doctors are going cash pay.
If it was anywhere near 1, we wouldn’t need reform.
And people are falling for the same argument that was applied to no-fault auto insurance… if everybody was insured the costs would be lower. This proved to be untrue and the insurance commissioner position was created in California to try to address that.
October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM #465651ParticipantIt’s not a fallacy, it’s real. I just checked my summary of charges for 2008. My total charges were $3,884. My insurance (Aetna) paid $1,972.91, and I paid $170. Providers (for this year, coincidentally, it was 100% Scripps Clinic) took a discount of $1,741.90 or 44.8%. For 2009, the numbers are similar (total of $2827, insurance paid $1606, i paid $90, net discount of $1131 or 40%).
You also did not include what you are paying per month for the insurance. What were the charges for? Your total is a lot higher than what I spent when I had ‘complications’.. you have kids?.. just trying to figure out how you incurred $3,884.
Those are mostly incurred regardless of cash payers or third party payers. (There would be some savings obviously if they didnt have to process all the insurance/medicare stuff.)
The insurance involves more than ‘some’ of the overhead. This is why several doctors are going cash pay.
If it was anywhere near 1, we wouldn’t need reform.
And people are falling for the same argument that was applied to no-fault auto insurance… if everybody was insured the costs would be lower. This proved to be untrue and the insurance commissioner position was created in California to try to address that.
October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM #466004ParticipantIt’s not a fallacy, it’s real. I just checked my summary of charges for 2008. My total charges were $3,884. My insurance (Aetna) paid $1,972.91, and I paid $170. Providers (for this year, coincidentally, it was 100% Scripps Clinic) took a discount of $1,741.90 or 44.8%. For 2009, the numbers are similar (total of $2827, insurance paid $1606, i paid $90, net discount of $1131 or 40%).
You also did not include what you are paying per month for the insurance. What were the charges for? Your total is a lot higher than what I spent when I had ‘complications’.. you have kids?.. just trying to figure out how you incurred $3,884.
Those are mostly incurred regardless of cash payers or third party payers. (There would be some savings obviously if they didnt have to process all the insurance/medicare stuff.)
The insurance involves more than ‘some’ of the overhead. This is why several doctors are going cash pay.
If it was anywhere near 1, we wouldn’t need reform.
And people are falling for the same argument that was applied to no-fault auto insurance… if everybody was insured the costs would be lower. This proved to be untrue and the insurance commissioner position was created in California to try to address that.
October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM #466077ParticipantIt’s not a fallacy, it’s real. I just checked my summary of charges for 2008. My total charges were $3,884. My insurance (Aetna) paid $1,972.91, and I paid $170. Providers (for this year, coincidentally, it was 100% Scripps Clinic) took a discount of $1,741.90 or 44.8%. For 2009, the numbers are similar (total of $2827, insurance paid $1606, i paid $90, net discount of $1131 or 40%).
You also did not include what you are paying per month for the insurance. What were the charges for? Your total is a lot higher than what I spent when I had ‘complications’.. you have kids?.. just trying to figure out how you incurred $3,884.
Those are mostly incurred regardless of cash payers or third party payers. (There would be some savings obviously if they didnt have to process all the insurance/medicare stuff.)
The insurance involves more than ‘some’ of the overhead. This is why several doctors are going cash pay.
If it was anywhere near 1, we wouldn’t need reform.
And people are falling for the same argument that was applied to no-fault auto insurance… if everybody was insured the costs would be lower. This proved to be untrue and the insurance commissioner position was created in California to try to address that.
October 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM #466291ParticipantIt’s not a fallacy, it’s real. I just checked my summary of charges for 2008. My total charges were $3,884. My insurance (Aetna) paid $1,972.91, and I paid $170. Providers (for this year, coincidentally, it was 100% Scripps Clinic) took a discount of $1,741.90 or 44.8%. For 2009, the numbers are similar (total of $2827, insurance paid $1606, i paid $90, net discount of $1131 or 40%).
You also did not include what you are paying per month for the insurance. What were the charges for? Your total is a lot higher than what I spent when I had ‘complications’.. you have kids?.. just trying to figure out how you incurred $3,884.
Those are mostly incurred regardless of cash payers or third party payers. (There would be some savings obviously if they didnt have to process all the insurance/medicare stuff.)
The insurance involves more than ‘some’ of the overhead. This is why several doctors are going cash pay.
If it was anywhere near 1, we wouldn’t need reform.
And people are falling for the same argument that was applied to no-fault auto insurance… if everybody was insured the costs would be lower. This proved to be untrue and the insurance commissioner position was created in California to try to address that.
October 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM #465467SK in CV
ParticipantUcodegan, it appears you’re arguing against having insurance, that it’s cheaper just to pay discounted rates for care instead. In some cases I’m sure that’s correct. The whole idea of insurance (any kind of insurance) is to cover otherwise unaffordable losses. Anyone that has had to actually pay for hospital stays, or costs related to significant injury or illness understands this. Most people wouldn’t buy homeowners insurance to cover a baseball going through a windows. They buy it to cover the house burning down. It’s an entirely different discussion than I was having. But I’ll try to address your points.
What I am paying per month has nothing to with whether or not insurance companies pay full charges, which is what I believe you originally said. At least that’s what I was responding to. If I misunderstood you, we’ve totally been talking around each other.
Those charges were just mine. They didn’t include my prescription drug charges, which would run about $280/month, i pay $50. My employer pays approximately $450 per month for my premiums. After comissions and costs, I suspect the insurance company loses a small bit money on me every year. Which is why, if I lost my employer sponsored insurance, I would probably be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (all very controllable, but require regular maintenance. It’s a bitch getting old.) if I had to buy my own policy. Though I don’t think any of this is really material.
Processing insurance company claims is just “some” of the costs of running an office. It’s not immaterial, but it typically is less than 10% of revenues in small offices, much less for large organization. Doctors who complain that it costs more than that are doing it wrong. (I “taught” them how to do it for many years.)
Your final statement about the loss ratio is not even an argument I’ve ever seen made in the reform debate. Nor does it make any sense. Too much premium dollar goes to insurance company bottom line. That is the problem. That is why we need competition. It really is that simple.
October 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM #465656ParticipantUcodegan, it appears you’re arguing against having insurance, that it’s cheaper just to pay discounted rates for care instead. In some cases I’m sure that’s correct. The whole idea of insurance (any kind of insurance) is to cover otherwise unaffordable losses. Anyone that has had to actually pay for hospital stays, or costs related to significant injury or illness understands this. Most people wouldn’t buy homeowners insurance to cover a baseball going through a windows. They buy it to cover the house burning down. It’s an entirely different discussion than I was having. But I’ll try to address your points.
What I am paying per month has nothing to with whether or not insurance companies pay full charges, which is what I believe you originally said. At least that’s what I was responding to. If I misunderstood you, we’ve totally been talking around each other.
Those charges were just mine. They didn’t include my prescription drug charges, which would run about $280/month, i pay $50. My employer pays approximately $450 per month for my premiums. After comissions and costs, I suspect the insurance company loses a small bit money on me every year. Which is why, if I lost my employer sponsored insurance, I would probably be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (all very controllable, but require regular maintenance. It’s a bitch getting old.) if I had to buy my own policy. Though I don’t think any of this is really material.
Processing insurance company claims is just “some” of the costs of running an office. It’s not immaterial, but it typically is less than 10% of revenues in small offices, much less for large organization. Doctors who complain that it costs more than that are doing it wrong. (I “taught” them how to do it for many years.)
Your final statement about the loss ratio is not even an argument I’ve ever seen made in the reform debate. Nor does it make any sense. Too much premium dollar goes to insurance company bottom line. That is the problem. That is why we need competition. It really is that simple.
October 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM #466009ParticipantUcodegan, it appears you’re arguing against having insurance, that it’s cheaper just to pay discounted rates for care instead. In some cases I’m sure that’s correct. The whole idea of insurance (any kind of insurance) is to cover otherwise unaffordable losses. Anyone that has had to actually pay for hospital stays, or costs related to significant injury or illness understands this. Most people wouldn’t buy homeowners insurance to cover a baseball going through a windows. They buy it to cover the house burning down. It’s an entirely different discussion than I was having. But I’ll try to address your points.
What I am paying per month has nothing to with whether or not insurance companies pay full charges, which is what I believe you originally said. At least that’s what I was responding to. If I misunderstood you, we’ve totally been talking around each other.
Those charges were just mine. They didn’t include my prescription drug charges, which would run about $280/month, i pay $50. My employer pays approximately $450 per month for my premiums. After comissions and costs, I suspect the insurance company loses a small bit money on me every year. Which is why, if I lost my employer sponsored insurance, I would probably be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (all very controllable, but require regular maintenance. It’s a bitch getting old.) if I had to buy my own policy. Though I don’t think any of this is really material.
Processing insurance company claims is just “some” of the costs of running an office. It’s not immaterial, but it typically is less than 10% of revenues in small offices, much less for large organization. Doctors who complain that it costs more than that are doing it wrong. (I “taught” them how to do it for many years.)
Your final statement about the loss ratio is not even an argument I’ve ever seen made in the reform debate. Nor does it make any sense. Too much premium dollar goes to insurance company bottom line. That is the problem. That is why we need competition. It really is that simple.
October 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM #466082ParticipantUcodegan, it appears you’re arguing against having insurance, that it’s cheaper just to pay discounted rates for care instead. In some cases I’m sure that’s correct. The whole idea of insurance (any kind of insurance) is to cover otherwise unaffordable losses. Anyone that has had to actually pay for hospital stays, or costs related to significant injury or illness understands this. Most people wouldn’t buy homeowners insurance to cover a baseball going through a windows. They buy it to cover the house burning down. It’s an entirely different discussion than I was having. But I’ll try to address your points.
What I am paying per month has nothing to with whether or not insurance companies pay full charges, which is what I believe you originally said. At least that’s what I was responding to. If I misunderstood you, we’ve totally been talking around each other.
Those charges were just mine. They didn’t include my prescription drug charges, which would run about $280/month, i pay $50. My employer pays approximately $450 per month for my premiums. After comissions and costs, I suspect the insurance company loses a small bit money on me every year. Which is why, if I lost my employer sponsored insurance, I would probably be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (all very controllable, but require regular maintenance. It’s a bitch getting old.) if I had to buy my own policy. Though I don’t think any of this is really material.
Processing insurance company claims is just “some” of the costs of running an office. It’s not immaterial, but it typically is less than 10% of revenues in small offices, much less for large organization. Doctors who complain that it costs more than that are doing it wrong. (I “taught” them how to do it for many years.)
Your final statement about the loss ratio is not even an argument I’ve ever seen made in the reform debate. Nor does it make any sense. Too much premium dollar goes to insurance company bottom line. That is the problem. That is why we need competition. It really is that simple.
October 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM #466296ParticipantUcodegan, it appears you’re arguing against having insurance, that it’s cheaper just to pay discounted rates for care instead. In some cases I’m sure that’s correct. The whole idea of insurance (any kind of insurance) is to cover otherwise unaffordable losses. Anyone that has had to actually pay for hospital stays, or costs related to significant injury or illness understands this. Most people wouldn’t buy homeowners insurance to cover a baseball going through a windows. They buy it to cover the house burning down. It’s an entirely different discussion than I was having. But I’ll try to address your points.
What I am paying per month has nothing to with whether or not insurance companies pay full charges, which is what I believe you originally said. At least that’s what I was responding to. If I misunderstood you, we’ve totally been talking around each other.
Those charges were just mine. They didn’t include my prescription drug charges, which would run about $280/month, i pay $50. My employer pays approximately $450 per month for my premiums. After comissions and costs, I suspect the insurance company loses a small bit money on me every year. Which is why, if I lost my employer sponsored insurance, I would probably be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions (all very controllable, but require regular maintenance. It’s a bitch getting old.) if I had to buy my own policy. Though I don’t think any of this is really material.
Processing insurance company claims is just “some” of the costs of running an office. It’s not immaterial, but it typically is less than 10% of revenues in small offices, much less for large organization. Doctors who complain that it costs more than that are doing it wrong. (I “taught” them how to do it for many years.)
Your final statement about the loss ratio is not even an argument I’ve ever seen made in the reform debate. Nor does it make any sense. Too much premium dollar goes to insurance company bottom line. That is the problem. That is why we need competition. It really is that simple.
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM #465532Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantLatest CBO report on the Baucus Bill: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10642
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM #465721ParticipantLatest CBO report on the Baucus Bill: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10642
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM #466075ParticipantLatest CBO report on the Baucus Bill: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10642
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM #466148ParticipantLatest CBO report on the Baucus Bill: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10642
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.