by LAS
Recently I came across a detailed report on how to save money on your dental bills using one of those discount cards. The author gives actual prices from earlier this year to show you how much you might save on your bills.
Anyway, for $12 a month, it sounds very good.
An excerpt: The card from Aetna clearly says “This is not insurance.” There is no excuse for any customer to not realize that this is different from their usual dental insurance coverage.
The normal charge for a tooth extraction at my provider was $168. The dental card took $100 off that fee.
The normal charge for a root canal was $706; the discount was $351. The normal charge for a core buildup for that same tooth was $265; the discount was $137.
(end of excerpt)
For the full story please go to http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5632542/one_dental_discount_card_is_actually.html?cat=3
For full information on how to save on dental bills, go to www.vitalsavings.com to see if this program might work for you. You may also call with your questions to 1-877-698-4825.
Best wishes to all and I hope you find something useful on these pages.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Even Congressional Reps Have Had to Sacrifice Their Gold-Plated Healthcare Plan
by LAS
The official language from Section 1312 of the Senate plan (HR 3590 ):
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-
(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
Some of us may be quite familiar with the fact that current members of Congress are covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The program, which covers over 8 million employees of the federal government, is a private plan which is the envy of most non-governmental employees.
Congressional members may also choose to be treated at a military hospital or at the office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol for a fee.
Now when the provisions of the new law roll into effect, the Cadillac plan will be phased out and replaced with the same coverage given to the rest of America. You may read the notice posted at Congress dot org at http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/25/how_will_lawmakers_insurance_change
The official language from Section 1312 of the Senate plan (HR 3590 ):
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-
(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
Some of us may be quite familiar with the fact that current members of Congress are covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The program, which covers over 8 million employees of the federal government, is a private plan which is the envy of most non-governmental employees.
Congressional members may also choose to be treated at a military hospital or at the office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol for a fee.
Now when the provisions of the new law roll into effect, the Cadillac plan will be phased out and replaced with the same coverage given to the rest of America. You may read the notice posted at Congress dot org at http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/25/how_will_lawmakers_insurance_change
Amish and Mennonite Exempt from New Healthcare Reform Law
by LAS
The old order Amish and the Mennonite communities are exempt from the provisions of the new healthcare reform bill recently signed into law by President Obama. Their religious beliefs reject assistance from outsiders such as the government.
These churches typically take up collections to pay for any medical bills incurred by their members. These groups are defined, by the language of the bill, as nonprofit organizations whose "members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs."
Like the Amish, members of these ministries believe that the teachings of Christ dictate a philosophy of giving and sharing rather than taking, in this case from the third-party insurance providers. Individuals can opt into a cost-sharing program where regular contributions are distributed to other members in the network to pay for various healthcare services.
Medi-Share , Christian Healthcare Ministries , and Samaritan Ministries International are three such networks. The only requirement for joining, aside from paying your share, is that you practice a lifestyle in strict adherence to Christian philosophy.
Congress dot org has posted a short article on this topic. http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/24/which_religious_groups_are_exempt
The old order Amish and the Mennonite communities are exempt from the provisions of the new healthcare reform bill recently signed into law by President Obama. Their religious beliefs reject assistance from outsiders such as the government.
These churches typically take up collections to pay for any medical bills incurred by their members. These groups are defined, by the language of the bill, as nonprofit organizations whose "members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs."
Like the Amish, members of these ministries believe that the teachings of Christ dictate a philosophy of giving and sharing rather than taking, in this case from the third-party insurance providers. Individuals can opt into a cost-sharing program where regular contributions are distributed to other members in the network to pay for various healthcare services.
Medi-Share , Christian Healthcare Ministries , and Samaritan Ministries International are three such networks. The only requirement for joining, aside from paying your share, is that you practice a lifestyle in strict adherence to Christian philosophy.
Congress dot org has posted a short article on this topic. http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/24/which_religious_groups_are_exempt
Keeping Up With Wendell Potter's Bulletins From the Front
by LAS
Please see the latest column from Wendell Potter, the insurance industry whistle-blower, on the pages of PR Watch, a watchdog and consumer service at PR Watch dot org. Potter discusses what provisions of the new healthcare reform bill are worrying insurance industry execs and why, and how they hope to pull the teeth from the new law. Take for example the Medical Loss Ratio (aka MLR).
To quote Mr. Potter: The insurance industry tried unsuccessfully to strip the minimum medical-loss ratio provision from the bill. It wanted to have the freedom to keep spending less and less on medical care because every dollar not paid out in claims is a dollar that can be used instead to increase profits and to pay CEOs millions of dollars every year. Having lost the battle on Capitol Hill, the insurers are now turning their attention to the NAIC, which Congress gave the responsibility of determining the nitty-gritty details of how insurers will have to comply with the law.
Rest assured that the insurers will be pulling out all the stops to persuade the insurance commissioners to make it easy for them to meet the requirements of the new law by manipulating the definition of medical care. One of the things insurers will try to do, for example, is to get the NAIC to let them shift a lot of what insurers now count as administrative expenses into their medical expense category. If that happens, the insurers will look like they're suddenly spending more on medical care without changing anything at all.
The devil is ever in the details. And if you let the devil define all the terms of the law's provisions, then the industry will have gutted the law without seeming to have lifted a finger to do so.
So keep an eye peeled for shifty little maneuvers like this. And more power to Mr. Potter. Read the last column of his at http://www.prwatch.org/node/8977.
Please see the latest column from Wendell Potter, the insurance industry whistle-blower, on the pages of PR Watch, a watchdog and consumer service at PR Watch dot org. Potter discusses what provisions of the new healthcare reform bill are worrying insurance industry execs and why, and how they hope to pull the teeth from the new law. Take for example the Medical Loss Ratio (aka MLR).
To quote Mr. Potter: The insurance industry tried unsuccessfully to strip the minimum medical-loss ratio provision from the bill. It wanted to have the freedom to keep spending less and less on medical care because every dollar not paid out in claims is a dollar that can be used instead to increase profits and to pay CEOs millions of dollars every year. Having lost the battle on Capitol Hill, the insurers are now turning their attention to the NAIC, which Congress gave the responsibility of determining the nitty-gritty details of how insurers will have to comply with the law.
Rest assured that the insurers will be pulling out all the stops to persuade the insurance commissioners to make it easy for them to meet the requirements of the new law by manipulating the definition of medical care. One of the things insurers will try to do, for example, is to get the NAIC to let them shift a lot of what insurers now count as administrative expenses into their medical expense category. If that happens, the insurers will look like they're suddenly spending more on medical care without changing anything at all.
The devil is ever in the details. And if you let the devil define all the terms of the law's provisions, then the industry will have gutted the law without seeming to have lifted a finger to do so.
So keep an eye peeled for shifty little maneuvers like this. And more power to Mr. Potter. Read the last column of his at http://www.prwatch.org/node/8977.
Health Insurers Discussed Delaying Covering Children with Pre-Existing Conditions
by LAS
According to a March 28 story in the New York Times, and just days after President Obama signed the historic healthcare bill into law, insurance companies were insistent that they did not have to provide coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. President Obama called that element of the healthcare bill a 'centerpiece' of the new law.
President Obama, speaking at a rally in Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”
This provision of the reform bill was meant to protect youngsters who suffer from conditions such as leukemia, cystic fibrosis, birth defects, sickle cell disease, etc from being denied coverage under current business practices.
But the insurance industry tries to redefine what 'is' is, and what 'coverage' and 'insurance' mean.
While insurers agree that if they write a policy for a child, that they must cover pre-existing conditions. However, they still feel that they are not compelled to write a policy for a given child, and that at any rate this provision does not go into effect until 2014.
A few days after expressing their reluctance to implement this provision of the healthcare reform bill, the industry was compelled to announce that they would, in fact, observe this feature of the new law. But that came only after public outrage at insurance industry statements, including criticism from Senator John D. Rockefeller, among others.
According to the New York Times: Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”
The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then. This is what ignited the firestorm of protest and criticism from those in Congress and the reform movement.
SOURCE:
Pear, Robert, Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print, March 28, 2010, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html
According to a March 28 story in the New York Times, and just days after President Obama signed the historic healthcare bill into law, insurance companies were insistent that they did not have to provide coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. President Obama called that element of the healthcare bill a 'centerpiece' of the new law.
President Obama, speaking at a rally in Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”
This provision of the reform bill was meant to protect youngsters who suffer from conditions such as leukemia, cystic fibrosis, birth defects, sickle cell disease, etc from being denied coverage under current business practices.
But the insurance industry tries to redefine what 'is' is, and what 'coverage' and 'insurance' mean.
While insurers agree that if they write a policy for a child, that they must cover pre-existing conditions. However, they still feel that they are not compelled to write a policy for a given child, and that at any rate this provision does not go into effect until 2014.
A few days after expressing their reluctance to implement this provision of the healthcare reform bill, the industry was compelled to announce that they would, in fact, observe this feature of the new law. But that came only after public outrage at insurance industry statements, including criticism from Senator John D. Rockefeller, among others.
According to the New York Times: Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”
The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then. This is what ignited the firestorm of protest and criticism from those in Congress and the reform movement.
SOURCE:
Pear, Robert, Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print, March 28, 2010, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
