If they were normal doctor visits maybe - but they weren't, Specialist and ******* work, so try again. That wasn't' the point of my post anyways - right over both your heads, as expected.
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
If they were normal doctor visits maybe - but they weren't, Specialist and ******* work, so try again. That wasn't' the point of my post anyways - right over both your heads, as expected.
you said 3 visits in 3 years...so one would think something minor.....but apparently it was some kind of brain surgery that wasn't covered
you want to make a statement about something like that...need all the info!
******* work has turned into a scam here lately...even in my Dr's office he set up one of his normal rooms just for ******* work..you go in to do the work...they want all your ins info again....that person works for some different company...where as for years always the nurse did the ******* work right there or if they were looking for something special it was sent out...not now..whole new company...SCAM!
Officials in Ecuador have granted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange citizenship after five years of living in the country’s London embassy.
Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa said Ecuador had accepted Assange’s request made in December to become a citizen, arguing that citizenship would “provide the asylum seeker another layer of protection.”
“No solution will be achieved without international co-operation and the co-operation of the United Kingdom, which has also shown interest in seeking a way out,” she continued.
Ecuador granted Assange, whose organization WikiLeaks has published millions of classified government documents, political asylum in 2012 in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden over a ******* claim. Assange’s activities exposing classified American documents may have led to further extradition to the United States, some speculated at the time.
Sweden has since dropped the ******* claim, although Assange could still face arrest on charges of skipping bail that could also lead to extradition, meaning he is still unsafe to leave the embassy.
“The government of Ecuador recently requested diplomatic status for Assange here in the UK, said a spokesperson for Britain’s Foreign Office. “The UK did not grant that request, nor are we in talks with Ecuador on this matter. Ecuador knows that the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice.”
Ecuadorian authorities are reportedly currently considering the option of appointing Assange as a member of its diplomatic team, meaning he would have special protections under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, including safe passage of travel and special legal immunity.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ulian-assange-granted-ecuadorian-citizenship/
Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa said Ecuador had accepted Assange’s request made in December to become a citizen, arguing that citizenship would “provide the asylum seeker another layer of protection.”
“No solution will be achieved without international co-operation and the co-operation of the United Kingdom, which has also shown interest in seeking a way out,” she continued.
Ecuador granted Assange, whose organization WikiLeaks has published millions of classified government documents, political asylum in 2012 in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden over a ******* claim. Assange’s activities exposing classified American documents may have led to further extradition to the United States, some speculated at the time.
Sweden has since dropped the ******* claim, although Assange could still face arrest on charges of skipping bail that could also lead to extradition, meaning he is still unsafe to leave the embassy.
“The government of Ecuador recently requested diplomatic status for Assange here in the UK, said a spokesperson for Britain’s Foreign Office. “The UK did not grant that request, nor are we in talks with Ecuador on this matter. Ecuador knows that the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice.”
Ecuadorian authorities are reportedly currently considering the option of appointing Assange as a member of its diplomatic team, meaning he would have special protections under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, including safe passage of travel and special legal immunity.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ulian-assange-granted-ecuadorian-citizenship/
.....See, that's the point ... the PPACA does provide for specific specialty care as well ... based on what it is, of course. But, I am fairly sure what the ISSUE was, if it required a specialist ... probably for surgery to extract that burr you have up your ass. You're a bitter old man, TwoBi ... maybe you need to take a sabbatical or something.
.....Now, let's take care of that burr that's up your ass ..... "Bend over, asshole!"
.........................................................................................................................
https://obamacarefacts.com/essential-health-benefits/
Last edited:
Typical misleading bullshit from our resident insurance salesman. I have fully Obummercare compliant insurance through my employer. Sure a checkup or vaccination is paid for 100%, but go to the doc for a sore throat and I have to pay 100% of the cost out of MY pocket. Oh it is "covered" in the sense that my insurance counts what I paid toward my $6,500 annual deductible. If I ever spent over $6,500 in a year out of my pocket, then gee wiz my insurance will step up and pay a percentage of any bills over that amount. Lets see, I'd only have to go to the doc about 80 times a year for sore throats before insurance would start paying out.
Prior to Obummercare, I could go to the doc for a sore throat visit and pay only a $10 copay out of pocket. I could self refer to a specialist if I needed to and only pay a $15 copay. My reward for being ****** into such piss poor insurance...my annual premium has gone up about 75%. '
My situation isn't unusual. It the norm under obummercare:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...plans-cover-doc-visits-deductible-f2D11794861
Sixty-four percent of bronze plans offered in Dallas, for example, require policyholders to meet the full deductible before insurance coverage kicks in, according to the eHealth/KHN analysis, which included all insurers except one, Molina Healthcare. The average deductible in those plans was $5,400, according to the data provided to eHealth by insurers.
....Outpatient care is usually covered with a co-pay, not co-insurance after satisfying the deductible. And, when plans don't provide co-pay for outpatient care, they provide a health savings plan or medical reimbursement plan ... at least THAT'S what the norm is. You and Two-bi probably have extra charges because you're such class A assholes. There's an extra charge for that when all you have to contribute to a thread are criticisms. Or maybe you're just too stupid to know you're going to the emergency room for primary care, who knows with you guys.
.....Now, h-h, with you, as usual ... ....
Whether it is a co-pay or co-insurance is immaterial to the whole point of my post, which apparently went right over your head.....you claimed "if you had health care in 2017 and 2016 you had doctors visits covered" The point is doctors visits aren't paid at all for a sore throat type visit until I've paid $6,500 out of MY pocket.
You'll need to be one hell of a lot better insurance salesman to convince people of how wonderful your BS is....no wait, I guess you don't have to be a better salesman You just have to bribe congress enough to make it a law we have to buy your horseshit product.
Yes they ARE, h-h. I'll say again, unless you're being admitted in the hospital for that sore throat, you should ONLY have to pay a frik'n co-pay NOT satisfy your calendar year deductible UNLESS your doctor orders a CATSCAN for your sore throat. A co-pay is usually some upfront charge like $25-50 per visit at the doctors office, then the office visit is covered at 100%. You won't have a co-pay AND a co-insurance charge at the same time ... its either one or the other. And IF your plan doesn't provide a co-pay, its very crappie coverage and should offer a medical reimbursement plan of some type. Why don't you CALL your insurance company and ASK them to explain the coverage to you rather than argue back and forth with me. Hell, you're so bitter with liberals that IF your health plan provided you a free nurse's blowjob with every visit, you'd complain about the looks of the nurse.
You can repeat your lie as much as your little fingers can type it. It doesn't make it so. Quit wasting your time trying to bullshit us. Your liberal media even admitted it as I pointed out to you:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...plans-cover-doc-visits-deductible-f2D11794861
If you buy one of the less expensive insurance plans sold through the health law’s marketplaces, you may be in for a surprise. Some plans will not pay for a doctor visit before you meet your annual deductible, which could be thousands of dollars.
Sixty-four percent of bronze plans offered in Dallas, for example, require policyholders to meet the full deductible before insurance coverage kicks in,
Well thanks for admitting what I've told you umpteen times. Yes I went from awesome insurance to Obummercare high deductible CRAP thanks to Obummer planning to slap a 40% "cadillac tax" on my old plan..
My own experiences (job provided health care) agree with MacNfries's description. Then when you need nontrivial procedures done you still pay co-pays, I guess until they add up to your deductible (I haven't been in that situation).
However, I believe there are catastrophic policies that may be like HH's description where you need to pay a large deductible before they step in. But often I think people buy a policy that covers the lower expenses up to a point after which after exhaustion, the catastrophic policy kicks in. The idea is that the lower coverage has low premiums because the maximum pay out is low and the catastrophic has low premiums because the deductible is so large without co-pays. I am not sure of my ground here.
But in any event...the topic certainly is erotic.
However, I believe there are catastrophic policies that may be like HH's description where you need to pay a large deductible before they step in. But often I think people buy a policy that covers the lower expenses up to a point after which after exhaustion, the catastrophic policy kicks in. The idea is that the lower coverage has low premiums because the maximum pay out is low and the catastrophic has low premiums because the deductible is so large without co-pays. I am not sure of my ground here.
But in any event...the topic certainly is erotic.
Not exactly -
My whole point Mac, was that I could have paid my entire health care needs for less than $900.00 over the past 3 years, instead I was ****** to pay $810 PLUS 0ver $14,000.00 in premiums for NO ADDED BENEFIT. But you cant stop being smug long enough to understand because of - guh! simple math!
All I was saying is that I should be allowed to purchase a less expensive care plan that only covers me if I go into the hospital. But again, simple logic escapes you, And again turn it into some BS about co-pays, insult, redirect and deflect. You argue like a flat-earther.
But since you continue to insist that my specialist visit and ******* work should be covered - I will send you the bill next time I get one and YOU can pay it (and I will wait until they tack on a late fee). THE VISITS ARE NOT COVERED - how do I know BECAUSE I HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. It even states the amount I have to pay at time of service right on my damn insurance card. Are you now saying that the insurance companies are not being honest and ripping people off (go figure)? They are not following the law? Is that the type of business you are admitting to being in?
Last edited:
....I have a better idea ... Why don't you just scan your medical card for me, TwoBi, mark out or cover up your member name & member number, and I'll look the plan up for you and tell you exactly what it pays for ... be sure not to mark out the policy, plan number, or insurance company name. I'll probably need both front & back, as every company does it a bit differently. If you don't have a medical card, then scan pages 2 & 3 of your policy or certificate.
....Thanks ...
....Mac
Damn these guys just don't give up....why don't they just run a decent candidate?...bet that thought never occurred to them
Republicans ask Supreme Court to block redistricting order
GARY D. ROBERTSON,
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Republican legislative leaders asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to block enforcement of an order throwing out the state's congressional map because the lines were too partisan and directing a redraw almost immediately.
The lawmakers' attorneys filed a motion with Chief Justice John Roberts seeking delay of the lower court judges' directive that the General Assembly draw a replacement map by Jan. 24.
The three-judge panel that issued Tuesday's ruling concluding the boundaries were an illegal partisan gerrymander also said it would hire a redistricting expert to make its own alternate map in case the GOP-controlled legislature doesn't draw a map or draws lines that still look unlawful.
In the emergency motion to the Supreme Court, GOP lawyer Paul Clement argued that requiring a redraw less than three weeks before candidate filing begins for the Feb. 12 midterm elections would create uncertainty among voters and potential candidates.
Clement also said it doesn't make sense for North Carolina to redraw its 2016 maps before the Supreme Court resolves similar partisan gerrymandering cases from Maryland and Wisconsin, whose outcomes could affect the final result in North Carolina's case.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments last fall in the Wisconsin case, which involved state legislative districts, and are expected to issue a ruling by early summer. The Supreme Court has never declared that the constitutional rights of voters can be violated by redistricting plans that entrench one party's control to the detriment of the other party.
"It makes no sense whatsoever to ******* North Carolina to immediately remedy a purported partisan gerrymandering violation and commence its 2018 election cycle under a new court-imposed map before this court can even decide whether and under what circumstances such claims may be adjudicated," Clement told Roberts, who receives appeals from North Carolina.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, a divided three-judge panel Wednesday rejected partisan gerrymandering claims involving the state's congressional districts.
In North Carolina, the lower court panel determined that the Republican map, approved by the legislature in February 2016, was marked by "invidious partisanship" that violated the U.S. Constitution. The evidence showed the "plan achieved the General Assembly's discriminatory partisan objective," U.S. Circuit Judge Jim Wynn wrote in the case's chief opinion.
At the time the maps were approved, Republican leaders said retaining the party's 10-3 seat advantage in the state's congressional delegation was one of its mapping criteria. The GOP won 10 seats in November 2016.
In his arguments on behalf of the GOP legislators who approved the maps, Clement wrote that the lower court "has used an entirely novel legal theory to hopelessly disrupt North Carolina's upcoming congressional elections."
The Republican lawyers had already asked the three-judge panel to order a delay of its decision by Thursday, but jumped to the Supreme Court on Friday when the judges didn't act that quickly.
Republicans have now requested a Supreme Court decision by Jan. 22. Late Friday, Roberts asked for a response by next Wednesday to the delay request from the election advocacy groups and Democratic voters who sued over the congressional map.
The advocates say voters have waited too long for legal boundaries and a new map is needed for 2018 elections. Republicans initially approved district maps in 2011, but another three-judge panel struck down two districts five years later, identifying them as illegal racial gerrymanders. That prompted the creation of a new map, the one now before the courts.
Republicans ask Supreme Court to block redistricting order
GARY D. ROBERTSON,RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Republican legislative leaders asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to block enforcement of an order throwing out the state's congressional map because the lines were too partisan and directing a redraw almost immediately.
The lawmakers' attorneys filed a motion with Chief Justice John Roberts seeking delay of the lower court judges' directive that the General Assembly draw a replacement map by Jan. 24.
The three-judge panel that issued Tuesday's ruling concluding the boundaries were an illegal partisan gerrymander also said it would hire a redistricting expert to make its own alternate map in case the GOP-controlled legislature doesn't draw a map or draws lines that still look unlawful.
In the emergency motion to the Supreme Court, GOP lawyer Paul Clement argued that requiring a redraw less than three weeks before candidate filing begins for the Feb. 12 midterm elections would create uncertainty among voters and potential candidates.
Clement also said it doesn't make sense for North Carolina to redraw its 2016 maps before the Supreme Court resolves similar partisan gerrymandering cases from Maryland and Wisconsin, whose outcomes could affect the final result in North Carolina's case.
Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments last fall in the Wisconsin case, which involved state legislative districts, and are expected to issue a ruling by early summer. The Supreme Court has never declared that the constitutional rights of voters can be violated by redistricting plans that entrench one party's control to the detriment of the other party.
"It makes no sense whatsoever to ******* North Carolina to immediately remedy a purported partisan gerrymandering violation and commence its 2018 election cycle under a new court-imposed map before this court can even decide whether and under what circumstances such claims may be adjudicated," Clement told Roberts, who receives appeals from North Carolina.
In a similar case in Pennsylvania, a divided three-judge panel Wednesday rejected partisan gerrymandering claims involving the state's congressional districts.
In North Carolina, the lower court panel determined that the Republican map, approved by the legislature in February 2016, was marked by "invidious partisanship" that violated the U.S. Constitution. The evidence showed the "plan achieved the General Assembly's discriminatory partisan objective," U.S. Circuit Judge Jim Wynn wrote in the case's chief opinion.
At the time the maps were approved, Republican leaders said retaining the party's 10-3 seat advantage in the state's congressional delegation was one of its mapping criteria. The GOP won 10 seats in November 2016.
In his arguments on behalf of the GOP legislators who approved the maps, Clement wrote that the lower court "has used an entirely novel legal theory to hopelessly disrupt North Carolina's upcoming congressional elections."
The Republican lawyers had already asked the three-judge panel to order a delay of its decision by Thursday, but jumped to the Supreme Court on Friday when the judges didn't act that quickly.
Republicans have now requested a Supreme Court decision by Jan. 22. Late Friday, Roberts asked for a response by next Wednesday to the delay request from the election advocacy groups and Democratic voters who sued over the congressional map.
The advocates say voters have waited too long for legal boundaries and a new map is needed for 2018 elections. Republicans initially approved district maps in 2011, but another three-judge panel struck down two districts five years later, identifying them as illegal racial gerrymanders. That prompted the creation of a new map, the one now before the courts.
Jesus Mac, even the Obummercare website has an example showing that some of their plans pay ZILCH for a doctor's office visit until you've paid your deductible out of your pocket. Here's the link:
https://www.healthcare.gov/sbc-glossary/#share-costs-example
I know you've demonstrated an inability to handle 7th grade level math, but this looks simple enough for you to understand
Forty-four percent of voters believe that getting rid of any part of Obamacare is a good start to entirely repealing the Affordable Care Act, according to a Morning Consult poll.
The Morning Consult poll also suggested that 39 percent of registered voters disagreed with repealing any part of Obamacare, while 16 percent remain unsure whether to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act.
The Republican-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate, although much of the Affordable Care Act remains intact.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), faced with a slim 51-vote majority in the Senate, reportedly wants to forgo a budget altogether in 2018, which would prevent Republicans from attempting to repeal Obamacare through budgetary reconciliation with a simple majority.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...oters-believe-repealing-part-obamacare-start/
The Morning Consult poll also suggested that 39 percent of registered voters disagreed with repealing any part of Obamacare, while 16 percent remain unsure whether to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act.
The Republican-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate, although much of the Affordable Care Act remains intact.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), faced with a slim 51-vote majority in the Senate, reportedly wants to forgo a budget altogether in 2018, which would prevent Republicans from attempting to repeal Obamacare through budgetary reconciliation with a simple majority.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...oters-believe-repealing-part-obamacare-start/
Um....... no.
I will tell you what my new card for 2018 states - Co-Pay Doctor Visit: $30.00 / Spec: $60.00 / Medication Gen/Non Gen: $15/$30
My insurance is right off the healthcare.gov site, there are only 2 options (so shouldn't be too hard to figure it out), well, actually only one option for self employed with 0 employees and making to much to qualify for subsidies, and my doctor is in the network. You see, most Insurance companies won't sell me an individual plan and ones that do are almost twice the cost. So I have no choice but to go to the exchange.
My previous carrier didn't cover anything for specialist. My bill each time is $120.00 This carrier will at least cover half - BUT that isn't my point. This year I will get to spend $6000.00 just so I can save $60.00 (whoot!) if I go see my specialist. MY POINT > I will be spending 100 times more just to go to the doctor. Oh and did I mention my insurance $100.00 MORE per month this year? I'm sure that is republican's fault, but I really don't care.
I would much rather pay for a low cost plan for catastrophic that covers me if I was hospitalized - I just don't go to the doctor. If I do I'll pay my own damn doctor visits. but Nope - can't do that no more. Now I have to buy a plan that I will rarely use, covers me for things I will never need, and gouges me on fees to pay for bloated medical cost. To be fair, there are some lower cost plans like this, but they are only temporary. Kind of like fly-by-night auto insurance, (keep ya legal for less).
If the government is going to ******* the people to buy something like this then they need laws in place to prevent fraud, prevent insurance and medical companies from bloating the cost and provide ways to lower cost in general. But none of that is beneficial to your line of work now is it?
You could at least provide some KY with your policies.
All Obama had to do was wipe out the preexisting bullshit and provide subsidies to those that couldn't afford insurance. That's all he had to do.
Yale University psychology professor Bandy Lee has deleted her Twitter account amid mounting allegations that she is not licensed in her home state of Connecticut.
Accusations have been circulating on Twitter that the prominent Yale professor, known for her public diagnosis of President Donald Trump as having a “mental impairment” and who recently met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to discuss the issue, isn’t actually a licensed psychiatrist.
"We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined." Tweet This
In fact, Campus Reform discovered that according to the State of Connecticut, Lee’s “physician/surgeon” license expired in 2015, and her application for reinstatement has been “pending” ever since.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10363
Accusations have been circulating on Twitter that the prominent Yale professor, known for her public diagnosis of President Donald Trump as having a “mental impairment” and who recently met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to discuss the issue, isn’t actually a licensed psychiatrist.
"We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined." Tweet This
In fact, Campus Reform discovered that according to the State of Connecticut, Lee’s “physician/surgeon” license expired in 2015, and her application for reinstatement has been “pending” ever since.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10363
.....Be SURE to tell prickhead h-h that you have a doctor's visit co-pay of $30 and not a fucking deductible. He's under the impression, simply because he's a dumbass, that you pay both co-pay & deductible before your plan pays doctors visits. I've NEVER seen a health plan that would apply both co-pay and calendar year deductible to a charge before it paid ... its either ONE OR THE OTHER .... do you GET THIS, h-h? I doubt it.
....TwoBi, I don't get one dime from my company other than my salary and my bonus (if I meet production goals) ... not one dime. But I can tell you one thing, the reason medical costs went up is because of the Republicans sabotaging the plan by fooling voters into thinking they had a BETTER PLAN to offer. They never intended to provide the public a plan ... zero. Secondly, hospitals and insurance companies are like any other business, they are in it to make profit unless they're non-profit status. Insurance companies can NOT offer guaranteed acceptance products (no pre-x, etc) without making sure they get the healthy & younger people insured with the sick & older people. The profit margin alone, for health insurance companies is less than 2%, and they have to maintain competitiveness with the other companies or go out of business. You could be paying a lot LESS than you are now had the Republicans just stood aside and done nothing to interfere. Instead they focused 7 years on trying to destroy the plan and Obama ... now look what you got. You haven't got *******.If the government is going to ******* the people to buy something like this then they need laws in place to prevent fraud, prevent insurance and medical companies from bloating the cost and provide ways to lower cost in general. But none of that is beneficial to your line of work now is it?
........ and competitive exchanges to create competition, and the expansion of Medicaid to the ultra-poor. PPACA was modeled AFTER a Republican health plan ... you didn't see the republicans in Massachusetts trying to sabotage their own plan there, did you?
I don't feel the LEAST BIT sorry for the ones who voted Republican in the last 2 general elections, not a bit. They create their own shitholes, then point fingers at others. They deserve everything that happens to them the next four years. And those who voted Republican and were covered under the Medicaid expansion .... fuck them, too!
Last edited:
Maybe she's a psychologist, Carl ... ever think of that?
Similar threads
