You at Tinker?
|
|
You at Tinker?
Indeed I amOriginally Posted by pphilfran
Enlisted? Contractor?
I'm enlisted. I'm currently attached to the 3d Combat Comm Group.
Thanks for your service!
When I was a kid we used to hunt south of Altus...they would do touch and go landing with the C5A and they would fly right over us...loud as hell and seemed like slow motion...hour after hour...
My nephew is in the AF...Master Sgt up at Vance...
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Yeah my last base was Dover AFB. It's a C5/C17 base. Those fat **** whales just looping in the sky 2 at a time 8 hours a day. I had been there a year when one crashed just off base. Sounded like someone murdered a tornado.
The following users like this post: Morningwood
Very nice. Do you know what his career field is?
To keep on topic you should call them dogs instead of whales....Thanks, I appreciate it.
Yeah my last base was Dover AFB. It's a C5/C17 base. Those fat **** whales just looping in the sky 2 at a time 8 hours a day. I had been there a year when one crashed just off base. Sounded like someone murdered a tornado.
The following users like this post: Dexa
71st Operations Group
Understand that this has the potential to hurt your provider pool. It may feel good to stick it to the man, but when that man gets tired of Tricare sticking it to him, he's going to require you to pay cash up front for service and he'll then give you a billing sheet to recoup what you can from your insurance company.
It's not that we know we won't get it from you, it's that we are contracted with Tricare for that amount.
Cub is correct.
Oh I know.. plenty of providers do not take TRICARE.. but enough do.
There was an article in the Lawton paper (we get all the military news) about retirees living more than 40 miles from military bases are going to lose TRICARE Prime...something like 170k....
Do you know the difference between Prime and the standard?
I SHOULD know.. but I don't know all of the differences. The military automatically has prime. Dependants have standard, but can pay like.. 5 bucks a month for Prime (estimate.. might be off)
I think the difference is how many providers you have available to you, if at all. Standard might be forced to the base for some services instead of being able to use the economy.
Edit: looks like that might be backwards.
Prime is the less "option based" because military are dictated where to go.
Standard has more options, but is not available to active duty.
I think there's Prime, Prime-remote, and Standard.
Standard is for those who pay co-pays on services off-base or outside the catchment area. Prime-remote is for dependents outside the catchment area . . . and I do believe Prime is for those inside the catchment area.
What I thought, though Prime Remote is new lingo...anyone know cost difference?
I would have started refusing Tricare years ago due to the idiocy of some of their requirements for reimbursement. They've improved some of that but have continued to cut rates. I'm still a provider though bc of who is insured--if it was a public pool I would have stopped. I'll honestly probably continue to be a provider bc of that pool regardless of what the rates are--but enjoy getting your statements and sticking it to us.
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
Not sure . . . we've stuck with Standard. Even when my family was eligible for remote we stuck with Standard.
Thankfully we haven't had any major issues to cover. Although, my wife did have gall bladder surgery about 4 years ago, but since it was done within the network we didn't have to pay too much out of pocket I don't think.
If you're charging a reasonable rate and still getting screwed, then that sucks, and I would never enjoy that.
My limited experience has shown me that more often than not.. The price of care seems to be extreme for what you're getting.
If I showed you what I bill, you'd think it extreme. If I sat down with you and showed you my overhead you wouldn't.
That is what all you greedy capitalist say....
Yeah I suppose that really depends on what it is and what you do.
I'm more frustrated with clinic doctors who attempt to see you for 30 seconds and leave before you're able to ask any questions and if you have an unrelated issue that needs to be discussed it requires another visit.
Fair enough. I'd get a new clinic doc if I were you. Continuing to use those docs makes the problems more acceptable.
I'm crying for them.
Is this credible? Pretty alarming if so -Health Insurance Brokers Prepare Clients For Obamacare Sticker Shockhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...sticker-shock/
A California insurance broker, who sells health plans to individuals and small businesses, told me that she’s prepping her clients for a sticker shock. Her local carriers are hinting to her that premiums may triple this fall, when the plans unveil how they’ll billet the full brunt of Obamacare’s new regulations and mandates.
California is hardly alone. Around the country, insurers are fixing to raise rates by double digits. They’re privately briefing politicians in Washington on what’s in store. Those briefings are leaving a lot of folks up and down Pennsylvania Avenue jumpy.
What’s gives? President Obama, after all, said he’d prevent these sorts of prices. His new health law gave state regulators the power to block premium increases. It even created a federal agency to oversee insurance rates. But these bureaucrats are spectators to the price hikes. They’re mere wallflowers. Even in the bluest of states.
Their silence is the best evidence of who is culpable for the increases. It’s the policymakers. It’s Obamacare. The President is accepting the premium hikes as an allowable consequence of his healthcare policies.
There’s buzz in Washington that to ease the price hikes, the Obama team may slow down some of the most expensive regulations. This might include the law’s mandatory community rating. One approach they’re said to be considering is allowing some of the historically based underwriting to stay in place for a time.
But premiums will still rise because, in the end, everything has a price. The law’s prohibition against traditional insurance underwriting is just one of its costly provisions. Washington can try to force health plans to price insurance below the cost of these mandates. But then the health plans will simply lose money and move out of markets. To keep the insurers whole, and accommodate new rules, the cost of insurance must get re-priced higher. That re-pricing is what’s coming this fall.
What will happen with health care is the same thing that happened to our housing market a few years ago except this will effect far more people. And will be a lot more messier to fix.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...are-86676.html
Does anyone really expect this to work at a large scale when we can't even really work with the system we already had that well?
This is absolutely true but does a horrible job of explaining it. Not everyones rates are going up due to what is going to cause "sticker shock", however. With that said, if you are young and healthy, "sticker shock" will absolutely happen to you. This issue, in its simplest form, is only allowing the insurance companies minimal differences in prices between the youngest and/or healthiest when compared to the oldest and/or unhealthiest. Obamacare is taking away the variances in prices due to age, health history, etc that pre-Obamacare insurance had. So the insurance companies need the same amount of dollars to cover their entire block of insured but the unhealthiest/oldest/costliest rates are coming down while the opposite folks have their rates going up. Ive seen formulas where the low end folks are going to see 400+% increases (all else being equal) just due to this portion of the law, where the same formulas are giving 200% decreases to the highest payers today. Long story short, they are compressing the rate variances without taking any cost out of the market.
So that is sticker shock but outside of that requirement there are many other fees, taxes, required coverage benefits, etc in this law that are also increasing costs on the policy holders but "sticker shock" has little to do with OVERALL increase in costs. Just a new way the insurors are required to rate individuals while collecting enough money to cover the entire block. Slicing up the same pie in a different manner, so to speak. I hope I am making sense (don't want to write a book).
The following users like this post: ThievingMagpie
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense?
From an economist's perspective, there would be less reason to grouse about unhealthy behaviors by smokers, obese people, motorcycle riders who eschew helmets and other health sinners if they agreed to pay the financial price for their choices.
That's the rationale for a provision in the Affordable Care Act - "Obamacare" to its detractors - that starting next year allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
The new law doesn't allow insurers to charge more for people who are overweight, however.
Dexa,
What do you think about the military docs? I hear the specialists are good, but general practitioners are horrible.
Forget about buying health insurance just pay the fine and when and if you get sick jump on a plan. It's cheaper to pay the fine than buy the insurance and the health insurers can't deny you when you get sick and need insurance.
They screwed the pooch making the fine too small...
The following users like this post: Saul Good
Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act
But the exemption for houses of worship has been dropped?For purposes of these proposed rules only, the Departments propose to define an eligible organization as an organization that meets all of the following criteria:
- The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.
- The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
- The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
- The organization self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria, as described later in this section.
These proposed rules aim to provide women with contraceptive coverage without cost sharing and to protect eligible organizations from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.
[ ... ]
To achieve these goals, under HHS’s authority in section 2792 of the PHS Act to promulgate rules “necessary or appropriate” to carry out the provisions of title XXVII of the PHS Act, and the parallel authorities of the Department of Labor in section 734 of ERISA and the Department of the Treasury in section 9833 of the Code, these proposed rules would provide that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan would ****ume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants and beneficiaries.
[ ... ]
The issuer would automatically enroll plan participants and beneficiaries in a separate individual health insurance policy that covers recommended contraceptive services.
Last edited by VUGear; 02-03-2013 at 11:57 AM.
Our national folks are already preparing our industry for major losses in revenue. There is a shortage of docs now and they are predicting an even greater shortage.
On the flip side, a lot of the MDs getting out are fairly naive and have no desire to be their own boss. They will be happy being employed by a hospital or corporation. In addition, if I ever desire to semi retire, I cold probably work locums anywhere due to the shortage.
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family
Still a chance if we can keep enough states out of the exchanges.
We have an employee who's husband is military on tricare She went to pick up some meds yesterday at a local pharmacy and her cost for the meds doubled specifically because of Obamacare. The pharmacist showed her an email from tricare that stated the cost must raised to cover the cost of those who can't afford it.
So is when when that lowering the deficit thingee starts?
Whenever the republicans decide to address it is my guess.
Bullcrap. O missed his budget deadline again.
It's not just Tricare. Blue Cross cut me by another $7 a session. I'm seriously considering rejecting BCBS and having new clients pay cash.
Actually it was Dear Leader that said Owebamacare was going to lower the deficit.
I thought it was the congressional budget office that said that.
The republican house last passed a budget when? What spending cuts did the republican house demand in the sequestration delay?
You cannot seriously be attempting to blame our lack of a budget on the House can you?
I've heard BHO say it. A trillion dollars over X amount of years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
