You at Tinker?
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...
It's not that we know we won't get it from you, it's that we are contracted with Tricare for that amount.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
What do you think about the military docs? I hear the specialists are good, but general practitioners are horrible.
They screwed the pooch making the fine too small...
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.
Still a chance if we can keep enough states out of the exchanges.