Insurance companies

March 8, 2001

In a message dated 3/09/01 12:52:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, aisha@... writes:

"Over here in the Netherlands we get 75% refund of the costs for most of the alternative treatments"

In Australia, we get certain amount of money back for some types of alternative therapies also like chiro, osteopathy, and others. Depending on your private heath insurance. Even get gym costs and jogging shoes refunded sometimes. Still have to pay $94.50 for 60 tablets of topamax... weird huh?

Do they have National Health in Aussieland?

On my job (Federal) I get insurance that pays 100% (all monies but 10$ copay,) I

pay $52 a month for the plan. They pay the other $356. Any wonder that even if 73 years old I hate to retire from the job!

don't you have prescription plans you can buy to help with the meds ? , I get so

disgusted to see seniors at the drug store who can only buy 1/2 the prescrip because of the cost, and one day seeing a man who had to buy heart medicine $50 for ONE pill! Sounds like trading money to stay alive! Revolting!

NOT FAIR FOR SENIORS, DRUG COMPANY RIPOFFS Anne

March 13, 2001

In a message dated 3/13/01 11:50:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, aisha@... writes:

choose the level of insurance, what it covers etc.

Often what isn't covered fully by Medicare (or at all) is covered by the private insurance to a certain amount.

I'd be lost without my private health insurance. Costs me a lot to have it each year though. But I get my monies worth! lol

Any insurance costs today, but consider, it costs over $905 a day to go into hospital for a days stay! whew to have no health coverage would be a disaster I put my headache back on my coverage, it costs him more than Medicare, but he sure did not balk at it and sends the check for his share faithfully, however when we get a divorce it will cost him over $438 monthly and he loses his life insurance also, does not affect me he is just no longer considered an employees family member and I have no choice in that matter. I am not vindictive to him, I just hate him for the past 55 years of beatings and other, I apologize for venting Anne

March 13, 2001

Over here in Aussieland *giggles* We have medicare (government health

care) and then you have a choice of private health insurance

companies which you can pick. With the private insurance you choose

the level of insurance, what it covers etc.

Often what isnt covered fully by medicare (or at all) is covered by

the private insurance to a certain amount.

I'd be lost without my private health insurance. Costs me alot to

have it each year though. But I get my monies worth! lol

Love Aisha.

March 13, 2001

I am so glad that I got private insurance many years ago, before I became totally disabled. I have Medicare now but my insurance covers so much more and it opens up a lot more choices. I also have the coverage for my children, which is important.

Lee

acarpe6119@... wrote:

Any insurance costs today, but consider, it costs over $905 a day to go into hospital for a days stay! whew to have no health coverage would be a disaster I put my headache back on my coverage, it costs him more than Medicare, but he sure did not balk at it and sends the check for his share faithfully, however when we get a divorce it will cost him over $438 monthly and he loses his life insurance also, does not affect me he is just no longer considered an employees family member and I have no choice in that matter. I apologize for venting Anne

April 6, 2001

Great idea Sandy. Unfortunately, my understanding is that alot of insurance

companies have allopathic DOCTORS on their Boards.

In the case of homebirth - sure they would ultimately save alot of money, but

these Doctors are in a position to persuade the insurance companies not to

cover such things. These doctors are ANTI-homebirth because they lose money

if women start taking responsibility for their childbirth experience.

April 6, 2001

> Does anyone know if the insurance companies are following this

issue? Are there ever any costs incurred by insurance companies for

vaccine damage?

SANDY:

This is a good observation. I cannot answer the second question, but

I would think that a breakdown of the source-monies for the Vaccine

Compensation Program could be obtained easily enough if you can find

the right person to ask.

Regarding the first question, though, it is quite obvious to me that

insurance companies are at least plugging something into their

computers about vaccination. I work for State Government. My

insurance policy last year covered 6 well-baby doctor visits within

the first two years of life at 100 percent, EXCEPT for immunizations

and well-baby nursery care at birth. This year, there is an optional

rider called " High Option Coverage " that, for a $20.00 premium

increase, provides the same coverage as above, plus well baby nursery

care at birth at 100 percent, and immunizations at 80 percent.

I recently fired off an email to our agency director about the

blatant paradox of us having to pay extra premiums, and get less

coverage, in order to be get what the State Department of Health

considers the most significant preventive health measure in HISTORY!!!

Once again, this is a State Employee HMO, customized and operated by

by Blue-Cross/Blue Shield.

I was talking to an acquaintance recently about this subject, and

found out that their insurance pays 100 percent for all

immunizations. I do not know who the provider is, however.

You are correct, however, about the influence an industry as large as

the insurance industry could have on the issue; especially in terms

of research funding. Think about having those kind of resources

being dedicated to finding out what the ACTUAL risks of vaccinations

are.

Thanks again, Sandy, for the idea, and I believe we should direct

attention to the nation's larger carriers.

Tim

April 6, 2001

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 06:23:38 -0800, you wrote:

>Does anyone know if the insurance companies are following this issue? Are

there ever any costs incurred by insurance companies for vaccine damage? It

seems to me that at the point that the evidence is strong enough, they will be

more help than hindrance. Then perhaps they would allow parents to choose their

doctors with less strict parameters. Sandy from Alaska

Insurance companies absolutely love the status quo. Sensational headlines

boost premiums! Do the math. An increase of $50 per year in premiums,

times 100 million families=$5 billion increase per year. How does that

increase in revenues compare with their annual costs in settlements?

db

April 6, 2001

Thanks for your input, Tim. After I wrote I thought, what about getting ahold

of the actuaries at these companies, and not only putting that idea in their

head, but have them look into things like breastfeeding, home births, etc. (all

end up costing the insurance companies less money, I would think), and

suggesting they consider offering reductions in rates to people who do these

various things. Perhaps with enough research, they might see that the never

vaccinated cost them less as well? Once they realized that, we might have a

really powerful ally on our side. Sandy from Alaska

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED

HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED

AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO

BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION

WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE

AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR

HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.

Re: Insurance companies