Re: OT--insurance and dental revision

[Guest guest]

No, none of my revision was covered. It's extremely difficult to even

get a doctor to concede that mercury might have something to do with

your problems... getting an official diagnosis, and then being able to

convince insurance companies... good luck.

It seems to me that, more and more, the insurance companies are

telling the doctors what to do, not the other way around.

Good luck.

>

> Has anyone, after mercury poisoning diagnosis, been able to convince

their insurance

> company (medical or dental) to cover their dental revision, on the

basis that it is medically

> necessary to reverse things like brain damage, hormonal problems, etc.?

>

> Abrenica

>

[Guest guest]

This is one thing I lucked out on. About the only thing. I didn't have any

type of official mercury diagnosis, and the dentist I went to billed my

insurance. Now these were only fillings, no crowns, bridges, etc., and he said

they were old enough that my insurance should cover replacing them, and he had

been mercury free for like 17 years already, so it wasn't like he was doing

something new/different. He was out of network, so I had to pay like a $50

deductible, and then they covered 80%. I was tickled, to say the least! I

asked him if he would get in trouble for billing my insurance for these, and he

didn't seem concerned. So I still don't understand why this wasn't a problem

for him, but maybe because it was only fillings.--------Jackie

In frequent-dose-chelation wrote:

I did get a doctor to write that mercury was likely the underlying

cause of my problems and that he suggested amalgam removal. I realize

I was lucky to get that. It didn't help with insurance - my insurance

covered what a regular amalgam would cost until I got to my annual

limit and then I had to cover everything. It did help when I

submitted all my dental bills to income tax as a medical deduction.

(The amount reimbursed was not much, but better than nothing).

J

> >

> > Has anyone, after mercury poisoning diagnosis, been able to convince

> their insurance

> > company (medical or dental) to cover their dental revision, on the

> basis that it is medically

> > necessary to reverse things like brain damage, hormonal problems,

etc.?

> >

> > Abrenica

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is one thing I lucked out on. About the only thing. I didn't have any

type of official mercury diagnosis, and the dentist I went to billed my

insurance. Now these were only fillings, no crowns, bridges, etc., and he said

they were old enough that my insurance should cover replacing them, and he had

been mercury free for like 17 years already, so it wasn't like he was doing

something new/different. He was out of network, so I had to pay like a $50

deductible, and then they covered 80%. I was tickled, to say the least! I

asked him if he would get in trouble for billing my insurance for these, and he

didn't seem concerned. So I still don't understand why this wasn't a problem

for him, but maybe because it was only fillings.--------Jackie

In frequent-dose-chelation wrote:

I did get a doctor to write that mercury was likely the underlying

cause of my problems and that he suggested amalgam removal. I realize

I was lucky to get that. It didn't help with insurance - my insurance

covered what a regular amalgam would cost until I got to my annual

limit and then I had to cover everything. It did help when I

submitted all my dental bills to income tax as a medical deduction.

(The amount reimbursed was not much, but better than nothing).

J

> >

> > Has anyone, after mercury poisoning diagnosis, been able to convince

> their insurance

> > company (medical or dental) to cover their dental revision, on the

> basis that it is medically

> > necessary to reverse things like brain damage, hormonal problems,

etc.?

> >

> > Abrenica

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is one thing I lucked out on. About the only thing. I didn't have any

type of official mercury diagnosis, and the dentist I went to billed my

insurance. Now these were only fillings, no crowns, bridges, etc., and he said

they were old enough that my insurance should cover replacing them, and he had

been mercury free for like 17 years already, so it wasn't like he was doing

something new/different. He was out of network, so I had to pay like a $50

deductible, and then they covered 80%. I was tickled, to say the least! I

asked him if he would get in trouble for billing my insurance for these, and he

didn't seem concerned. So I still don't understand why this wasn't a problem

for him, but maybe because it was only fillings.--------Jackie

In frequent-dose-chelation wrote:

I did get a doctor to write that mercury was likely the underlying

cause of my problems and that he suggested amalgam removal. I realize

I was lucky to get that. It didn't help with insurance - my insurance

covered what a regular amalgam would cost until I got to my annual

limit and then I had to cover everything. It did help when I

submitted all my dental bills to income tax as a medical deduction.

(The amount reimbursed was not much, but better than nothing).

J

> >

> > Has anyone, after mercury poisoning diagnosis, been able to convince

> their insurance

> > company (medical or dental) to cover their dental revision, on the

> basis that it is medically

> > necessary to reverse things like brain damage, hormonal problems,

etc.?

> >

> > Abrenica

> >

>