http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* What was the point of Jesus riding an ass, looking like an ass? - 7 messages,
4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f875873bd78921b8?hl=en
* How do we classify SUVs? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/db724c4dacb8bc4e?hl=en
* Doctor getting kickbacks? - 8 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/faff268312f0b359?hl=en
* Some benefits after returning to U.S.A - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c03b4cbcbdb81eac?hl=en
* Do you know what would happen if you gave a bunch of bananas to a bunch of
monkeys? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/05565b0b8312402c?hl=en
* Best debit card rewards? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b10f1d5c39b674be?hl=en
* Why I didn't buy TurboTax AGAIN this year - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92f5d113853839d2?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What was the point of Jesus riding an ass, looking like an ass?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f875873bd78921b8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 16 2010 11:52 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <hq9gdq$l0k$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
>On 4/14/2010 12:18 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
<In short, expressing strong skepticism of dinosaurs existing and being
alive much more recently than 63-65 million years ago>
>Some dinosaurs with feathers survived, and their descendants are still
>with us.
Can you cite what dinosaurs survived to be still with us, along with
citing that such animals are considered dinosaurs as opposed to some sort
of birds or a subclass/super-order/order of mammals (monotremes)?
(It appears to me that dinosaurs were either a bird-ish-like subclass of
reptiles, or otherwise achieving a "class" of its own in the chordate
phylum of the animal kingdom.)
(Wikipedia does mention that there is one "clade" of animals that
evolved directly from dinosaurs, from specifically "theropod" dinosaurs,
and that is the "class" of birds.)
(It does appear to me that mammals evolved from birds, due to existence
of somewhat-birdlike mammals in Australia where evolution appears to me to
have often progressed more slowly while Australia was an "island" isolated
from other continents that Australia longer-ago was connected to with land
routes.)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:30 am
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 16, 11:33 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <d74511a6-2559-4d60-a616-f62d07066...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 11:03 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
> (In short, stuff about my prospects of me having achieved a ticket to
> heaven, and that it may be a round-trip one that may require me to be
> reincarnated.)
>
> >You are safe, I think. We can only pray we can ride bikes in Heaven
> >with all peace of mind.
>
> >It's kind of hellish here.
>
> One thing I can think of: What happens if I get to Heaven? Do I get
> issued a harp, or for that matter any other musical instrument?
>
> And then, what would I do with it?
>
> I suspect that the way I suspect things work in Heaven, I can use a
> musical instrument as some sort of aircraft that I can drive in a manner
> like a flying motorcycle, and not needing fuel, other than possibly
> caloric energy from heavenly food that I have some chance of using
> telekinetically in Heaven. (If it flies and gets to land on clouds,
> then there is less need for such a vehicle to actually need wheels.)
>
> And, if I had to go to heaven anytime soon, I would probably drive such
> a thing like a bicycle messenger.
>
> And should I not be able to use a musical instrument as a witch's broom,
> by some accounts I would have wings. I would surely make use of those!
>
> Unless, I get a musical instrument and don't get to fly and then play
> the darn thing. The problem for me there is that I have a bit of an
> obsession with one title by one band, resulting in major part from a very
> personally touching spectacular weather event doing its thing at a highly
> opportune single minute of one year.
>
> (June 26th, 1988, in midtown Manhattan, it rained from 5 AM to 11:58 AM.
> Then, the clouds moved out fast like a carpet being yanked out of the sky.
> At 11:59 and 30 seconds, the sky had just become majority clear and blue
> and the sun came out. At that moment, I had my hands on one of the
> handles of a float in a major parade that was scheduled to start moving at
> noon.)
>
> My little musical obsession is with a title that from its relevant
> artist has many versions, one of which has over 4 minutes of instrumental-
> only content despite being of the "Hi-NRG" gendre (or subgendre of disco?),
> despite Hi-NRG normally having vocals. I consider that piece of
> instrumental dance music to be gorgeous and beautiful even with its disco
> beat, and to be the masterpiece by what I consider to be at least somewhat
> of a "musical genious" of a producer.
>
> That is one specific version of that title, and the version name here is
> "New York Mix". That one experienced a mutation in my mind into becoming
> "Easter music", with brass, organ, a tympani drum and orchestral strings
> and no "disco beat".
>
> Should I go to heaven and get a musical instrument, there is one thing I
> fear could hit me: I could get voted out, or at least become unpopular
> there. As in, "You, Don, may get tired of 'Relax' by Frankie Goes to
> Hollywood in 50,000 years, and most others here are likely to get tired of
> that 49,999 years, 12 months and at least 2 weeks sooner than that!"
>
> (Leading to, "You need to live at least one more life on Earth and
> expend your unheavenly insane personal energy!" Maybe same fate if I fly
> around like a bicycle messenger with a flying motorcycle or with wings
> instead!)
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
That's a detailed description of Heaven that almost makes me motivated
to leave earth sooner or later, and join the paradise.
The problem I see though is that things are going to be too easy up
there and that leads to boredom as we know:
You want a bicycle, two, three... you have them. It's almost like a
consumer society, but instead of having them stashed in the garage,
you go riding --or flying-- all over the place. You don't fear SUVs
because you don't die from accidents. The pedaling is only optional
because happy people don't need to sweat for nothing. Motorcycling is
mostly used to travel between planets, and musical instruments play
Bach's cantatas even if you don't know a note.
I hope we can get people motivated to die with this.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 2:24 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
On Apr 17, 9:03 am, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ok, so scientists study topics like cosmology and such the entirety of
> their lives. Are they bored? What about boundless vistas being opened
> up once we cast off these mortal bands?
>
> No, you're just being goofy. And I really don't see it that way.
Well, they have a busy mind, but in Heaven everything's figured out by
God.
It's like the shepherd takes you the green pasture and all you got to
do is eat.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 2:45 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
On Apr 17, 1:38 pm, "JOHN" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:5b792b77-03a2-4e33-8b8c-90f139326f7e@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:33 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> >> In <d74511a6-2559-4d60-a616-f62d07066...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <snip crap>
>
> > That's a detailed description of Heaven that almost makes me motivated
> > to leave earth sooner or later, and join the paradise.
>
> Obama wants you to leave sooner, perhaps even NOW, to help the planet and
> our country, and reduce the deficit.
> Your donation will reduce your lifetime carbon footprint, and let the poor
> baby seals grow up in Alaska.
>
> Join us to evolve up;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo
Very powerful statement that all Christian should listen to before
they die, so they can be ready to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It has a part two or it just ends abruptly? I'm "dying" to see what
else he has to say.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 7:37 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 17, 4:00 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, lessee. In the presence of the Almighty, the Creator of all of the
> > heavens and the earth...we're going to be bored to tears.
> During the first 500 trillions years it should a novelty seeing the
> creator for the first 500 trillions, trillions times. I am sure that
> we all be very excited during that initial period. But during the
> second 500 trillions trillions, trillions years, that excitement will
> wane slightly. After that and till the end of eternity it will start
> to be a bit of a "same old same". Yes, I guess boring will be the
> right word, but off course only after 500 trillion, trillions,
> trillions, trillions years.
Very, very good. Are you talking about "eons" or some even greater
amount of time?
But perhaps God will provide amenities such as the Cirque du Soleil or
the Roman Circus, where the NONBELIEVERS are fed to the lions...
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:04 pm
From: "454" <454@1.com>
Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article <hq9gdq$l0k$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Sherman °_°
> wrote:
>> On 4/14/2010 12:18 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> <In short, expressing strong skepticism of dinosaurs existing and
> being alive much more recently than 63-65 million years ago>
>
>> Some dinosaurs with feathers survived, and their descendants are
>> still with us.
>
> Can you cite what dinosaurs survived to be still with us, along with
> citing that such animals are considered dinosaurs as opposed to some
> sort of birds or a subclass/super-order/order of mammals (monotremes)?
>
> (It appears to me that dinosaurs were either a bird-ish-like
> subclass of reptiles, or otherwise achieving a "class" of its own in
> the chordate phylum of the animal kingdom.)
>
> (Wikipedia does mention that there is one "clade" of animals that
> evolved directly from dinosaurs, from specifically "theropod"
> dinosaurs, and that is the "class" of birds.)
> (It does appear to me that mammals evolved from birds,
> due to existence of somewhat-birdlike mammals in Australia
Which mammals would those be ?
where evolution appears to
> me to have often progressed more slowly while Australia was an
> "island" isolated from other continents that Australia longer-ago was
> connected to with land routes.)
That lack of a connection happened long before any of that level of evolution.
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 10:07 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <82vemhFu49U1@mid.individual.net>, 454@1.com wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>> In article <hq9gdq$l0k$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Sherman °_°
>> wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2010 12:18 AM, Don Klipstein wrote:
>>
>> <In short, expressing strong skepticism of dinosaurs existing and
>> being alive much more recently than 63-65 million years ago>
>>
>>> Some dinosaurs with feathers survived, and their descendants are
>>> still with us.
>>
>> Can you cite what dinosaurs survived to be still with us, along with
>> citing that such animals are considered dinosaurs as opposed to some
>> sort of birds or a subclass/super-order/order of mammals (monotremes)?
>>
>> (It appears to me that dinosaurs were either a bird-ish-like
>> subclass of reptiles, or otherwise achieving a "class" of its own in
>> the chordate phylum of the animal kingdom.)
>>
>> (Wikipedia does mention that there is one "clade" of animals that
>> evolved directly from dinosaurs, from specifically "theropod"
>> dinosaurs, and that is the "class" of birds.)
>> (It does appear to me that mammals evolved from birds,
>> due to existence of somewhat-birdlike mammals in Australia
>
>Which mammals would those be ?
The monotremes. The most widely known example is the duck-billed
platypus, a monotreme in the "prototheria" subclass of mammals. The other
4 living examples are the three long-beaked echidnas and the short-beaked
echidna.
>>where evolution appears to
>> me to have often progressed more slowly while Australia was an
>> "island" isolated from other continents that Australia longer-ago was
>> connected to with land routes.)
>
>That lack of a connection happened long before any of that level of evolution.
Australia separated from the southern supercontinent Gondwana about 96
million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
Marsupial mammals were in existence in the early Cretaceous period (as
in closer to 145.5 million years ago than to 65.5 million years ago).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
It is currently thought that marsupial and placental mammals resulted
from a branching in mammal evolution later than one that resulted in
modern monotremes including the duck-billed platypus and long-beaked
echidnas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotremata
That same article says that even placental mammals were in existence in
the late Cretaceous period. However, eutherian mammals (includes
placentals and extinct mammals more like placentals than marsupials) were
noted to exist as long as 125 million years ago. Placental mammals came
into existence more than 105 million years ago and had divided into 3
divisions of some sort by 100 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placentals
The oldest known momotreme specimen was dated to 123 million years ago,
though there is thought that they first came into existence in the early
Cretaceous period (more recently than 145.5 million years ago) or even the
late Jurassic period (longer ago than 145.5 million years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotremata
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do we classify SUVs?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/db724c4dacb8bc4e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:20 am
From: "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
On Apr 17, 9:06 am, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 8:56 PM, TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
> > A nurse aid should been driving a Corolla, not a Tundra, by my
> > profile.
>
> > Something is changing in this country where even the poorest workers
> > want to drive an SUV!
>
> Nothing wrong with them wanting one, if they can come up with the $$$
> then it is their right. If they want others to pay for it, they can go
> to hell.
Maybe they even trade drugs to get one, huh?
How do we classify SUVs?
1- Big Lion SUV (for lawyers and "movers and shakers," mostly
European)
2- Red Neck SUV (for you know who, double wheel)
3- Gang SUV (big flashy rims, mostly Cadillac)
The whole thing is so sexy and yet so deadly...
http://skydor.com/images/girls--guns-15.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"Never go into the jungle without an SUV or bazooka"
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doctor getting kickbacks?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/faff268312f0b359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 1:15 pm
From: FRED
Samantha Hill <samhill@samhillsonic.net> wrote in
news:4bc9502a$0$22107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
>>
<SNIP>
> Unfortunately, the doc's office is not allowed to bill the
patient until
> he has first billed the primary insurance, then after the
primary
> insurance has paid he has to bill any secondary insurance
(and if the
> patient messed up on giving the doc's office the proper
insurance, that
> gets all messed up) Auto insurance sure doesn't work that
way.
>
I have had them ask me to sign a paper to pay the procedure
in advance otherwise they cancel the procedure. I asked
Medicare and they said the doctor can ask for money at time
of service, not wait for them to do their figuring. So I
think you're wrong about having to bill insurance first and
then the patient.
>> The MD should provide a quote in writing after asking the
insurance
>> company. If later on they renege (or so he says) he (the
MD) eats it!
>
> Actually, I think that if the insurance company says, "We
will authorize
> this procedure and pay $$$ as per our contracted rate,"
then they should
> be made to pay it. Why should the doctor suffer because
the insurance
> company changed its mind? He/she shouldn't any more than
you should
> have to work for a week at no pay because your boss forgot
to set aside
> the money for payroll.
>
>
>> BTW that's how it works for my dentist. He says (say) he's
got to put
>> in a crown at [tooth number]; he sends all the paperwork
and x-rays to
>> the insurance company and they approve in advance in
writing telling
>> him how much he has to collect from me (the customer). He
says he's
>> never had a problem with the insurance company not paying
later on and
>> if they didn't he would consider that between him and
them, nothing he
>> could recharge to the customer.
>
> The problem is that getting a crown is a small cost
compared to medical
> care and some procedures and surgeries that need to be done
to treat
> diseases, not to mention the fact that the doctor probably
doesn't do a
> crown in a hospital or in an ambulatory surgery center with
their own
> expenses. A half-million dollar organ transplant compared
to a
> thousand-dollar crown, you know? Apart from that, there
are far fewer
> people with a sense of entitlement about dental insurance
than about
> medical insurance.
>
> I think that if the insurance companies dealt directly with
the patients
> and just reimbursed the patients for allowable costs
instead of the
> doctors having to fight with them about getting paid, then
it wouldn't
> be quite such a tangled mess for anybody.
The problem is the doctor is resisting any attempt by the
patient to find the costs. This results in patients getting
hit with huge medical bills that often bankrupt them when
they are unable to obtain an idea of the costs of a treatment
or procedure.
Some of these guys may be getting kickbacks or other money
from facilities they send all their patients to. Not
providing costs on request may be an attempt to hide these
hidden costs and hidden profits to the patient.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 1:22 pm
From: ok
Samantha Hill <samhill@samhillsonic.net> wrote in
news:4bc8fd26$0$22095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> "addressofdaday <nospam@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid>" wrote:
>>
>> The fact that a doctor will not disclose costs is
sufficient
>> in my opinion to deny him a license to practice medicine.
>> These are people, not Gods, they are not allowed to play
>> under a different set of rules than the rest of us. Not
>> disclosing costs is dishonest, plain and simple.
>
> Well, as someone who has worked in the medical field for 18
years, how
> much it costs truly depends on what insurance the patient
has, assuming
> that the patient wants to know how much it will cost
him/her. And even
> if the insurance company gives you an estimate of the costs
up-front,
> that doesn't mean that even if they approve the surgery
they won't come
> back after the fact when you submit the claim for it and
say, "Sorry,
> we're not paying for that," and there is not a whole bunch
the doc can
> do except appeal the claim denial and see if he can
convince the
> insurance company to pay for it -- which, if they won't,
will mean that
> the patient now will have to pay a lot more to cover what
the insurance
> company reneged on.
>
Ok point taken. However, if a doctor does thousands of the
same procedure, same codes at the same facility and then
CLAIMS he has no idea of the costs, something is very fishy.
Also using the same insurance companies. Look at all these
people that are made poor by hidden medical costs. I have
noticed many physicians are not adverse to padding the bills
to Medicare with very high claims for procedures that pay
alot less when billed under an HMO or private party.
Clean up medicine. Make it more honest. Doctors should take
some leadership in this and that does not mean these jerks
that try to get patients to pay several thousand dollars in
advance and refuse all insurance.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 7:21 pm
From: "h"
>>
>
> "h" and "Bill" are the same person posting under different
> IDs-look at their news reader clients and other info.
>
>
Umm, no, I am most certainly not "Bill", being female and all.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:26 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
Samantha Hill <samhill@samhillsonic.net> wrote:
>JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
>> You're probably correct and this is one of the things the recent
>> health care reform should have corrected but probably didn't.
>Probably not, because I think the insurance companies had a lot of
>input, and the insurance
It's not the evil insurance companies who are at fault; it's the evil
doctors.
>> It's
>> disgraceful and really not understandable why the courts won't
>> intervene and stop these practices. If you ask for your car to be
>> repaired and the garage gives you a quote that's the maximum they can
>> collect. Why should the human/doctor be any different?
>Oh, my doc could absolutely give fixed quotes for cash prices for office
>visits and procedures. It's what the patient ends up paying after
>insurance is no guarantee.
No reason (other than the MD's greed and incompetence) why it
shouldn't be.
> And I doubt that your local mechanic ever
>has to tell you what you will end up paying after your insurance company
>pays.
I don't have any insurance for repairs to my car. If you're talking
about body work where an insurance company may be involved you're
absolutely wrong! Depending on the insurance, you might have an
insurance-owned body shop which does the work with no cost to you
other than the deductible or a private shop which negotiates an amount
(usually a quote) with the insurance company usually via a loss
assessor. No surprises!
> Not only that, but a car has a finite and constantly decreasing
>value. Can you see some insurance company saying, "I'm sorry, you have
>maxed out your lifetime benefits for health care and we are 'totalling'
>you. We will settle your case for $$ and you will have to take care of
>any further medical costs out of your pocket for the rest of your life;
>alternatively, if you present to the local euthanasia center for
>disposal and provide proof, you can get a higher figure for being
>totalled and disposed of." That sounds pretty immoral and intolerable
>to me. And that is why health insurance is so different than medical
>insurance.
No your gobbledygook above is not the reason why car insurance and
health insurance are different and none of the points you raise effect
the basic principle that the amount of any procedure should be quoted
in advance and the customer should be able to rely on the amount.
>Now, if health insurance worked like car insurance, then the patient
>would have to pay the bill and then be reimbursed by the insurance
>company, or the insurance company would have a fixed amount they would
>pay and they could pay it to the insurance company no questions asked.
This doesn't make sense.
>Unfortunately, the doc's office is not allowed to bill the patient until
>he has first billed the primary insurance, then after the primary
>insurance has paid he has to bill any secondary insurance (and if the
>patient messed up on giving the doc's office the proper insurance, that
>gets all messed up) Auto insurance sure doesn't work that way.
You've already been told that this is not true but again you try and
divert attention from the obligation of the MD to quote in advance.
>> The MD should provide a quote in writing after asking the insurance
>> company. If later on they renege (or so he says) he (the MD) eats it!
>Actually, I think that if the insurance company says, "We will authorize
>this procedure and pay $$$ as per our contracted rate," then they should
>be made to pay it.
Perhaps because the insurance company and the MD have a contract? Ya
know, the "contracted rate" you refer to. If they agree to an amount
and then don't pay, the MD's argument is with the insurance company
not the customer.
> Why should the doctor suffer because the insurance
>company changed its mind? He/she shouldn't any more than you should
>have to work for a week at no pay because your boss forgot to set aside
>the money for payroll.
Nothing to do with it.
>> BTW that's how it works for my dentist. He says (say) he's got to put
>> in a crown at [tooth number]; he sends all the paperwork and x-rays to
>> the insurance company and they approve in advance in writing telling
>> him how much he has to collect from me (the customer). He says he's
>> never had a problem with the insurance company not paying later on and
>> if they didn't he would consider that between him and them, nothing he
>> could recharge to the customer.
>The problem is that getting a crown is a small cost compared to medical
>care and some procedures and surgeries that need to be done to treat
>diseases, not to mention the fact that the doctor probably doesn't do a
>crown in a hospital or in an ambulatory surgery center with their own
>expenses.
A ha, now we get to some of the real reason. I'll agree that the
system is screwed up in that there should be one bill: hospital,
nurses, x-rays, elevator riding charge <g> and the primary physician.
All these people have to bought under the same umbrella and the most
logical one is the primary physician. IOW he should employ the
hospital, the nurses, the radiologist, the lab, etc and pay their
bills and then reclaim the amount from the insurance company and his
customer. I don't pay the lab that constructs the crown separately:
the dentist pays them.
And this is actually the crux of the matter. I don't give the MD any
licence to employ anyone on my behalf any more than I give the auto
mechanic any agency to employ (say) a super-duper automotive engineer
who then charges me a consulting fee. If he (the automotive engineer)
tried to do this I'd tell him to put it where the sun don't shine and
I don't believe contract law would require me to pay. Why this changes
when it's the medical industry I don't understand.
> A half-million dollar organ transplant compared to a
>thousand-dollar crown, you know? Apart from that, there are far fewer
>people with a sense of entitlement about dental insurance than about
>medical insurance.
The amount is not the problem. It's the principle.
>I think that if the insurance companies dealt directly with the patients
>and just reimbursed the patients for allowable costs instead of the
>doctors having to fight with them about getting paid, then it wouldn't
>be quite such a tangled mess for anybody.
Fine by me but this doesn't alter the "each party who want to work on
me has to quote a $ amount and not exceed that and has to get my
permission preferably in writing" idea.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:28 pm
From: tmclone
>
> "h" and "Bill" are the same person posting under different
> IDs-look at their news reader clients and other info.
>
Umm, no, "h" and I are the same person posting on different machines.
Neither "h" nor I am "Bill".
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:17 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
> Samantha Hill <samhill@samhillsonic.net> wrote:
>
>> "addressofdaday <nospam@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid>" wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that a doctor will not disclose costs is sufficient
>>> in my opinion to deny him a license to practice medicine.
>>> These are people, not Gods, they are not allowed to play
>>> under a different set of rules than the rest of us. Not
>>> disclosing costs is dishonest, plain and simple.
>>
>> Well, as someone who has worked in the medical field for 18 years,
>> how much it costs truly depends on what insurance the patient has,
>> assuming that the patient wants to know how much it will cost
>> him/her. And even if the insurance company gives you an estimate of
>> the costs up-front, that doesn't mean that even if they approve the
>> surgery they won't come back after the fact when you submit the
>> claim for it and say, "Sorry, we're not paying for that," and there
>> is not a whole bunch the doc can do except appeal the claim denial
>> and see if he can convince the insurance company to pay for it --
>> which, if they won't, will mean that the patient now will have to
>> pay a lot more to cover what the insurance company reneged on.
>
> You're probably correct and this is one of the things the recent
> health care reform should have corrected but probably didn't. It's
> disgraceful and really not understandable why the courts won't
> intervene and stop these practices. If you ask for your car to be
> repaired and the garage gives you a quote that's the maximum
> they can collect. Why should the human/doctor be any different?
Essentially because its nowhere near as easy to predict
what total services the individual needs with a serious
medical problem, like for example when the individual
ends up with a very serious infection that costs a hell
of a lot to fix. You dont get anything like that with cars.
> The MD should provide a quote in writing after asking the insurance
> company. If later on they renege (or so he says) he (the MD) eats it!
It cant work like that with major surgery. There is always the possibility
of a very serious infection or even once the individual is opened up, the
surgeon discovers that the individual has a much more complicated
physiology than was expected or even an early cancer etc.
> BTW that's how it works for my dentist.
No it doesnt. If you do develop a serious infection as the
result of say a crown, he does not fix that entirely at his cost.
> He says (say) he's got to put
> in a crown at [tooth number]; he sends all the paperwork and x-rays to
> the insurance company and they approve in advance in writing telling
> him how much he has to collect from me (the customer). He says he's
> never had a problem with the insurance company not paying later on and
> if they didn't he would consider that between him and them, nothing he
> could recharge to the customer.
But likely did have a problem when a patient got an infection etc.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:20 pm
From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
>> It's
>> disgraceful and really not understandable why the courts won't
>> intervene and stop these practices. If you ask for your car to be
>> repaired and the garage gives you a quote that's the maximum they can
>> collect. Why should the human/doctor be any different?
>
>Oh, my doc could absolutely give fixed quotes for cash prices for office
>visits and procedures.
I doubt it. There are at least three sets of prices:
1. The amount the doctor bills the insurance company. This cost is pretty
much irrelevant to the insured. It could hurt the uninsured a lot.
2. The contract amount for the procedure. An in-network doctor can't
charge more than this amount. This amount gets paid by the insurance
company and the patient, divided somehow.
3. The amount paid by the patient. This can be affected by things like
how much deductible he hasn't used yet.
*ALL THREE* of those prices are highly variable depending on your insurance
company.
>It's what the patient ends up paying after
>insurance is no guarantee. And I doubt that your local mechanic ever
>has to tell you what you will end up paying after your insurance company
>pays. Not only that, but a car has a finite and constantly decreasing
>value. Can you see some insurance company saying, "I'm sorry, you have
>maxed out your lifetime benefits for health care and we are 'totalling'
>you. We will settle your case for $$ and you will have to take care of
>any further medical costs out of your pocket for the rest of your life;
>alternatively, if you present to the local euthanasia center for
>disposal and provide proof, you can get a higher figure for being
>totalled and disposed of." That sounds pretty immoral and intolerable
>to me.
I expect government health care to do just this sort of thing,
and I expect that it's already being done in some situations, like
not giving a 93-year-old man a heart transplant.
>And that is why health insurance is so different than medical
>insurance.
Would you care to define "health insurance", "medical insurance", and
state the difference between the two?
>Now, if health insurance worked like car insurance, then the patient
>would have to pay the bill and then be reimbursed by the insurance
>company,
Some medical services work exactly like that: for example, flu
shots. You pay for the flu shot, and they give you a receipt and
YOU file a claim with your insurance company. I've also seen the
same thing happen with more expensive procedures like a non-routine
root canal requiring a specialist. These guys *can* give you a (large)
price and stick to it. You can talk to your insurance company to see
how much they will pay.
>or the insurance company would have a fixed amount they would
>pay and they could pay it to the insurance company no questions asked.
>
>Unfortunately, the doc's office is not allowed to bill the patient until
>he has first billed the primary insurance, then after the primary
>insurance has paid he has to bill any secondary insurance (and if the
>patient messed up on giving the doc's office the proper insurance, that
>gets all messed up)
Some medical services decidedly do *NOT* work that way. The doctor
doesn't communicate with the insurance company.
>I think that if the insurance companies dealt directly with the patients
>and just reimbursed the patients for allowable costs instead of the
>doctors having to fight with them about getting paid, then it wouldn't
>be quite such a tangled mess for anybody.
Yes, it would be a tangled mess, with the patient having to pass messages
between the insurance company and the doctor.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:34 pm
From: gordonb.pvc6y@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
>> You're probably correct and this is one of the things the recent
>> health care reform should have corrected but probably didn't. It's
>> disgraceful and really not understandable why the courts won't
>> intervene and stop these practices. If you ask for your car to be
>> repaired and the garage gives you a quote that's the maximum
>> they can collect. Why should the human/doctor be any different?
>
>Essentially because its nowhere near as easy to predict
>what total services the individual needs with a serious
>medical problem, like for example when the individual
>ends up with a very serious infection that costs a hell
>of a lot to fix. You dont get anything like that with cars.
You can get something like that with cars. For example, you bring
in the car, badly overheating, and they diagnose it as a cracked
radiator, and quote you a (large) price. (Up to this point, this
really happened. Yes, the crack was real; I pointed it out to
them.) *LATER*, after they've fixed the radiator, they try to test
the engine and discover that the block is cracked from severe
overheating due to the cracked radiator. (What really happened
here was they tested the engine and decided it wasn't harmed by the
overheating. Apparently repeatedly stopping and refilling the
radiator with water helped prevent damage while limping home.)
They'll stick to their quote on fixing the radiator, but they won't
include a free replacement engine block in the deal.
It isn't that unusual to discover that one part failing takes out
another part also (on both cars and humans).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some benefits after returning to U.S.A
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c03b4cbcbdb81eac?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 2:19 pm
From: Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
Since I have no personal experience with the Japanese Social Security
system, I looked it up at
http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/maruo_5.html
This article specifically states that all Japanese have been covered
by Social Security and national health insurance since 1961.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 2:23 pm
From: Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
On Apr 15, 2:34 am, "john north" <bluesta...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> An american friend who is just coming up for retirement after working nearly
> all his life in Japan
If he is age 65 or more, he might qualify for SSI - see
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:28 pm
From: "Lawrence Akutagawa"
"Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley" <cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9967f95a-41d3-406a-b87c-01920ed63c5b@c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Since I have no personal experience with the Japanese Social Security
> system, I looked it up at
> http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/maruo_5.html
>
> This article specifically states that all Japanese have been covered
> by Social Security and national health insurance since 1961.
> .
What the cited article does not explain is what kind of pension benefits -
if any - a person who has not paid any premiums can get. This - not
coverage - is the issue posed in the original post.
from http://www.sia.go.jp/e/np.html
"You can receive the Old-age Basic Pension at the age of 65 if you have been
covered under the National Pension and Employees' Insurance systems. To
satisfy contribution requirements, your total insurable periods* need to be
25 years or more.
"* Your total insurable periods include your contribution-paid period,
contribution-exempted period and other qualifying period when you are
covered as the Category ?, Category ? or Category ? insured persons.
"Benefit Amount
"(Yen)792,100 / year (full benefit amount for 40 years of contribution
payment)
"If you have not contributed or have been exempted from payment, the amount
is:
(Yen)792,100 x (?+?+?+?+?) / 40 years * x 12
?Number of contribution-paid months
?Number of full contribution-exempted months** x 1/3
?Number of three-quarter contribution-exempted months** x 1/2
?Number of half contribution-exempted months** x 2/3
?Number of one-quarter contribution-exempted months** x 5/6
* Shorter for some people, depending on date of birth
**Depending on your income or according to the National Pension Law, you may
be granted an exemption of full- or partial- amount of contribution
payment."
Given that the friend in the original post has made no contributions and is
not exemption eligible (read the article for exemption
eligibility...basically, you have to be disabled/poor, you have to apply for
the exemption, and the exemption has to have been approved), my take from
this passage is that his benefit is zero. If your conclusion from reading
this passage and the cited link is different, please explain.
And I still am interested in your take of those two passages in the original
post that I quoted:
"...he did not contribute to any pension schemes..."
"Bearing in mind he has spent nearly all his working life working outside of
the U.S.A., and has made no pension contributions..."
While - as I said - I don't know for fact that that he did not make any
contributions to a government plan, allow me to logically observe the
following:
1. If he contributed to a private pension plan, those two statements would
be false.
2. If he contributed to the Japanese government pension plan, those two
statements would be false.
3. If he contributed to the United States government pension plan, those two
statement would be false.
So given that the two statements are true, my understanding logically is
that he contributed nothing to a private pension plan, to the Japanese
government pension plan, and to the United States government pension plan.
If your understanding differs from mine, I eagerly look forward to your
explanation of how your understanding is logically consistent with those two
statements.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:49 pm
From: "Lawrence Akutagawa"
"Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley" <cowartmisc1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e1958d4-d28f-42ee-a55d-af258eb7d7be@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 15, 2:34 am, "john north" <bluesta...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> An american friend who is just coming up for retirement after working
> nearly
> all his life in Japan
If he is age 65 or more, he might qualify for SSI - see
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm
*****
But SSI - Supplemental Security Income - is not Social Security benefits.
It reads more like a welfare program rather than a pension program. Read
the criteria for SSI:
Income criteria http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-income-ussi.htm
Countable income no more than SSI Federal Benefit rate
The SSI Federal Benefit rate currently (2010) is
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-benefits-ussi.htm
$674 per month for an individual
$1,011 per month for a couple
Resource criteria http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-resources-ussi.htm
Countable assets no more that $2,000 for individual, $3,000 for couple
If I understand the presented explanation, if you have zero countable income
the SSI Federal Benefit rate is the maximum benefit you can receive given
you meet the resource criteria. That is something, which is hands down
better than nothing, but not one heck of a lot of something.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:58 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley wrote:
> Since I have no personal experience with the
> Japanese Social Security system, I looked it up at
> http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/japan/socsec/maruo/maruo_5.html
> This article specifically states that all Japanese have been covered
> by Social Security and national health insurance since 1961.
But he isnt japanese, he's american.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you know what would happen if you gave a bunch of bananas to a bunch
of monkeys?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/05565b0b8312402c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 3:04 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 17, 10:56 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.not>
wrote:
> On 4/16/2010 1:06 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > Socialism operates through force. Any such societal model will
> > inevitably fail. You list some examples, there are others, and there
> > will be more.
>
> I may be mistaken, but I get the distinct impression you're trying to
> portray "socialism" - kind of a catch-all - as being worse than other
> forms of societal organization that have broadly based use of or threat
> of force as a defining element. Such a position - which, as I have
> indicated, I may be incorrect in imputing to you - is a false belief.
> "Socialism" is *not* "worse" than fascism, tribalism, theocracy, or any
> other system that subjugates the individual in the name of some
> supposedly greater collective interest. In fact, it doesn't matter in
> the least what the rationale is: equality of distribution of goods and
> services, national glory, religious devotion, or whatever. If you don't
> believe in collective interests, then the use of force to compel
> behavior toward some supposedly greater good (greater than the interests
> of the individual) is wrong, no matter what the supposed greater good is.
>
> If you're constantly harping about "socialism" while disregarding the
> *equally* wrong use of force in pursuit of other collective goals, then
> your criticism starts to seem partisan and hypocritical. I'm suggesting
> we need to see some opposition to the use of or threat of force to
> coerce behavior in pursuit of collective interests generally, not merely
> when the supposed collective interest is equality of economic distribution.
Even a group of wolves practice some sort of welfare or socialism
within the pack, but they hate it when the word comes from the sheep.
The monkey though believes in COOPERATION.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best debit card rewards?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b10f1d5c39b674be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 8:31 pm
From: laredotornado
Hi,
I'm done a little Googling, but wanted to get some opinions -- what
kind of rewards do you get for using your bank debit card? At a
couple of places I shop, they only accept cash or bank debit cards, so
I'm looking to maximize my rewards by using a debit card.
Thanks, - Dave
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 10:23 pm
From: SMS
On 17/04/10 8:31 PM, laredotornado wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm done a little Googling, but wanted to get some opinions -- what
> kind of rewards do you get for using your bank debit card? At a
> couple of places I shop, they only accept cash or bank debit cards, so
> I'm looking to maximize my rewards by using a debit card.
>
> Thanks, - Dave
The best you can do it so buy prepaid Mastercard debit cards from USAA
with a USAA credit card. You get rewards on the credit card because the
reloading of the prepaid card is treated as a purchase, not a cash
advance (only if you use a USAA credit card to refill it, not any other
card from any other bank).
Since USAA charges no fees on their prepaid cards, and you can get cash
with the debit card at Cardtronics ATMs with no fees, you can earn a lot
of points if you want to go through the trouble, though they might shut
you down if you abuse this.
Unfortunately, USAA has been worsening their credit card offerings
lately. The card I have raised the number of points for a $500 r/t
flight from 25,000 to 30,000 on April 1. You can still get 1% cash
though. This card is no longer offered. The replacement cards are
essentially a 1% reward for airline tickets, and a 0.83% cash reward.
I'm hoping that Schwab continues with their 2% cash back Visa Signature
card, but I'm not confident that they'll keep that program going for
very long.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why I didn't buy TurboTax AGAIN this year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92f5d113853839d2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 17 2010 9:18 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
> Steve Daniels <sdaniels@gorge.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:32:45 -0700, against all advice, something
>> compelled The Real Bev <bashley101+es@gmail.com>, to say:
>>
>>> I used to think Intuit was a good company producing a good
>>> product. Now they're just one more company that deserves a trip
>>> down the drain.
>
>> I used these guys:
>
>> https://www.taxactonline.com/
>
> Me too. Every year I pirated Tax Cut or Turbo Tax (sometimes both)
> from the Russians and this year wasn't any different. Lo and behold
> when I came to use it I found that they no longer support Win2K!
> Bummer! But it turns out TaxAct does and for $20 (including state)
> it's not worth pirating.
>
>> I spent $33 to file on line, but it's my fault for
>> procrastinating so long. They remembered my form data from last
>> year, and the site was relatively easy to navigate.
>
> Yeah well I don't file on line (I suppose you mean e-file). Don't
> trust it. Paper was good enough for the founding fathers so it's good
> enough for me.
Letters were good enough for the founding fathers, but even you use usenet.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
