User Panel
Posted: 2/15/2017 5:16:58 AM EDT
|
|
Quoted:
Let me find a link View Quote No need. Pre existing conditions = money pit for any insurance company. FBHO |
|
|
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote Why shouldn't an insurance company raise rates on a known high risk pool? What's next? Making sure car insurance for 17 year olds who have a Firebird is as cheap as for a 50 year old driving a 20 year old Buick? Different risk pools get different premiums. They're not in the insurance business to make people happy. They're in the insurance people to make themselves money. Otherwise they'd do it for free, no? And why is it expensive in the first place? Do you think doctors are doing all of this for free, too? |
|
|
Quoted:
Bullshit it's not sustainable and a company should be able to refuse their services to whomever they want. .gov shouldn't be involved in private matter or health insurance. View Quote So what do you do with everyone that can't get health insurance because they aren't sustainable? Let them die? |
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote So what you're saying is, a smoker can go without insurance for years, maybe gets lucky and doesn't have any serious accidents. A few years later he finds out he's gets lung cancer. He should be able to pick up the same insurance plan as you and pay the same premium? |
|
Quoted:
Why shouldn't an insurance company raise rates on a known high risk pool? What's next? Making sure car insurance for 17 year olds who have a Firebird is as cheap as for a 50 year old driving a 20 year old Buick? Different risk pools get different premiums. They're not in the insurance business to make people happy. They're in the insurance people to make themselves money. Otherwise they'd do it for free, no? And why is it expensive in the first place? Do you think doctors are doing all of this for free, too? View Quote Big difference is that people choose what vehicles they drive whereas people don't choose to get a chronic disease. You are playing with people's lives here. |
|
Quoted:
So what do you do with everyone that can't get health insurance because they aren't sustainable? Let them die? View Quote Why would health insurance prevent them from dying? Why don't they just pay the medical bills with all the money they were saving by not having any insurance in the first place? |
|
|
Quoted:
So what you're saying is, a smoker can go without insurance for years, maybe gets lucky and doesn't have any serious accidents. A few years later he finds out he's gets lung cancer. He should be able to pick up the same insurance plan as you and pay the same premium? View Quote Thats a bit different situation than what I am talking about. People saying that the only focus of healthcare should be making money is being shortsighted. |
|
Quoted:issue
So what do you do with everyone that can't get health insurance because they aren't sustainable? Let them die? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:issue
Quoted:
Bullshit it's not sustainable and a company should be able to refuse their services to whomever they want. .gov shouldn't be involved in private matter or health insurance. So what do you do with everyone that can't get health insurance because they aren't sustainable? Let them die? |
|
Quoted:
Why shouldn't an insurance company raise rates on a known high risk pool? What's next? Making sure car insurance for 17 year olds who have a Firebird is as cheap as for a 50 year old driving a 20 year old Buick? Different risk pools get different premiums. They're not in the insurance business to make people happy. They're in the insurance people to make themselves money. Otherwise they'd do it for free, no? And why is it expensive in the first place? Do you think doctors are doing all of this for free, too? View Quote The fact, per the article, you have one company paying another a $1 billion dollar break up fee seems to indicate not all the money is going to the Doctors. Medical insurance is tricky because no one understands it and the Companies spend billions a year to keep it that way. ETA: the smoking example above is a good case study. Never had any insurance then fuck off... But why can't a young person get "disaster coverage". Pay a low amount with a higher deductible that only covers emergencies. Unless you expect a 25year old to spend a large portion of his take home pay on something he doesn't plan on needing |
|
Quoted:
So what you're saying is, a smoker can go without insurance for years, maybe gets lucky and doesn't have any serious accidents. A few years later he finds out he's gets lung cancer. He should be able to pick up the same insurance plan as you and pay the same premium? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. So what you're saying is, a smoker can go without insurance for years, maybe gets lucky and doesn't have any serious accidents. A few years later he finds out he's gets lung cancer. He should be able to pick up the same insurance plan as you and pay the same premium? Exactly - I've been at my current employer for so long I've paid or had paid on my behalf over $100,00 in premiums to BC/BS, and thankfully, I am a very healthy person who has not been in a hospital the entire time and only been in Dr's offices a handful of times. I feel like such a sucker; think of all the money I could have saved in an Ocare world. I could have spent all that money on cigarettes and beer, and then signed up for Ocare when I got sick. |
|
I never met a group of people as cruel and heartless as you guys are.
I agree people that smoke, do drugs, eat like shit and get fat, and pop out 10 kids that they should be in a whole different category. I'm saying, what if your kid is sick and needs help and you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. The hopelessness you would feel would be unbearable. I'm going to guess if you were in that situation your tone would change. There are ways for this to work, nobody has come up with a plan yet. |
|
Quoted:
Big difference is that people choose what vehicles they drive whereas people don't choose to get a chronic disease. You are playing with people's lives here. View Quote No, there really isn't a difference. Let me explain. Everyone, let me repeat that everyone, has the possibility of getting insurance before they were diagnosed with any type of sickness. When you were born you were given the option to be put on your parents insurance. Once you were put on there insurance as long as your parents keep paying for your insurance you have coverage. Assume that you come down with the sickness at the age of 1 or 17. You are covered under your parents policy. Assuming that your parents weren't dip shits and didn't cover you with insurance. Once you go out on your own and 18 you were covered. It don't give me this bullshit about underprivileged children being uncovered. Actually ALL underprivileged children (living in poverty) are covered due to Medicaid. I'm not gonna talk about those children leaving living on the brink of poverty whose parents are complete idiots and don't cover them out of sheer stupidity. The only chance that a young adult has to have an existing sickness, and to be uncovered without insurance, is if they were stupid enough to drop coverage themselves after they turned 18. The other chance that a person becomes uncovered is if after they turn 18 they were healthy, and then they therefore drop their personal coverage, and then I get diagnosed with an illness. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but it was still a matter of personal choice to be put in this position . Just like choosing which car you want to drive. Everyone has gotten into this position due to personal choice . Or the choice of their parent when they were a minor. |
|
Here we go again. It's not insurance that's the problem, it's the cost of medical care. I should be able to pay 20,000 cash for a major open heart survey and hospital stay, not 100,000 with or without insurance. That is what it costs in most other countries. Medical and insurance together are working a collusion scheme of epic proportions.
|
|
Quoted:
I never met a group of people as cruel and heartless as you guys are. I agree people that smoke, do drugs, eat like shit and get fat, and pop out 10 kids that they should be in a whole different category. I'm saying, what if your kid is sick and needs help and you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. The hopelessness you would feel would be unbearable. I'm going to guess if you were in that situation your tone would change. There are ways for this to work, nobody has come up with a plan yet. View Quote Shit happens unfortunately. Giving up 70% of your check every month would be a nice start. |
|
|
Quoted:
I never met a group of people as cruel and heartless as you guys are. I agree people that smoke, do drugs, eat like shit and get fat, and pop out 10 kids that they should be in a whole different category. I'm saying, what if your kid is sick and needs help and you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. The hopelessness you would feel would be unbearable. I'm going to guess if you were in that situation your tone would change. There are ways for this to work, nobody has come up with a plan yet. View Quote I would have had my kid on my insurance plan from the start. Why wouldn't I have had an insurance plan that covered my kid from the day they were born? Why the fuck would someone not insure their kid? |
|
What I don't understand is how insurance went from "I need this in case of a catastrophic issue that will cost tens of thousands of dollars suddenly" to "I need this to pay my routine medical bills all the time"?
|
|
I don't think it's the pre existing. I think it's that they can't charge them - OK, "us" - more.
But that's the situation they got themselves into with blanket denials. It's not going to go away, in the transition phase the rumor was that this part of the law will remain and be strengthened to allow for the gutting of the rest. But we shall see. I'm on a company plan so doesn't apply, but the insurance companies did this - this part - to themselves. Should've had a sliding scale of I creased premiums for riskier customers. They could've still played the numbers and won. Instead they made a pool of, what, 8,000,000 passionate voters. Take someone off welfare sooner or later they'll work, (legal or otherwise!) But there is no alternative for a negative health issue. They will become single issue voters. I sure hope it's our party. |
|
I believe that the discussion with regards to pre-existing conditions and the general consensus that health insurance is no longer affordable is mute, as the entire system is broken. Karl Denninger has repeatedly put forward the solution to the issue, I would like to quote a recent article of his on the subject:
link: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231806 Gee, Ya Think?
[Comments enabled] What more needs to be said? In Bangalore, India, heart surgeons perform daily state-of-the-art heart surgery on adults and children at an average cost of $1,800. For the record, that’s about 2% of the $90,000 that the average heart surgery costs in the United States. And when it comes to the quality of the heart surgery, the patient outcomes are among the best in the world. Why? Simple: There is no financialization. You can't make someone else pay for your medical treatment in India. Most families in India have no health insurance, and often need to borrow the money to pay for surgery. And there are no guarantees on the debt either: You can't exactly repossess a heart operation! Quality? Better than in the United States. How about drugs? Let's talk insulin: The medication had identical action to what's sold in the U.S. And its preloaded syringes, with a sophisticated calibrating mechanism, were more accurate in dose than any I've seen. What was most remarkable was the price — less than 10% of what it costs Americans with diabetes today. The combination of massive scale and appropriate pricing accounted for the 10-fold difference. What's missing from this article? Any mention of the fact that the only reason drug prices haven't dropped like a stone is that it's illegal to import that Insulin here to the United States. Were it not Novartis and the other insulin makers here wouldn't sell a single dose at 10x the price, especially when their dosing systems are inferior. I've often said that the total cost of medical care would drop by 85% if we simply enforced the law, specifically 15 USC Chapter 1, against all medically-related firms -- including pharma, hospitals, device makers and doctors. This article is evidence that I'm being conservative and the actual drop might even exceed 90%. Of course to do that you need to take all the monopolists -- which means damn near all of the doctors, hospital administrators, drug company executives, "pharmacy benefit managers" and more out back and........ Indict them. If we don't, and if we keep doing what we've been doing then eventually those who are condemned might just decide to take some of them out back and do something a less-lawful than indicting them. Will Trump do anything about this? Based on the best evidence available to date, NO. Don't bet your first nickel on him doing a damn thing about any of this, despite it being very clear that mere restoration of a competitive market would make "health insurance" entirely unnecessary for essentially everyone in the United States. Pfizer has already said they have no intention of altering their pricing model after the recent pharma meeting. Why should they until and unless their entire executive office gets indicted on many-thousands of counts of federal felonies under 15 USC? In the meantime if you need treatment for something serious -- get on a plane. If you currently have, or are on the path toward a chronic condition that requires continuing medical assessment and treatment if it's possible to stop or reverse that you had better or you're going to be bankrupted, dead or both. And if you're already past the point of being able to do anything about it? Make peace with God. Until and unless Trump does start indicting this entire segment of the economy (or he makes clear that if they don't cut the crap right now he will, and if challenged, he does) he is not your friend, he will not stop the detonation of this nation's finances nor your financial and personal destruction and yet it is entirely within his power to do both right now, without Congressional involvement since the laws necessary to do so already exist. Trump may be my President just as he is yours if you live in the United States, but any President who has the power of the Executive to put a stop to this crap under existing law and fails to do so, when it constitutes nearly one dollar in five spent in America today and 37% of last year's federal spending is a five-alarm dickhead, irrespective of what other policies he may or may not implement. That refusal literally kills hundreds of thousands of Americans a year and financially ruins millions more -- far more than any terrorist or even war has managed to claim. And that's a fact. View Quote |
|
|
Obamacare was designed to fail. Humana was just another victim. The goal is a gov't single-payor plan that covers everyone (probably like Medicare) and implementation will require massive tax hikes and give the GOVERNMENT MORE CONTROL over your healthcare/lives.
And, expect the elites in gov't to have the same healthcare plan. They will have the same plan on paper (to sell it to the masses), but make no mistake, the elites will receive enhanced benefits. This will eventually happen, regardless of who is in office. |
|
Quoted:
What I don't understand is how insurance went from "I need this in case of a catastrophic issue that will cost tens of thousands of dollars suddenly" to "I need this to pay my routine medical bills all the time"? View Quote Insurance is assessing risk. Fact is it's the same on property/homeowners insurance. Period think it's a warranty and file claims for stupid shit that doesn't even make their deductible. Then they get upset when underwriting deems them high risk and drops them. Everyone wants to be provided for, the millennials are entering their 30s, it's only going to get worse once their offspring grows up. |
|
|
Quoted:
Here we go again. It's not insurance that's the problem, it's the cost of medical care. I should be able to pay 20,000 cash for a major open heart survey and hospital stay, not 100,000 with or without insurance. That is what it costs in most other countries. Medical and insurance together are working a collusion scheme of epic proportions. View Quote This man gets it |
|
Quoted:
Why shouldn't an insurance company raise rates on a known high risk pool? What's next? Making sure car insurance for 17 year olds who have a Firebird is as cheap as for a 50 year old driving a 20 year old Buick? Different risk pools get different premiums. They're not in the insurance business to make people happy. They're in the insurance people to make themselves money. Otherwise they'd do it for free, no? And why is it expensive in the first place? Do you think doctors are doing all of this for free, too? View Quote Our (Former) Glorious Leader put a limit on how much the difference in premiums can be ....so it's based on Smoking Status and Age as the primary (and just about only) criteria....so either EVERYONE pays more (then the insurance company loses the healthy customers who keep it afloat...and lose money), or they keep rates low and lose money. Obamacare is the equivalent of your 17 year old with a Firebird, 5 tickets, 2 crashes getting the same rates as your 50 year old with a perfect driving record (actually the 50 year old would pay MORE)..and the insurance can't drop the 17 year old, or limit what they payout in claims..... |
|
Quoted:
I never met a group of people as cruel and heartless as you guys are. I agree people that smoke, do drugs, eat like shit and get fat, and pop out 10 kids that they should be in a whole different category. I'm saying, what if your kid is sick and needs help and you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. The hopelessness you would feel would be unbearable. I'm going to guess if you were in that situation your tone would change. There are ways for this to work, nobody has come up with a plan yet. View Quote Start a gofundme and rely on family and friends to help out a loved one. |
|
Quoted:
No, there really isn't a difference. Let me explain. Everyone, let me repeat that everyone, has the possibility of getting insurance before they were diagnosed with any type of sickness. When you were born you were given the option to be put on your parents insurance. Once you were put on there insurance as long as your parents keep paying for your insurance you have coverage. Assume that you come down with the sickness at the age of 1 or 17. You are covered under your parents policy. Assuming that your parents weren't dip shits and didn't cover you with insurance. Once you go out on your own and 18 you were covered. It don't give me this bullshit about underprivileged children being uncovered. Actually ALL underprivileged children (living in poverty) are covered due to Medicaid. I'm not gonna talk about those children leaving living on the brink of poverty whose parents are complete idiots and don't cover them out of sheer stupidity. The only chance that a young adult has to have an existing sickness, and to be uncovered without insurance, is if they were stupid enough to drop coverage themselves after they turned 18. The other chance that a person becomes uncovered is if after they turn 18 they were healthy, and then they therefore drop their personal coverage, and then I get diagnosed with an illness. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but it was still a matter of personal choice to be put in this position . Just like choosing which car you want to drive. Everyone has gotten into this position due to personal choice . Or the choice of their parent when they were a minor. View Quote Not entirely true. Many times babies who had to spend time in neonatal intensive care reached their lifetime cap on insurance. *BOOM* No longer covered. And those babies, plus any kids who got sick later would then have pre-existing conditions should their parents ever change jobs. That would mean no coverage for them. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit it's not sustainable and a company should be able to refuse their services to whomever they want. .gov shouldn't be involved in private matter or health insurance. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. |
|
Quoted:
Wait until the day comes when you start having health issues and it bites you in the butt. I like how all you guys love to spout off about this stuff . Some day my friend you will get sick if you live long enough. You can not tell people they have to have insurance and then tell them you won't insure them. View Quote It's fucking simple. Get insurance while you are healthy. Right now I have cheap life insurance. Same with health insurance. If you wait to get insurance when you get the ass aids you done fucked up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here we go again. It's not insurance that's the problem, it's the cost of medical care. I should be able to pay 20,000 cash for a major open heart survey and hospital stay, not 100,000 wiisn't allwithout insurance. That is what it costs in most other countries. Medical and insurance together are working a collusion scheme of epic proportions. This man gets it No. That man does not work in a hospital. I doubt the Indian courts aware 7 figure sertlements because the doctor must have done something wrong to smoking and drinking while pregnant moms kid during the delivery. The fat ass two pack a day smoker who refuses tof follow medical advice is not the problem, it must be the medical staff not treating him correctly so no reimbursement. 98 years old with multiple organ failure? Who cares, the family says full steam aheads. But India complies with this, right? Where do you think the money is coming from for those people? Nevermind OSHA, JAACHO, and HIPPA requirements. But yeah, greedy doctors. |
|
Quoted:
Here we go again. It's not insurance that's the problem, it's the cost of medical care. I should be able to pay 20,000 cash for a major open heart survey and hospital stay, not 100,000 with or without insurance. That is what it costs in most other countries. Medical and insurance together are working a collusion scheme of epic proportions. View Quote Yes. The public debate on this whole issue has been framed in completely the wrong way with a focus on getting as many people insured as possible instead of focusing on ways to drive down the cost of the underlying care. I might add that insuring more people probably exacerbates the rising cost of health care, making the problem worse rather than better. If more consumers become separated from the payment aspect of their health care decisions, fewer people have available insight and motivation to make actual cost-benefit analyses that would result in reduction in utilization of unnecessary medical care and actual price competition for services. And another thing... calling health insurance "insurance" is a serious misnomer. Consider what "insurance" is: mitigation of risk for unforeseen and unexpected loss or casualty. Our "health insurance" is required by law to cover all aspects of fully expected, and in fact encouraged, day to day medical spending. It is as if car insurance were required to pay for your oil changes and tires. If it did, would you bother price comparing on these items? Without price comparison shopping, would you expect the price of the product and service to go up or down? If the "insurance" only covers a really lousy quality of oil and tire, such that you would have to pay above and beyond the cost of your "insurance" for better quality, do you expect that more people would end up paying more for high quality tires or would they instead go for the "free" tires that are already paid for? More "third party payer" (which is what it is, as it is not "insurance") results in less consumer price pressure and therefore less competition, as well as lower quality of product. |
|
|
Quoted:
Bullshit it's not sustainable and a company should be able to refuse their services to whomever they want. .gov shouldn't be involved in private matter or health insurance. View Quote My idea is baseline health insurance for the standard stuff; GP doctor visits for non-pre-existing conditions and issues not related to pre-existing conditions; then riders (just like homeowner's insurance) for pre-existing conditions. The riders would be basically in their own container and they would be their own risk pool; almost like a mutual insurance for either all pre-existing conditions; or risk pools for specific conditions. Then availability of good high deductible plans. That way someone that has a chronic illness, like Crohn's, or such, can get a reasonably priced plan and decide on the pre-existing rider. That might even allow other companies to form (especially if they allow national insurance companies) that do nothing but pre-existing health insurance riders. The other item, it would force insurance companies and the government to employ more medical professionals, or at least medically knowledgeable people, (not just bean-counters) to design and maintain such plans. |
|
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
GOP isn't changing that And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. And with that line of thinking, comes the single payer system. |
|
Quoted:
No. That man does not work in a hospital. I doubt the Indian courts aware 7 figure sertlements because the doctor must have done something wrong to smoking and drinking while pregnant moms kid during the delivery. The fat ass two pack a day smoker who refuses tof follow medical advice is not the problem, it must be the medical staff not treating him correctly so no reimbursement. 98 years old with multiple organ failure? Who cares, the family says full steam aheads. But India complies with this, right? Where do you think the money is coming from for those people? Nevermind OSHA, JAACHO, and HIPPA requirements. But yeah, greedy doctors. View Quote Out of curiosity, I looked up a CPT Code for an Open Aortic Valve Replacement.....(33410)....pays about $2000 to the Dr that opens you up, puts the valve in, and follows you throught the Global Period (the post op period included in that fee) The DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) pays the hospital $55,000 for their part of the care....The valve itself is about $5000 to $7000. Yep, greedy Doctors.... |
|
Quoted:
I never met a group of people as cruel and heartless as you guys are. I agree people that smoke, do drugs, eat like shit and get fat, and pop out 10 kids that they should be in a whole different category. I'm saying, what if your kid is sick and needs help and you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. The hopelessness you would feel would be unbearable. I'm going to guess if you were in that situation your tone would change. There are ways for this to work, nobody has come up with a plan yet. View Quote That's what.......70% of the population? |
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote So . . . we healthy folks are supposed to pay for others' misbehavior and misfortune??? "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Now where did we heard that before? |
|
Before this Obamacare not all companies offered insurance that was worth a shit. My mother was working for a security company in Ohio and the insurance they offered cost her 1/4 of her paycheck. When she had to have gull bladder surgery the insurance they offered was absolute shit. Maximum covered for hospital stay $2000. Maximum covered for surgery $5000. Remaining bills were $80,000. She could have went with private insurance I guess. If your making $400 a week you should be able to swing $1000 a month for insurance right?
Healthcare in this country has become one giant shit show that has driven prices for both insurance and medical bills through the roof. I've seen people on here complain that their dick hardening pills cost 20 times as much here as they do in other countries even though they are the same thing. |
|
Quoted:
It's fucking simple. Get insurance while you are healthy. Right now I have cheap life insurance. Same with health insurance. If you wait to get insurance when you get the ass aids you done fucked up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait until the day comes when you start having health issues and it bites you in the butt. I like how all you guys love to spout off about this stuff . Some day my friend you will get sick if you live long enough. You can not tell people they have to have insurance and then tell them you won't insure them. It's fucking simple. Get insurance while you are healthy. Right now I have cheap life insurance. Same with health insurance. If you wait to get insurance when you get the ass aids you done fucked up. |
|
Quoted:
And they shouldn't, IMHO. You can't blackball people from affordable health insurance just because they had the misfortune of getting sick. View Quote Being born with lesser intelligence is just as bad as lesser health. It's not right to penalize the rest of society for the condition. Some people draw a bad lot in life. |
|
Quoted:
Thats a bit different situation than what I am talking about. People saying that the only focus of healthcare should be making money is being shortsighted. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So what you're saying is, a smoker can go without insurance for years, maybe gets lucky and doesn't have any serious accidents. A few years later he finds out he's gets lung cancer. He should be able to pick up the same insurance plan as you and pay the same premium? Thats a bit different situation than what I am talking about. People saying that the only focus of healthcare should be making money is being shortsighted. Go get your MD then work for minimum wage if that's how you feel. |
|
Quoted:
Insurance is assessing risk. Fact is it's the same on property/homeowners insurance. Period think it's a warranty and file claims for stupid shit that doesn't even make their deductible. Then they get upset when underwriting deems them high risk and drops them. Everyone wants to be provided for, the millennials are entering their 30s, it's only going to get worse once their offspring grows up. View Quote Not really the best example because I have choices when it comes to repairs in my home. I don't have to go through the insurance company or a specific contractor to buy the supplies to make it better. There is a no real correlation to the cost of Medical Procedures. I had Lasix done approximately 8 years ago and it cost just under $4k. The technology used was top of the line, newest technique and included pre OP visits, post OP follow ups and a free "touch up" down the road. Also about 10 years ago, I got a nasty GI virus over July 4th weekend. Sent the wife and kids out if town. Lost 15lbs puking and shitting, doctor was closed and no one answered the phone at StatCare. I end up driving to the ER. 45 minute stay, a liter of Normal Saline, 25mg of IV Phenergan and 2 minutes seeing a doctor was $1,500. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.