>> Usually with a caravan, in the overtaking lane, with a huge queue behind 
>> :-)
>>
> You are watching too much Top Gear.

I wish :-D

Actually around where I live the Dutch are by far the majority of foreign 
cars on the roads in summer.  And if I just counted cars with caravans 
attached I bet they are the majority!  Generally I see more foreign cars 
doing stupid things on the roads around here (like going way over the speed 
limit in construction areas, pulling out infront of much faster cars, not 
moving over to let faster cars past etc), and because the Dutch seem to be 
the most common foreigners you got that comment from me.  I was only half 
joking, I know most of them are good drivers, it's just a few idiots that 
give a bad reputation.

Post a reply to this message

>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
> 
> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)

Did you see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9u0LxIWJk

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:55:12 +0200, scott wrote:

>>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
>> 
>> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9u0LxIWJk

I hadn't - though I recognised most of the segments in the 
video....that's great!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/26/09 08:51, Tom Austin wrote:
>> The provider charges $1000 for a procedure, yet the health insurance
>> company pays only $200 and due to an agreement with the provider the
>> difference ($800) is waived.
>> The provider got only $200 for the service and somehow is able to stay
>> in business.
>> Yet, if I did not have insurance, the provider would charge $1000 and
>> attempt to receive it from me - $800 more for the exact same procedure.
>> If the provider is willing to accept $200 for the procedure, why do they
>> charge $1000?
> 
>     To make up for the amount they lost.
> 
>     Many of the doctors/hospitals contend that they *cannot* stay in 
> business if they keep accepting the negotiated rates that insurers 
> demand. So they charge people who aren't insured to recover as much as 
> they can.
> 
>     It's a well known "policy". They've admitted to it at various times.
> 

Maybe I misspoke when I said that the provider was happy with the 
insurance reimbursement.  I know the insurance companies 'negotiate' 
fairly aggressively.

So, this makes the situation even worse - the uninsured have to make up 
for the insured.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-8-2009 9:55, scott wrote:
>>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
>>
>> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9u0LxIWJk
> 
That is another 3 minutes 22 seconds that I can not use for anything 
else anymore.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
>>>
>>> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)
>> 
>> Did you see this?
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9u0LxIWJk
>> 
> That is another 3 minutes 22 seconds that I can not use for anything 
> else anymore.

Well at least you enjoyed it enough to watch to the end then :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 28-8-2009 9:55, scott wrote:
>>>>> You are watching too much Top Gear.
>>>>
>>>> Egads, there is no such thing! ;-)
>>>
>>> Did you see this?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY9u0LxIWJk
>>>
>> That is another 3 minutes 22 seconds that I can not use for anything 
>> else anymore.
> 
> Well at least you enjoyed it enough to watch to the end then :-)
> 
No I started typing that message hoping that I would finish just when 
the video would run out. Almost made it.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> So, this makes the situation even worse - the uninsured have to make up 
> for the insured.

Hmm. Heard recently that one group that owns a lot of insurance 
companies, UHG I think, made $19.7 billion last year, convinced someone 
to change law just within the last several months to be "fairer" to 
them, by letting them make you pay 35% of the cost as premiums, instead 
of the "unfair" 24% it was before. Why are we paying 24% at all? 
Because, until they got sued, and the judge ordered them to pay money to 
create a new, independent one, UHG ***owned*** the only two companies 
that **all** insurance companies go to for listings on the average cost 
of medical procedures, and they where caught *intentionally* under 
rating the costs. I.e. An X-Ray really costs $500, so they would say it 
only cost $400, then only pay 75% of that, so you would end up paying 
$100 for the premium, and $100 for the "non-covered" cost, and they 
would then only pay the other $300, when they **should have** been 
correctly reporting the average cost as $500 in the first place, and 
paying out $375.

Now, multiple that situation by.. long term care, or multiple 
procedures, in the tens of thousands of dollars... Why the hell the 
judge didn't do the sane thing, declare the practice as monopoly like 
behavior, and insist that they divest themselves of the companies 
entirely.. And, how do you keep them, as someone that put funds into the 
company, from influencing the so called "independent" one they where 
ordered to pay into, to compete?

They want to know how we can pay for this bill.. Lets cut away some of 
the stupid asses dead weight, like UHG. Oh, wait, that's a *private* 
company, not government, so the waste, expense, bureaucracy and insanely 
stupid profits being made by such people are protected from public 
interest...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> So, this makes the situation even worse - the uninsured have to make 
>> up for the insured.
> 
> rating the costs. I.e. An X-Ray really costs $500, so they would say it 
> only cost $400, then only pay 75% of that, so you would end up paying 
> $100 for the premium, and $100 for the "non-covered" cost, and they 
> would then only pay the other $300, when they **should have** been 
> correctly reporting the average cost as $500 in the first place, and 
> paying out $375.
> 

It is a big game.

I remember a company self-run insurance program that I was a part of 
once.  A 'traditional' plan - I pay out of pocket and they reimburse me 
80%.  Not too bad... until you get a bill.

I submit a $500 bill for a procedure to the insurance.  That should take 
care of my deductible.....  but wait.  The UCR for the procedure is only 
$200, so only 80% of $200 is applied to my deductible ONLY $160!!!  So 
now I still have $340 on the deductible, yet I am already out $500.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> The provider charges $1000 for a procedure, yet the health insurance 
> company pays only $200 and due to an agreement with the provider the 
> difference ($800) is waived.
> The provider got only $200 for the service and somehow is able to stay 
> in business.


Ok, I just got a statement from my kids' doctor - $65 charged, $65 
covered less the normal $20 copay.

Post a reply to this message