Supreme Court Upholds Obama care

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

1. "30k doesn't represent an average coverage. Don't pretend it does".

I never pretended that it did. You made that up. At no point in time did I claim that the 30k out of 200k figure was a national average. I know full-well that was a hypothetical scenario. You got confused somewhere along the line and decided to accuse me of saying it was a national average. I did not.

Of course I made the 30K figure up. It is completely fictional. It does not represent a real scenario or a real average. It was developed to illustrate a point, one that has apparently flown completely over the head. My problem with your harping on this point is that in doing so you've completely MISSED the point. Constantly, you keep coming back to it as if you believe it proves something. The worst you can say about that 30K is that it fails to illustrate my point. Fine, that's acceptable. We've already repeatedly agreed that there were issues with that scenario. However, there's still the issue of you constantly coming back to that 30K as if it means something MORE than illustrating a point. It does not. You seem to agree that it does not, but keep coming back to it as if it means something when it wasn't what my post, the one you originally disputed, was really about.

The only times I have references the 30k out of 200k figure is to point out how you have conceded the insurance can be substantial, and then to point out how the discussion turned to me asking you to quantify how substantial it is in average (i.e. in real life, not on hypothetical scenarios).

I see no reason why it needs to be "quantified" unless it's to prove something about the 200K Scenario that neither of us cares about that much. We're talking about the state of healthcare as it is, and I'm not saying anything that people don't already believe. You pay in only to, on average, get screwed. It can pay substantially, but on average, it does not. That's why people think it needs to change. For some reason, people want to assert, without evidence, that PPACA stopped that completely. It's done some good stuff, yes, but it's not a fucking miracle worker, and isn't even doing what it was originally INTENDED to do - provide a single payer system.

2. "You can't consider the 30k out of 200k lowballing"

Yes, I can. It's low-balling in that analysis. That doesn't mean it's low-balling in real-life data. I understand that.

How can I say it's low balling in that analysis and in that hypothetical-scenario? Because it follows out of logical necessity from the fact that you didn't consider surgical coverage. The 30k figure doesn't include surgical coverage, and therefore once you do include it, the 30k figure would increase. Whether it be to 31k, or 100k, it would increase.

You're assuming a COVERED surgical procedure took place. It's a given that a surgical procedure took place. There is a difference between a COVERED or NON-COVERED surgical procedure. That's a mighty BIG assumption. Just because a surgical procedure took place doesn't mean there's going to be coverage for it. Get that? Recalling just how FEW procedures that basic insurance plan addressed, and the law of averages kicking against your odds, your claims of low-balling is misplaced.

it is NOT an expectation in any scenario that a covered surgical procedure will take place.

To be fair, the 200K Scenario could have been better developed, taking into account an actual suite of procedures, but it didn't. So it failed.

I didn't claim it was more substantial. All I did was use your own source to point out how it didn't help you. I took the opportunity and pointed out how your own sources suggested that those families that declared bankruptcy saved 40% more when they had insurance at some point.

Again, you're making a deliberately false claim that they had savings. That's untrue and I do expect that in the interests of the truth you adhere to so closely, you'll stop making it. I don't care what you're intent is - you're attempting to establish savings that never took place and only "would have" in your ideal, fantasy scenario.

As far as my point failing, looks like we've got something in common.

4. "Premiums vs Costs"

Yeah, I understand the difference. That wasn't the problem. When I said I didn't understand what you mean, I referred to CONTEXT. The issue was you said "If the cost/value is really as high as you make it out to be, then the value is nearly triple the cost". ... well without context I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Not because of the definitions of cost or value, but because of context. I don't know where I supposedly said that coverage was three times the amount in premiums. I never said anything remotely close to that.

Holy fuck, the context was obvious: an average basic insurance plan. I stated it over and over. A basic average insurance plan (7K+) covers the cost context, the hypothetical expense (30K provides that cost). That expense is an exception, not the rule and I don't think you'll make the claim that it is the rule.

5. [b]"If you're claiming that this conversation is about something OTHER than that, YOU are changing the conversation from my *original* point. Which point was that?

This point:

"Unless the insurance company in question is stupid, they're not going to cover even a substantial portion of a $200K bill on some lousy basic health plan that someone was compelled to buy in order to keep on the right side of the law." ~ Iehovah"

The quote is exactly what I'm talking about. That IS the point. That asks how much of that 200k hypothetical bill (or, more interestingly, of the average bill in real-life), would the insurance cover. That is very different from this (which you said above):

It was meant to illustrate a point (that of how people get screwed on their bills) by providing the context of a bill amount that someone had already put up. Obviously it failed. As such, you may have lost my point. That's fine, and I'll clarify, but I'm *not* accepting your change of topic. We've already agreed that 200K is not the average bill, and if you want to address my point about how insurance companies behave, that's where I'm coming from.

If you don't disagree then there's really not much point in further discussion.

"Have you anything ...to suggest that the AVERAGE payout on any bill $200K+ is more "substantial" than what the AVERAGE of what the buyer of that plan has paid in? "

Paid in? Why paid in? The question wasn't whether the average person pays in more than they get, the question is whether the insurance company covers a substantial amount of the bill. Those are totally different questions.

This is why I accuse you of knowing nothing about insurance. They're the exact same damn thing, not totally different questions. What a person pays in is the cost, what they get back is the value. If the value is less than the cost of the bill, you cannot claim the insurance covers a "substantial" amount of the bill, because it's not covering anything the buyer didn't already pay for. If it goes BEYOND what the buyer paid in, then you can start talking about substantiality.

It's the gist of my main point. It's about what you don't get after paying in. Did the 200K fail to illustrate that? Again, repeating myself, but sure.

And yeah, in that scenario, 30K may be considered substantial.

I know that insurance companies get paid more than they cover, on average. That's a trivial fact. I understand that. Nobody said anything about insurance companies being Santa-clauses. In fact I repeatedly agreed with you that they were assholes. The issue is whether on average, the coverage is substantial or not and how substantial it is in real-life.

Dude, did you just read what you wrote? If the insurance company gets paid more than they cover *on average*, THEY ARE NOT COVERING a substantial amount of the bill *on average*. You pay in 7k, they cover 7k. You got jack shit other than what you paid in. If they cover MORE, then yeah, you could start considering it substantial since you're getting something that was agreed to, but that you didn't actually pay for.

6. "The CNN statistics don't apply"

Yes they do. Your defense for this has been completely lame so far. You can't attack the credibility (because you used the source yourself), so you resorted to saying that because they didn't actually end up paying those bills (because they wen't bankrupt) that we can't gleam any information out of that statistics. Do I seriously need to respond to that? That's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why we can't use that statistic to gain information. By your logic, since nobody dies in a crash-test (they use dummies), we can't determine what possible injuries a human would have received. Yes we can. We get information on forces (analogous to costs), regardless of whether a human actually suffers them (analogous to having to pay for the costs).

I didn't SAY we couldn't use it to gain information, and in asserting that I did, you're flagrantly wrong. Of COURSE you can gain information from it, but it doesn't answer the overall question now, does it? The question that I addressed in my point. You won't assert that it does, because that would make you a liar.

It suggests those with insurance saved money; around 40%. Remember, I never said it proved you wrong. I said we can gleam information from the source and that it didn't help you. If you have statistic that do help you... post them!

Again, they did not save money. They are bankrupt. They *could have* in a fantasy scenario, but this isn't a fantasy scenario, it is real life information on a link. You are trying to pass off fantasy as a reality. Passing off imaginary savings that never took place of money that never existed as the real thing.

Seriously, that's so incredibly bullshit that I can't believe you type the words. Holy shit! George Bush just gave me an imaginary rebate of $1 million dollars on my $2 worth of bananas. That's AMAZING savings. So what if the savings never actually took place, it's the could have that counts, right?

"Could have" is imaginary. Not reality. Say it with me, Rust.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Of course I made the 30K figure up. It is completely fictional. It does not represent a real scenario or a real average. It was developed to illustrate a point, one that has apparently flown completely over the head. My problem with your harping on this point is that in doing so you've completely MISSED the point. Constantly, you keep coming back to it as if you believe it proves something. The worst you can say about that 30K is that it fails to illustrate my point. Fine, that's acceptable. We've already repeatedly agreed that there were issues with that scenario. However, there's still the issue of you constantly coming back to that 30K as if it means something MORE than illustrating a point. It does not. You seem to agree that it does not, but keep coming back to it as if it means something when it wasn't what my post, the one you originally disputed, was really about.

Pay attention, I said you made up the idea that I was saying 30k was a real figure or a national average. I didn't. I never said that.

I haven't been constantly coming back to it. That's you making shit up again. The only time I've mentioned it is to point out how you had conceded the coverage can be substantial and how this then turned the discussion into you trying to actually quantify the coverage on average in real terms.

I haven't mentioned it aside from that; except to defend myself against your lies (i.e. your claim that I insisted it was a real figure or that companies actually covered that amount on average).

I see no reason why it needs to be "quantified" unless it's to prove something about the 200K Scenario that neither of us cares about that much. We're talking about the state of healthcare as it is, and I'm not saying anything that people don't already believe. You pay in only to, on average, get screwed. It can pay substantially, but on average, it does not. That's why people think it needs to change. For some reason, people want to assert, without evidence, that PPACA stopped that completely. It's done some good stuff, yes, but it's not a fucking miracle worker, and isn't even doing what it was originally INTENDED to do - provide a single payer system.

What? That's the point of the discussion since it goes directly to answering the question you bolded previously:

"Unless the insurance company in question is stupid, they're not going to cover even a substantial portion of a $200K bill on some lousy basic health plan that someone was compelled to buy in order to keep on the right side of the law." ~ Iehovah"

By answering how much do insurance companies cover on average in real-terms, you answer that issue there; you show whether it's substantial in real-terms, not in hypothetical scenarios.

Again, you're making a deliberately false claim that they had savings. That's untrue and I do expect that in the interests of the truth you adhere to so closely, you'll stop making it. I don't care what you're intent is - you're attempting to establish savings that never took place and only "would have" in your ideal, fantasy scenario.

As far as my point failing, looks like we've got something in common

.

No, it's not a false claim. There was an effect by having insurance. That's absolutely true. Whether they paid that or not is another point. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss the effect of having insurance because these people didn't pay.

If you're seriously going to resort to this bullshit, then allow me to point out how you haven't shown the didn't pay the bill. Filing bankruptcy does not mean you don't pay the bills. When you file bankruptcy, your dept is restructured and/or your possessions are sold/auctioned to pay the bill.

So either prove that they didn't pay the bill, or kindly admit that you cannot and stop with the petty bullshit. The bill was 40% lower. That's an effect. No amount of desperate dancing-around is going to change that.

Holy fuck, the context was obvious: an average basic insurance plan. I stated it over and over. A basic average insurance plan (7K+) covers the cost context, the hypothetical expense (30K provides that cost). That expense is an exception, not the rule and I don't think you'll make the claim that it is the rule.

No, the context wasn't obvious... because why the fuck would I consider that 30k for anything when it's a figure that comes from a made-up hypothetical scenario that doesn't represent the national average?

At no point did I say the 30k was the actual coverage to be expected, so your implication that I was saying the coverage would be triple is a complete and utter fabrication on your part. It made no fucking sense.

This is why I accuse you of knowing nothing about insurance. They're the exact same damn thing, not totally different questions. What a person pays in is the cost, what they get back is the value. If the value is less than the cost of the bill, you cannot claim the insurance covers a "substantial" amount of the bill, because it's not covering anything the buyer didn't already pay for. If it goes BEYOND what the buyer paid in, then you can start talking about substantiality.

It's the gist of my main point. It's about what you don't get after paying in. Did the 200K fail to illustrate that? Again, repeating myself, but sure.

No, they are not the same thing at all. They are two different questions. You can ask whether insurance is a worthwhile investment given that you have to pay for the premiums and on average it will be costlier, but that's a different question as to what the effect insurance has on a bill.

You said it wouldn't cover a substantial portion of the bill. That is a different issue altogether. Coverage is how much they pay. That's independent of how much you've paid into the plan.

If person A has been on the plan for years and has paid a lot, and person B is new to the plan and has paid nothing, the same amount of the bill is covered if they get into an accident (assuming the same injuries/hospitals/procedures/etc. of course).

If the insurance company gets paid more than they cover *on average*, THEY ARE NOT COVERING a substantial amount of the bill *on average*. You pay in 7k, they cover 7k. You got jack shit other than what you paid in. If they cover MORE, then yeah, you could start considering it substantial since you're getting something that was agreed to, but that you didn't actually pay for.

Yes they are. The coverage is what portion of the bill they pay for. The amount you paid into doesn't come in to the equation of what's the plan's coverage. That's a separate issue.

When you buy insurance you are getting a safety-net. Like a helmet. By your logic, we can't determine how much money someone saved on hospital bills by wearing a helmet (vs not wearing one), if we don't know the costs of the helmet. Yes we can. We're talking about the amount of the bill; not the worthiness of the investment (which is subjective).

I didn't SAY we couldn't use it to gain information, and in asserting that I did, you're flagrantly wrong. Of COURSE you can gain information from it, but it doesn't answer the overall question now, does it? The question that I addressed in my point. You won't assert that it does, because that would make you a liar.

And I never said it answered the question completely! I repeatedly told you that I wasn't saying the source answered the question definitively. Only that I pointed out the information we could gleam from it. We can gleam that the bill was 40% lower on average. That's a fact.

[water bottle]

Originally Posted by The Pat-Man

so when does my broke ass get to go to the doctor

2014, I think. Hold out a while then.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

Pay attention, I said you made up the idea that I was saying 30k was a real figure or a national average. I didn't. I never said that.

The exact quote from myself on this subject, the one that you cleverly rewrote and attributed to me is this:

"Then maybe you should stop acting like it is, and claiming that it's being low-balled with a 30K estimate when a 30K estimate is nearly six times the "value" of an average basic plan. You clearly don't know what average procedures are involved, so why pretend you do?"

You didn't say it, you insinuated it. I'm not quoting you, because you never said it. It's inherent to your behavior. You took a completely hypothetical scenario and made a mountain out of it, constantly returning to it and harping on it, treating it as if it were representative of something MORE than illustrating a point.

I haven't been constantly coming back to it. That's you making shit up again. The only time I've mentioned it is to point out how you had conceded the coverage can be substantial and how this then turned the discussion into you trying to actually quantify the coverage on average in real terms.

Okay, now you're just lying out your ass. The entire argument has been interspersed with your whining about how I'm "low-balling the figure" and somehow cheating you of your due in this argument. It's a point of contention, certainly, but when you KNOW it means that little, why the fuck would I low-ball you? Oh right, because I'm a "liar". You're sitting here lying right to my face about what you did and did not do, yet I'm the "liar". Again, this ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT has been interspersed with your incessant bitching about how the figure's been low-balled.

Imagine for a second that it had, that I were this monstrous fucking liar that completely cheated on the figures and that some even more substantial sum in the 200K figure would be paid. What would it change?

Absolutely nothing, because you've already agreed with my main point, the point it was meant to illustrate: that the average plan does not benefit the average buyer at the expense of the average insurance company. Reworded, slightly because I'm not going back for the copy/paste, but the same damn principle.

This has been nothing more than an attempt to make me out to be a liar,
to attack and discredit some small part of a point I was making it. Maybe you're just naturally dishonest and go after anyone you see as "competition" or maybe you're sucking insurance dick. I won't claim to have psychic knowledge of your real motivation.

I haven't mentioned it aside from that; except to defend myself against your lies (i.e. your claim that I insisted it was a real figure or that companies actually covered that amount on average).]

You didn't insist on it, nor did I say that you did. In fact, even YOUR very own MANUFACTURED paraphrasing of my actual quote says no such thing. Nor does my original quote. See both before you continue any further with this lie that you are attempting to pass as truth.

And yes, by insisting that 30K is a low-ball, because it doesn't have surgical procedures added, you ARE pretending it represents an average. Why? Because you MUST have an average of covered surgical procedures specific to that average plan to add in anything like it in hypothetical numbering. No given scenario will automatically include COVERED surgical procedures. Get the fucking difference? Covered vs. not. Yes, there will be surgical procedures, but you don't automatically get to include them in your insurance plan benefits. The insurance plan will laugh its fucking ass off at you.

I would normally blame ignorance on your part, as it requires knowledge of insurance to understand exactly WHY you have to have an average to make any such assumption about the relevance of surgical procedures in a hypothetical scenario, but I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you're just being stupid.

Your call. Which is it? Ignorance or dishonesty. I won't blame you for having no idea what the fuck you are talking about, but I will blame you for repeatedly attempting to pass off your ignorance as truth.

What? That's the point of the discussion since it goes directly to answering the question you bolded previously:

"Unless the insurance company in question is stupid, they're not going to cover even a substantial portion of a $200K bill on some lousy basic health plan that someone was compelled to buy in order to keep on the right side of the law." ~ Iehovah"

By answering how much do insurance companies cover on average in real-terms, you answer that issue there; you show whether it's substantial in real-terms, not in hypothetical scenarios.

You are looking for quantifiability in a fucking hypothetical scenario. We both agreed that scenario doesn't reflect real averages, therefore it only and again ONLY represents the hypothetical scenario. Not real terms, but the Scenario.

No, it's not a false claim. There was an effect by having insurance. That's absolutely true. Whether they paid that or not is another point. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss the effect of having insurance because these people didn't pay.

Of course there was a fucking "effect" you idiot. Savings =|= effect. Do you know the fucking difference? No, because apparently you know jack-shit about insurance other than statistics grabbed from a link.

Again, this is either ignorance or dishonesty on your part. Take your pick. You are either lying or simply have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, you CAN call entirely imaginary "savings" real data, but that makes you what? A liar.

If you're seriously going to resort to this bullshit, then allow me to point out how you haven't shown the didn't pay the bill. Filing bankruptcy does not mean you don't pay the bills. When you file bankruptcy, your dept is restructured and/or your possessions are sold/auctioned to pay the bill.

That's entirely dependent on the bankruptcy as well as whethere any possessions exist to be resold that aren't exempted from repossession, and you know it.

Also remind me again who actually sells and auctions the items? If it's not the previous owner, then it's not theirs. google bankruptcy auction. Wow, court-approved government auctions. You don't have the option of keeping it. It's not yours, and stopped being yours once the government repossessed it.

The government is settling the debt, and the government sure isn't making a "savings" because they didn't buy the plan in the first place.

So you don't actually have any breakdown on that statistic to ensure that it reflects real 'savings". Again, take your fabricated "savings" and accept them for the lie they are. The link does NOT refer to them as savings. You do. You are trying to make them something they are not, and have completely failed to do so. That is your point, your burden of proof, and you have NOT proven it, because you can't even provide clear and concise data to objectively prove your claim. In short, it's just your bullshit until you actually prove it. You know, the same shit you keep pulling on me "u can't prove it, therefore it's not true".

You haven't proven shit, so stop trying to pass it off "savings" as truth.

So either prove that they didn't pay the bill, or kindly admit that you cannot and stop with the petty bullshit. The bill was 40% lower. That's an effect. No amount of desperate dancing-around is going to change that.

In short, the government "paid" the bill and the government didn't save any fucking money because they didn't buy the plan in the first place. This is you tap-dancing around the truth in order to fabricate "savings" as real statistics. Something the link never claimed, something that is on you to prove.

Prove it or shut the hell up.

No, the context wasn't obvious... because why the fuck would I consider that 30k for anything when it's a figure that comes from a made-up hypothetical scenario that doesn't represent the national average?

At no point did I say the 30k was the actual coverage to be expected, so your implication that I was saying the coverage would be triple is a complete and utter fabrication on your part. It made no fucking sense.

And yet you seem to think you can fabricate "true" figures for this hypothetical scenario by assuming averages in surgical procedure coverage that do not exist. According to you, surgical procedures were not included, therefore the figure was low-ball. Even IF they were included, they would not necessarily be covered and therefore the coverage would not be any greater and therefore your conclusion is bullshit.

Coverage is how much they pay. That's independent of how much you've paid into the plan.

Not shit coverage is what they pay and not it absolutely is NOT independent of what you paid in when determining value.

P = Paid in C = Coverage V = Value X = undefined far greater factor
P > C = Your investment has paid less than you paid in and has no value.
P = C = Your investment has paid exactly what you paid in and has had the sole effect of acting like a bank without interest.
P < C = Your investment has paid more than what you paid in and therefore you have received value beyond piggy banking.
P < C * X = Your investment has paid far more than what you paid in and therefore you have a "substantial" value.

Again, we've agreed that it can be considered substantial in this hypothetical scenario.

If person A has been on the plan for years and has paid a lot, and person B is new to the plan and has paid nothing, the same amount of the bill is covered if they get into an accident (assuming the same injuries/hospitals/procedures/etc. of course).

Completely WRONG. A person who pays in nothing (person B) gets ZERO coverage.
NOTHING. NIL. NADA. Insurance DOES NOT WORK THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED. You WILL pay a premium (cost of the plan) before it gives you any coverage. There will also usually be a deductible. Get it? No pay, no play. If the average cost of the premium is 7K, you will pay the 7K before you get any coverage. Non-negotiable. Coverage is bought and paid for.

You don't get something for nothing in insurance unless you're on Medicaid special programs, in which case the whole argument becomes another issue.

Yes they are. The coverage is what portion of the bill they pay for. The amount you paid into doesn't come in to the equation of what's the plan's coverage. That's a separate issue.

Given your astounding lack of understanding of how insurance works, I'm not going to dignify that with further response. I covered the earlier point, and this is built on your ridiculous notion that someone who has paid in nothing gets coverage. That's fucking IDIOCY.

When you buy insurance you are getting a safety-net. Like a helmet.

And like a safety-net or helmet, it's only good as far as that coverage
stretches. That is what the coverage is worth. The safety it provides you. It's nothing more than a glorified piggy bank (no interest) if it doesn't pay out more than you paid in

By your logic, we can't determine how much money someone saved on hospital bills by wearing a helmet (vs not wearing one), if we don't know the costs of the helmet. Yes we can. We're talking about the amount of the bill; not the worthiness of the investment (which is subjective).

Do you not understand the fact that an insurance plan isn't giving you any more coverage than you paid in? Unless coverage takes it BEYOND what you paid in, it's piggy banking. Value. Piggy banks have value, though a bank account with interest has more. Insurance plans have value beyond piggy banking if they provide more coverage than you pay in. So yeah, there's "value".

Subjective, certainly, but those transplant patients will never argue.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

The exact quote from myself on this subject, the one that you cleverly rewrote and attributed to me is this

No, actually, that's not the quote. I don't even know how you're pretending to know what quote I referred to unless you're now suggesting you have some sort of psychic powers I'm not aware of. I know the quote. You don't. This is what I'm referring to:

"You claimed the cost was substantial, that my 30K figure was lowballing the average."


No, I never connected any 30k figure to any average; much less claim that it was lowballing the average.


You also said:
"If, on average, insurance companies cover such a substantial portion as to make my 30K figure look piddling, then by goodness, you're right, that's huge savings! The damn fools are handing out money left and right! Everybody, get a plan quick!"

And:
"If the cost/value is really as high as you make it out to be, then the value is nearly triple the cost," [which you came out and admitted was based on your accusation that I was using 30K as a real estimate in order for you to make up that bullshit about it being three times.]


I never said ANYTHING about 30k being a real estimate or representing the national average or the average savings. For you to argue that it would be ridiculous to expect companies to cover more than 30k or not, is your bullshit implication that I was arguing that. I was not. You made it up.

You are looking for quantifiability in a fucking hypothetical scenario. We both agreed that scenario doesn't reflect real averages, therefore it only and again ONLY represents the hypothetical scenario. Not real terms, but the Scenario.

No, I'm not. I'm looking for quantifiability in real-life. The discussion moved away from that hypothetical scenario the moment you conceded that 30k out of 200k in that scenario was substantial. After that I asked you to quantify how substantial it would be in general.

Of course there was a fucking "effect" you idiot. Savings =|= effect. Do you know the fucking difference? No, because apparently you know jack-shit about insurance other than statistics grabbed from a link.

So then my point is made! All this time it was you quibbling over the word "savings"? Seriously? That was your argument? That I should have used the word "effect" (or something like that) instead of "savings" because even though the bill was 40% less, they didn't pay it?

That's entirely dependent on the bankruptcy as well as whethere any possessions exist to be resold that aren't exempted from repossession, and you know it.

Yeah, and since you haven't established what kind of bankruptcy occurred... you can't say they didn't pay it. Thank you. My point is made. I didn't want to make that point, but since you're so fucking petty that you're quibbling over the use of "savings" then I'm following your lead. Now either prove they didn't pay or or admit that you cannot. Or preferably, drop this whole petty bullshit and admit that "the effect" (god forbid I use the word savings!) doesn't help your case because it shows that those with a insurance at some point had an average bill that was 40% less (note how I didn't use the word savings!) regardless of whether they ended up paying that bill or not.

And by the way, the fact that the government auctions their property doesn't mean it's not a savings. If the bill is less, then less property has to be taken from them. That's a savings. They save value either way.

And yet you seem to think you can fabricate "true" figures for this hypothetical scenario by assuming averages in surgical procedure coverage that do not exist. According to you, surgical procedures were not included, therefore the figure was low-ball. Even IF they were included, they would not necessarily be covered and therefore the coverage would not be any greater and therefore your conclusion is bullshit.

So in other words you can't justify your complete and utter fabrication, so you're changing the discussion to something else I supposedly did? Thank you.

Now, on to your new point... Yes, my conclusion that the figure in your scenario was a lower-bound assumes that the surgical coverage would not be zero (i.e. that at least some of the surgical procedures done would be covered). Yes. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption given the plan covers surgical procedures. Unless you were to choose a set of procedures where absolutely none of them happened to be covered and tried to pass that off as a good scenario, then my point is made.

If you want to do that (i.e. deliberately choose a set of procedures for your hypothetical scenario that aren't covered), then fine. I have no problem accepting that if you deliberately choose a set of procedures for your hypothetical scenario that aren't covered, then 30k would be the bill in that scenario, and not a lower estimate. What an amazing point you have made. Congrats.

Not shit coverage is what they pay and not it absolutely is NOT independent of what you paid in when determining value.

Yes it is. At no point in time does C change based on P. What changes is "V", the value, which I didn't say was independent of P or C. I acknowledge the final value depends on how much you paid. I said the coverage does not. That's a fact that your own equations show.

We're interested in quantifying the COVERAGE, not the VALUE. Value is a much more complicated manner since it depends on a bunch of different variables; even subjective matters like how much you value your health/life which would change from person to person.

Completely WRONG. A person who pays in nothing (person B) gets ZERO coverage.
NOTHING. NIL. NADA. Insurance DOES NOT WORK THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED. You WILL pay a premium (cost of the plan) before it gives you any coverage. There will also usually be a deductible. Get it? No pay, no play. If the average cost of the premium is 7K, you will pay the 7K before you get any coverage. Non-negotiable. Coverage is bought and paid for.

Yeah, congrats on missing the point. When I said he had paid nothing, I meant no monthly premiums. That's why he was knew. Of course, you can be an even greater pedant and say that he had to pay the first month at the very start... But that's not the fucking point. The point is it the coverage was the same.

If Person A has been in the plan for 20 years, and person B has only been in the plan for 1 year (thus paying significantly less in terms of the monthly premiums), and then get in the exact same accident with the exact same injuries and go to the exact same doctor, and get the exact same bill, and pay the exact same co-pays, premiums, and fees... the coverage is the same even though one had been paying 20 years worth of monthly premiums and the other had not.

We are interested in that coverage; not in the "value" they give the insurance. You said the COVERAGE would not be substantial. That's the whole discussion. How substantial the COVERAGE would be.

[Iehovah]

You know, I've actually enjoyed taking part in this argument, because it's allowed me to discuss, in-depth, issues inherent to insurance plans and coverage. The problem is that the argument is completely one-sided. I'm just talking to myself, because you can't even construct a coherent case.

Some people like to believe that a person with zero knowledge of a subject can argue intelligently on that subject simply by resorting to statistics and google-divined facts, ultimately substituting factoids gleaned from point-by-point arguments for real knowledge of the subject. I know that you've done it in the past, but you seem to have a real talent for presenting your ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) in a fashion that makes it appear insightful instead.

You have proven that idea completely false. At every other turn in this argument you have made completely false statements, undermined yourself, and contradicted yourself. I want to call you stupid, as I've done repeatedly in this conversation, but when I sit back and think about it, it comes down to the fact that it's really just ignorance and your unwillingness to accept that your horrifically bad understanding of insurance does not constitute real knowledge. You're terribly dishonest about that, never once acknowledging false statements you've made, simply backtracking and claiming the point didn't really matter. Or that I missed it altogether.

What it comes down to is this: You think that me "missing the point" justifies you making false statements that show an insane lack of knowledge of the subject you're trying to debate. That is false. You have completely failed at this argument, and this statement proves it:

"If person A has been on the plan for years and has paid a lot, and person B is new to the plan and has paid nothing, the same amount of the bill is covered if they get into an accident (assuming the same injuries/hospitals/procedures/etc. of course)."



This is so incredibly wrong as to suggest you don't actually know ANYTHING about insurance. In making this statement, you aren't even arguing anymore, you're just tossing out bullshit. You then go on to correct yourself with this statement:

"When I said he had paid nothing, I meant no monthly premiums. That's why he was knew."



Of course that's what you said. And it's wrong. The sad thing is, you don't even know why that's wrong and instead resort to calling me a pedant to cover your ignorance.

I'm not a professor. While I may know the fundamentals of insurance, billing, and coding, I cannot correct your ignorance, and because of that, you cannot construct an intelligent argument on this subject.

Sure, Rust: The world was created 6000 years ago, and people get the same coverage without paying in as someone who has paid in.

Unacceptable.

I will not be arguing these points any further with you.

I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this, of course. You'll pick out one or two of the things I've said, say you're not replying to the rest, and continue arguing endlessly, or you'll congratulate yourself on sending me packing after exposing my "lies". That's okay by me, because you clearly don't know enough about insurance to recognize the difference between a lie and the truth, and despite dealing with you in good faith, you've shown none of your own. I don't expect that behavior to change from you.

[Rust]

Of course that's what you said. And it's wrong. The sad thing is, you don't even know why that's wrong and instead resort to calling me a pedant to cover your ignorance.
...
Sure, Rust: The world was created 6000 years ago, and people get the same coverage without paying in as someone who has paid in.

My analogy/scenario may not be perfect. I have no problem admitting that. I do have a problem with your implication that it's so wrong that my point isn't made. That's just not true.

The point, which you didn't address before and didn't address there either, is that the coverage is the same. The insurance covers the same portion of the bill. Their value (i.e. how good that investment in insurance was) may be different, but the coverage is the same.

Whether someone who hasn't "paid in" is not covered the same as someone who has is just a detail that misses the point. In fact, I went ahead and modified the scenario so they both had paid in (to avoid this very bullshit); yet there you are misrepresenting it.

If you want to consider me stupid or ignorant because I didn't get a scenario perfect, go right ahead. This was one point in a long list of points you weren't able to answer which is why you avoided all of them and concentrated on nit-picking this one. At the end of the day, the fact is that you couldn't get any statistic to support your allegations, and the one you did provided didn't help your case.

[LSA King]

This is all I think about when I hear Obama lovers after the Supreme Court made it law.

Steve Ballmer going crazy - YouTube

Steve Ballmer going crazy - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

My analogy/scenario may not be perfect. I have no problem admitting that. I do have a problem with your implication that it's so wrong that my point isn't made. That's just not true.

I don't care whether you feel it makes your point or not. Your statement was so ignorant, so insanely wrong that I completely rejected any further argument from yourself on the subject. You are not even willing to acknowledge that the statement was completely wrong, instead going on to rationalize it, and then when I call you out on it, fall back on whining about how you crafted a new scenario.

I could note your hypocrisy here, but let's stick to the most important issue at hand:

You are not competent to argue on this subject.

You do not recognize when you are completely, entirely, totally in the wrong, instead dismissing your failure to create a scenario as "imperfect" (rather than flagrantly, laws-of-reality-bending WRONG). Seriously, we can argue about subjective shit all day, but THIS is an objective point. I will not accept your cheap rationalizations here. Your inability to recognize this shows complete ignorance of the subject you're arguing.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance. I am ignorant of rocket science, Buddhism, quantum physics, and other subjects, but unlike you, I will not sit here and argue points on those subjects that I am not qualified to make. I don't expect you to do the same. You're Rust, and like your namesake, you don't go away until someone removes you.

You see fit to call me out on my scenarios, I will damn well do the same to you on yours. The difference between this is that I am qualified to distinguish and acknowledge the difference between subjective and objective. You clearly are not, possessing so little competence in the subject that you will sit here and endlessly rationalize a completely ridiculous claim that you'd never make in the first place if you had any idea what you were talking about. The rationalizations tell me that you still have no idea.

Oh, and your modification?

"If Person A has been in the plan for 20 years, and person B has only been in the plan for 1 year (thus paying significantly less in terms of the monthly premiums), and then get in the exact same accident with the exact same injuries and go to the exact same doctor, and get the exact same bill, and pay the exact same co-pays, premiums, and fees... the coverage is the same even though one had been paying 20 years worth of monthly premiums and the other had not."



Still wrong, objectively, demonstrably, provably so. There are certain parts of it that are right, but it's that house of cards on a pile of manure. It stinks, and it falls apart.

You'll note that I'm not arguing points with you. I'm telling you how it is. You don't know what you're talking about, and because you'll never accept that or educate yourself, I'm not going to bother anymore.

In case you missed it, same conclusion as earlier:
You are not competent to argue the points in this discussion. You do not even understand the issues you are arguing.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

...
I don't care whether you feel it makes your point or not. Your statement was so ignorant, so insanely wrong that I completely rejected any further argument from yourself on the subject. You are not even willing to acknowledge that the statement was completely wrong, instead going on to rationalize it, and then when I call you out on it, fall back on whining about how you crafted a new scenario.
...

Except the only way you've managed to show that it was wrong is in a trivial way that doesn't change the point. If that awful point is what you've been reduced to clinging to, then you can have it: Yes, when I first made the scenario, it was a mistake to imply that one of the persons had paid absolutely nothing. If they paid absolutely nothing they would get no coverage.

Congratulations. My actual point, that the coverage would be the same despite two people having paid a different amount overall, still stands.


Again: If you want to consider me stupid or ignorant because I didn't get a scenario perfect, go right ahead. This was one point in a long list of points you weren't able to answer which is why you avoided all of them and concentrated on nit-picking this one. At the end of the day, the fact is that you couldn't get any statistic to support your allegations, and the one you did provided didn't help your case. That's not going to change regardless of how much you nitpick a trivial point in the overall discussion.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by Rust

Congratulations. My actual point, that the coverage would be the same despite two people having paid a different amount overall, still stands.

I haven't been keeping up on your little debate... but isn't that the definition of insurance? Isn't Obamacare just artificially cheap, affordable insurance? You pay until you need it. Right?

>I don't understand Obamacare or insurance.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Pee Vee Proots, M.D.

I haven't been keeping up on your little debate... but isn't that the definition of insurance? Isn't Obamacare just artificially cheap, affordable insurance? You pay until you need it. Right?

>I don't understand Obamacare or insurance.

Obamacare is a bunch of different things; but among that is a mandate that people get insurance. If you can't afford it, then the government assists you.

As for what I said being the definition of insurance; not sure what you mean by that, but what I was saying is that coverage doesn't really depend on the amount people have paid in. Iehovah was saying that if someone doesn't pay anything at all, that they wont get coverage; which may be true but really misses the point.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

Except the only way you've managed to show that it was wrong is in a trivial way that doesn't change the point.

Rust, I told you - I'm not arguing. I didn't show that it was wrong. Not even in a trivial way. I'm not going to do that. It's wrong and because you don't understand how or why it's wrong, you don't understand that you've failed to register a meaningful argument. That's right, a meaningful argument. It's like arguing that water conducts wood. Because your statement is so terribly wrong, because your arguments are built on that flawed understanding, you've concocted a point that makes no sense. It's incoherent. That's all. You are wrong - a statement of objective fact, one that requires no explanation on my part. Accept or not, that is reality.

You basically don't know what the fuck you're talking about and it shows through the statements you're making.

I'm not nitpicking, because ignorance is not a minor point. Ignorance means something. It means you are simply throwing talking points that you have no knowledge of around. Treat your ignorance of the subject of health insurance as a casual or trivial thing in an argument that is based entirely on health insurance and I'm going to laugh at you.

Note: I'm not calling you ignorant because of your scenario failing, I'm calling you ignorant because of the complete lack of knowledge of health insurance that you've repeatedly demonstrated in both your original claim and the modification.

You are little more than a Christian making assertions based on your God-blinkered ignorance of the world around you. Underlining points that you feel you've successfully made won't change that, because I'm not going to go over it with you. Underline, bold, italicize, what the fuck ever. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you're not going to get the argument that you want. Asserting that there is a God isn't going to make me argue any further with you on it.

I'm beating you over the head with your ignorance of health insurance in hopes that you'll actually learn something about why ignorance matters and why you should make the effort to change it. This problem isn't just you, and it's embarrassingly rampant. It's like listening to a Republican prattle about death panels. Any small points you might score are overshadowed by ignorance and nonsensical statements.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Rust, I told you - I'm not arguing. I didn't show that it was wrong. Not even in a trivial way. I'm not going to do that. It's wrong and because you don't understand how or why it's wrong, you don't understand that you've failed to register a meaningful argument. That's right, a meaningful argument. It's like arguing that water conducts wood. Because your statement is so terribly wrong, you've built a point that makes no sense. It's incoherent. That's all. You are wrong - a statement of objective fact, one that requires no explanation on my part. Accept or not, that is reality.

Yeah, I don't care about your rationalizations. I didn't ask for your excuses and I'm not interested. You're free to convince yourself that your inability to deal with actual point (i.e. not your pedantic nit-picking) is justified. I'm just stating a fact: You haven't shown how the fundamental point of my scenario is wrong.

You pedantically stuck to a trivial point and ignored the main point that I was making with my scenario because all your other points had failed. At the end of the day, the fact is that you couldn't get any statistic to support your allegations, and the one you did provided didn't help your case. That's not going to change regardless of how much you nitpick a trivial point in the overall discussion. To summarize:

1. You conceded that 30k out of 200k in your own hypothetical scenario was substantial.

2. You failed to prove that the majority of codes weren't covered, much less that these represented the majority of the bill in the average case.

3. You failed to show how the coverage would not be substantial in real-life.

4. The only statistic you provided ended up showing that families with medical bills that led to bankruptcy ended up with bills that were 40% less (almost three times the 15% you said was substantial in your hypothetical scenario) if they had insurance at some point.

Those are the brunt of the discussion we had, and you failed miserably at each and every one of them.

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by Rust

Obamacare is a bunch of different things; but among that is a mandate that people get insurance. If you can't afford it, then the government assists you.

As for what I said being the definition of insurance; not sure what you mean by that, but what I was saying is that coverage doesn't really depend on the amount people have paid in. Iehovah was saying that if someone doesn't pay anything at all, that they wont get coverage; which may be true but really misses the point.

Like I said, I know fuck all about insurance but uhh... "coverage doesn't really depend on the amount people have paid in" - it never does, does it? Your coverage depends on the premium you pay, not how long you've been paying it. Two people paying the same premium always get the same coverage, no matter how long they've been paying it. Right? Like... that's insurance as I understand it.

Maybe I should be asking Iehova... don't mind me anyway, I'm a boob.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

Continued arguing

Given that you're now stooping to outright lying, I'm going to correct you on the point you lied about:

I did finally provided a link that showed what codes were covered, finally, objectively, and provably showing that the majority of the codes were not covered. It is a lie on your part to assert it was not.

I know you're intellectually dishonest with yourself, continuing to argue these points in order to convince yourself that you not knowing anything about what you're fucking talking about is somehow a rationalization or cheap excuse on my part, but that's just you. Your failure, not mine.

My argument is done because you are not competent. This is not a cheap excuse, and I really don't care whether you feel you won the argument or not.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Given that you're now stooping to outright lying, I'm going to correct you on the point you lied about:

I did finally provided a link that showed what codes were covered, finally, objectively, and provably showing that the majority of the codes were not covered. It is a lie on your part to assert it was not.

Yeah that's a bold-face lie. You did nothing of the sort. You provided a list of revenue codes which are not the same as CPT codes you were talking about, and passed them off as CPT codes or "correlating with CPT codes":

"Still, it seems that of all these asshole BCBS plans, at least Kansas provides something like customer service, even though the link is buried in a stack of online manuals:
http://www.bcbsks.com/customerservic...ode_manual.pdf
There's a list of approximately (+/-20) 450 CPT codes on that list of payable revenue codes. Hint: Those codes correlate to what you'll find in a BCBS plan."


Moreover, as usual, you ignore the main point: the issue is not the proportion of codes covered but whether those codes actually end up meaning less/more than half of the average bill. Like I repeatedly told you, it doesn't matter if they only cover a fraction, if the fraction they cover is frequent enough to be substantial or more than half the bill.

I'm not letting you misrepresent what happened. What happened is you failed at the main points in this discussion, and the only thing you could do is cling to small issues (like arguing about my usage of the words "savings" ) instead of dealing with the main point.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah that's a bold-face lie. You did nothing of the sort. You provided a list of revenue codes which are not the same as CPT codes you were talking about, and passed them off as CPT codes or "correlating with CPT codes"

Demonstrably, provably wrong. You obviously didn't even scan the entire link, and don't know what revenue codes and cpt codes are, or how they work together. Your inability to understand what is present in the 250-page manual (did you even let the whole thing load, or did you just look at revenue codes?) does not mean the information is not present.

Again, that's your ignorance talking.

In short, you said:
"You failed to prove that the majority of codes weren't covered, much less that these represented the majority of the bill in the average case."

This is a lie.

End of story. Further arguing on your part just proves that you're trying to conceal your lies with argument and build cases on points that are completely untrue.

No surprise there, you've already tried to conceal your ignorance with the same repetitive arguments.

Save some face, Rust. Stop embarrassing yourself by making claims that can be proven false by any MIS-101 student.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Demonstrably, provably wrong. You obviously didn't even scan the entire link, and don't know what revenue codes and cpt codes are, or how they work together. Your inability to understand what is present in the 250-page manual (did you even let the whole thing load, or did you just look at revenue codes?) does not mean the information is not present.

Revenue codes are not CPT codes. That's an absolute fact. You want to make the argument that they correlate, and yes they do, but giving a list of revenue codes does not mean you've given an accurate assessment of how much CPT codes are covered. A single revenue code can represent multiple different CPT codes.

So again: You failed to prove that the majority of codes weren't covered, much less that these represented the majority of the bill in the average case. You provided a list of revenue codes.


All this supposed knowledge you have has yet to help you in this discussion. You didn't even know that the plan you linked to covered surgical procedures, and now you can't even accept the fact that revenue codes aren't the same as CPT codes.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

[b]Revenue codes are not CPT codes.

Of course a revenue code is not a CPT code, you ignorant tool.

Again, you're lying, as evidenced beginning page 220. The information is clearly noted, with absolute reams and reams of pages giving you just the information I'm talking about. Yes, there are revenue codes present much earlier on... and there are covered BCBS CPT codes beginning page 220. Your inability to recognize those 5-digit CPT codes are where your ignorance is stemming from.

In short, you lied.

The information exists and you will continue ignoring it because not only are you ignorant, but you are a liar as well, one who cannot accept being wrong. Every bit of proof that you are wrong will be ignored or back-tracked on. You''ll claim that's not what the point was really about, and make cheap rationalization for stupid claims and outright lies throughout.

Stop embarrassing yourself, man. You've become a parody.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Of course a revenue code is not a CPT code, you ignorant tool.

Says the moron who claims he proved the number of CPT codes covered... by providing a manual on revenue codes.

Again, you're lying, as evidenced beginning page 220. The information is clearly noted, with absolute reams and reams of pages giving you just the information I'm talking about. Yes, there are revenue codes present much earlier on... and there are covered BCBS CPT codes beginning page 220. Your inability to recognize those 5-digit CPT codes are where your ignorance is stemming from.

No shit Sherlock, except those don't represent the totality of the CPT codes covered. Pages 220+ onward (actually, 233 onward) represent add-on codes, which are NOT the same thing as all the CPT codes covered.

Now either show me where the fuck in this manual of revenue codes does it say that it lists all CPT codes covered by the plan, or kindly admit that you cannot and shut the fuck up.

Your argument might be a little more convincing had you not already stated that you were providing codes that correlated with what is covered in the plan, instead of actually demonstrating what was covered. Again, for all your supposed knowledge on this area, you sure are making a fool out of yourself.


--

And again, this is ignoring the fact that you're focusing on an issue that misses the point, like usual. I repeatedly told you the important fact is to establish how much of the bill those codes represent; covering a minority of the codes may still represent a majority of the bill.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

ya yak yak

You're reading snippets of text and trying to formulate an understanding based on those snippets. That's why you don't even get that you're wrong. You're an idiot who thinks he has an in-depth understanding of reimbursement based solely on a few pieces of text.

You are wrong, end of story. Stop pretending you know what you're reading, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't and are making wilder and wilder claims, tossing in a few snippets of obvious truth, in order to back the blatantly false statements.

Admit you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Admit that you stopped at the first page mentioned in order to avoid the larger list of CPT codes below it in the document.
Admit that you completely ignored the other indices.
Admit that you ignored the rest of the codes after the "add-ons"

You'd have been fine if you'd left this be with being called ignorant and told I wasn't going to argue points with you. Instead, you have to go and show yourself to be a liar over and over again.

Admit that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Admit that you have so little understanding of health insurance that you can make the claim that a person has paid nothing in and can still receive coverage.

For fuck's sake, learn to admit when you're completely wrong, you fucking Christ-wannabe.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

You're reading snippets of text and trying to formulate an understanding based on those snippets. That's why you don't even get that you're wrong. You're an idiot who thinks he has an in-depth understanding of reimbursement based solely on a few pieces of text.

So you can't actually show how the manual on revenue codes shows what codes are covered by the plan? That's what I thought.

You provided a manual on the revenue codes for BCBS. That does not list all CPT codes. Pretending it does is absolutely retarded. That's why you had to claim that you provided something that correlated with the CPT covered by the plans. The large list in appendix B are the very add-on codes I was referring to, which do not represent all CPT codes covered.

Now either show me where the fuck in this manual of revenue codes does it say that it lists all CPT codes covered by the plan, or kindly admit that you cannot and shut the fuck up.

P.S.
What rest of the codes after the add-ons? The only section after Appendix B (i.e. add-on codes) is "Appendix C: Wound Care" and that contains a whopping dozen or so codes.

Face it, you're full of shit. You tried calling me out and it backfired.

P.P.S.

And by the way, you moron, a revenue code manual applies to all plans, not a particular plan. It's not supposed to detail what is covered by a particular plan. It's there to allow hospitals to know what billing code to use when charging procedures to the insurance company.

[Iehovah]

It occurs to me that you'll never be convinced, even if I post a line-by-line breakdown of the information present and the pages where it exists. That's cool. The information is there for everyone to see, even if YOU don't want to acknowledge it Rust. That means that anyone with a marginal interest in this conversation can look at that link and see that you are lying.

For the benefit of those readers, a revenue code is typically a 3-digit numerical code, often accompanied by an x. HCPCs (a variant form of CPT code used for drugs, DME and services) are 5-digit alphanumeric codes. "Add-on codes" are a means of identifying certain CPT codes. CPT codes are 5-digit numeric codes.

It is a 250+ page manual and there is all sorts of information in there. The covered codes that he refuses to acknowledge are listed on the aforementioned pages and beyond.

That said, Rust, when you are ready to admit your failures, you are ready to converse like an adult. In the meantime, go say hi to SWF for me.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

It is a 250+ page manual and there is all sorts of information in there. The covered codes that he refuses to acknowledge are listed on the aforementioned pages and beyond..

Refuse to acknowledge? I already acknowledged them you liar. I told you those are add-on codes, not all the CPT codes covered. To that, you had no response except to allude to some magical list after the add-on codes... which is just a Appendix C: Wound Care, which lists a whopping dozen or so codes.

Originally Posted by Iehovah

"Add-on codes" are a means of identifying certain CPT codes. CPT codes are 5-digit numeric codes.

Exactly. Certain CPT codes. Certain ones. Not all of them. In particular, add-on codes are those CPT codes that represent things that are done in addition to the primary procedure/service. Hence they are "added-on". You made my point for me. That lists add-on codes, not all CPT codes.

--

And by the way, a revenue code manual applies to all plans, not a particular plan. It's not supposed to detail what is covered by a particular plan. It's there to allow hospitals to know what billing code to use when charging procedures to the insurance company. Which goes to show how incredibly useless all your supposed knowledge on this area has been, that you can't even get that straight.

[The Pat-Man]

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

And by the way, a revenue code manual applies to all plans, not a particular plan. It's not supposed to detail what is covered by a particular plan. It's there to allow hospitals to know what billing code to use when charging procedures to the insurance company. Which goes to show how incredibly useless all your supposed knowledge on this area has been, that you can't even get that straight.

Tsk tsk, Rusty. Relying on snippets of data again.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to learn a language you don't understand from scratch, but only learn from it what you want to know and not the actual facts. That's okay. I understand you will say whatever you need to to convince others that you're not simply lying out your ass.

You're a liar, plain and simple, and now that you realize that the information is there for everyone else to see, you're going to claim the link is invalid and make further unsupported and false claims to try and get away with it.

The lies are tripping you up, Rusty. Demonstrably false statements and outright lies. How does it feel knowing that you have to behave like a Christian in order to keep arguing? How does it feel to know that you have to become everything you hate in order to save any kind of face here. How does it feel knowing that you have absolutely nothing?

God is there for ya, little buddy, waiting alongside the Invisible Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such an asshole, but you deserve this. Your lies and dishonesty are coming on you full circle.

Proof is in the link folks, if you've kept up this far and want to read it.

[Rust]

Yeah, nobody is buying your bullshit. This is like the fifth time in a row you've avoided dealing with the facts because you can't refute them.

Either show how a revenue manual that's intended for hospitals to know which codes to use when billing the insurance company, would show how many CPT codes a specific plan would cover, or kindly admit that you cannot and shut the fuck up. Or you can pretend you're going to leave only to come back and try to save face once you realize your bullshit didn't work... like you did right there.


Again:

1. The revenue manual lists revenue codes to be used by the hospital when billing the insurance. It does not represent a break-down of the CPT codes covered by any particular insurance plan.

2. The CPT codes listes are simply a list of add-on codes that don't represent a list of all the CPT codes covered by a given plan.


Here's the manual:
http://www.bcbsks.com/customerservic...ode_manual.pdf

[CountBlah]

[Iehovah]

Rust, you have to remember that just because YOU said something doesn't make it true, and just because YOU said something, doesn't mean that a true thing that you said actually supports your point.

I mean jesus, this is laugh-worthy! You're fucking tearing yourself apart and not even realizing it!

Originally Posted by Rust

Either show how a revenue manual that's intended for hospitals to know which codes to use when billing the insurance company, would show how many CPT codes a specific plan would cover

Do you have any idea what you're writing and why it only continues to help prove you wrong rather than right? Revenue codes and cpt codes are a tool for hospitals to bill insurance companies for stuff that is covered. Understand that? It is considered fraud for a hospital to bill an insurance company for something that is not covered, and insurance companies will make sure that they do not pay for it if it isn't.

I'm fucking laughing because you're doing my work for me and don't even realize it. Your ignorance is killing you.

1. The revenue manual lists revenue codes to be used by the hospital when billing the insurance. It does not represent a break-down of the CPT codes covered by any particular insurance plan.

Yeah, the CPT codes are there "just cuz", like dinosaur bones. Keep it up, Pat Robertson.

You don't know what that means and why it sounds stupid for you to say that. I'm laughing because you're arguing my point for me and don't even realize it.

2. The CPT codes listes are simply a list of add-on codes that don't represent a list of all the CPT codes covered by a given plan.

You don't know what add-on code means in context of CPT, and are supporting my point for me. I'm laughing at you because of this too.

Here's the manual:
http://www.bcbsks.com/customerservic...ode_manual.pdf

Thanks! It's always nice to have a continuous link to proof of your lies handy.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Do you have any idea what you're writing and why it only continues to help prove you wrong rather than right? Revenue codes and cpt codes are a tool for hospitals to bill insurance companies for stuff that is covered. Understand that? It is considered fraud for a hospital to bill an insurance company for something that is not covered, and insurance companies will make sure that they do not pay for it if it isn't.

No shit Sherlock, way to miss the point. The point is that it's a manual to show which revenue codes to use, not a comprehensive list of the CPT codes covered by any particular plan. It's there to show what possible revenue codes they accept in general, not what CPT codes are covered. You alleged that you had proved the plan covered a minority of the codes. You didn't do that.


You provided a list of revenue codes and add-on codes. It doesn't say which CPTS codes are covered by which plan. Either show how a revenue manual that's intended for hospitals to know which codes to use when billing the insurance company, would show how many CPT codes a specific plan would cover, or kindly admit that you cannot and shut the fuck up.

Yeah, the CPT codes are there "just cuz", like dinosaur bones. Keep it up, Pat Robertson.

You don't know what that means and why it sounds stupid for you to say that. I'm laughing because you're arguing my point for me and don't even realize it.

Yeah, because that's what I said. Oh wait, not it isn't. They are there to tell hospitals what the add-on codes are for this particular insurance company. Again, that does not mean that the list shows a comprehensive list of the CPT covered by any particular plan.

You don't know what add-on code means in context of CPT, and are supporting my point for me. I'm laughing at you because of this too.

Yes I do, and I already explained what it means:

Exactly. Certain CPT codes. Certain ones. Not all of them. In particular, add-on codes are those CPT codes that represent things that are done in addition to the primary procedure/service..

The add-on codes specify which of the CPT codes would be considered "add-on" when billing the insurance company. It does not represent in any way a comprehensive list of all the CPT codes covered by a particular plan.

Thanks! It's always nice to have a continuous link to proof of your lies handy.

No, thank you. Because anyone can open it, see that the link is a manual for revenue codes, not CPT codes, to tell hospitals which revenue codes to use when billing the insurance company, and not a comprehensive list of CPT codes that are covered by any particular plan. You're not fooling anyone.

[Iehovah]

I'm not replying to all of that again because you're simply restating the same points over and over again in an attempt to convince yourself of something utterly untrue.

You've scanned the link and picked out pieces and are trying to represent the whole thing based on that.

Originally Posted by Rust

Exactly. Certain CPT codes. Certain ones. Not all of them. In particular, add-on codes are those CPT codes that represent things that are done in addition to the primary procedure/service..

Way to conveniently ignore every other CPT code listed in the 250 page manual and their purpose as well.

On a side note, do you understand:

"And by the way, a revenue code manual applies to all plans, not a particular plan."

That this isn't just a facepalmingly stupid lie, but the equivalent of sticking your arm in an incinerator and claiming that your arm wasn't just burned off, even though there's only a charred stump left?

Keep it up, Patty.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Way to conveniently ignore every other CPT code listed in the 250 page manual and their purpose as well.

Yes, because it's up to me to consider all the CPT codes listed in a 250 page manual. Are you even reading the utter nonsense that is coming out of your mouth? YOU provided that link. It's up to YOU to show what the codes are. The only thing you referred to with any specificity is Appendix B (which you so stupidly claimed started at page 220). That lists CPT add-on codes, not all CPT codes covered.

I'm not going to go through a 250 page document to find all CPT codes mentioned because you can't admit that what you provided is a a revenue code manual, and isn't there to show a comprehensive list of CPT codes covered by a particular plan. You're grasping at straws. The manual simply does not list what you claimed it did. It's not up to me to find random CPT codes scattered around the text because you don't want to admit that.

On a side note, do you understand:

"And by the way, a revenue code manual applies to all plans, not a particular plan."

That this isn't just a facepalmingly stupid lie, but the equivalent of sticking your arm in an incinerator and claiming that your arm wasn't just burned off, even though there's only a charred stump left?

Bullshit. Another lie. The manual lists the revenue codes they used internally, so that hospitals know what to use when billing the insurance company. It's not meant to show what is covered by a specific plan and what isn't. Just to explain how ridiculous your argument is...

This is tantamount to a car-dealership having a list of car-parts and their possible numbers, and publishing a manual that describes the numbering system they use.

By your logic, because you've provided that manual, you've magically shown which parts are covered by a specific warranty. That's retarded. You showed what the internal codes are. You haven't shown what a specific warranty covers. The warranty for my Honda Civic doesn't cover parts for a Ford Explorer, even though the manual may show part numbers for both.

[Iehovah]

By the way, Rusty. A question or three:

Do you feel that it's acceptable for you to repeatedly make factually inaccurate, objectively false and otherwise blatantly untrue claims to support your "points"?

Do you feel those "points" still stand even when the claims made to support them are demonstrably incorrect?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", you might as well go join one of the religious cults. If it's "no", then it's time for you to shut the fuck up.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

By the way, Rusty. A question or three:

Do you feel that it's acceptable for you to repeatedly make factually inaccurate, objectively false and otherwise blatantly untrue claims to support your "points"?

Do you feel those "points" still stand even when the claims made to support them are demonstrably incorrect?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", you might as well go join one of the religious cults. If it's "no", then it's time for you to shut the fuck up.

Do you? Because those questions apply perfectly well to you. You're the one who insisted the medical plan didn't cover surgical procedures even though it did. You're the one who insisted I claimed 30k was a national average, even though I didn't. You're the one who insisted that we couldn't get information on savings from your CNN source, even though we could, and who then claimed the people didn't ended up paying the bill even though you had no fucking clue if that's the case. And now you're the one who has insisted that you've proved a particular plan covers a minority of CPT codes by providing a link to a revenue code manual.

Follow your own advice. Shut the fuck up. The only problems in my point have been trivial bullshit you decided to nit-pick. Like my use of the word "savings" or how my scenario at first had one person paying nothing. Trivial things which I admitted were wrong, but didn't change the point I was making.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, because it's up to me to consider all the CPT codes listed in a 250 page manual. Are you even reading the utter nonsense that is coming out of your mouth? YOU provided that link. It's up to YOU to show what the codes are. The only thing you referred to with any specificity is Appendix B (which you so stupidly claimed started at page 220). That lists CPT add-on codes, not all CPT codes covered.

It's not my problem that you don't understand medical/billing and coding. It's really not. I don't have to teach you how it works. All I have to do is provide a link that proves my point, and if I'm feeling generous, show you where it does. You were given pointers. That's all you need.

I'm not going to be your instructor. That link proves what I am saying, and that's all I need. I don't have to prove the nature of medical codes and how they work to you. You are ignorant. That's fine. If you want to understand the proof, fix the ignorance. I'm not going to do it for your lazy ass.

In short, I don't have to prove billing and coding facts to you. That's like insisting Einstein (no, I'm not Einstein) prove relativity to you. You probably won't understand the proof, and if you're being Rust, you won't accept the proof.

Your problem. not mine.

Rust: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but as long as I keep talking, it'll provide a smoke screen."

On a side note, do you even understand what bcbsks means? This is a hint. Not a subtle one either.

Tell me something: If I give an insurance plan to an illiterate Mexican and the Mexican doesn't understand what's on the paper, does that invalidate the information on the paper?

Consider this Mexican an analogy to you. You don't understand the material. I don't have to prove it to you, Rustito. It is what it is, proof. You are what you are, a liar.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

The only problems in my point have been trivial bullshit you decided to nit-pick. Like my use of the word "savings" or how my scenario at first had one person paying nothing. Trivial things which I admitted were wrong, but didn't change the point I was making.

Your scenarios made to illustrate your points are trivial, but mine are not? Yeah, that's not hypocritical at all.

/sarcasm

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

It's not my problem that you don't understand medical/billing and coding. It's really not. I don't have to teach you how it works. All I have to do is provide a link that proves my point, and if I'm feeling generous, show you where it does. You were given pointers. That's all you need.

Except you didn't provide that link, as it was already explained to you. What you claimed to have proved was that the plan you had provided covered a minority of CPT codes. The link you actually provided showed the revenue codes used by the insurance company (which are not the same as CPT codes), and a list of add-on CPT codes that don't represent a comprehensive list of CPT codes, much less a comprehensive list of CPT codes covered by a specific plan.

The only reason you want your burden of proof to end at "posting a link" is because you know full well the link doesn't prove what you claim it does, and now that you've gotten too deep you'd look even more retarded than you already do for admitting that you're wrong.

On a side note, do you even understand what bcbsks means? This is a hint. Not a subtle one either.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas. An insurance provider with multiple insurance plans. My point exactly. The revenue manual you provided shows the revenue codes hospitals use when billing BCBSKS. It doesn't show which CPT codes are covered by a specific plan.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Your scenarios made to illustrate your points are trivial, but mine are not? Yeah, that's not hypocritical at all.

/sarcasm

I didn't say any scenarios were trivial. Pay attention. I said the bullshit you nit-picked was. Like clinging to my use of the word "savings". If you want to argue how that isn't trivial, go right ahead. It will be entertaining to see you justify how you wasted pages arguing that idiotic point of yours for absolutely no result.

Moreover, the only "scenario" you provided was the 30k out of 200k scenario, which I had no problem accepting.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by Rust

The only reason you want your burden of proof to end at "posting a link" is because you know full well the link doesn't prove what you claim it does,

No, Rusty, this is just you arguing every step of the way from the point that this conversation at. There was never any reasonable cause for you to believe that a basic insurance plan covered the majority of procedures, you're simply trying to undermine a point in order to give those plans greater value.

I provided proof, you nitpicked every step of the way, and now when faced with inarguable proof, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and go 'na na na' it's nooooooooot proof.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas. An insurance provider with multiple insurance plans. My point exactly. The revenue manual you provided shows the revenue codes hospitals use when billing BCBSKS. It doesn't show which CPT codes are covered by a specific plan.

Sup, Rustito? Passing off your smattering of Ingles as the real thing again?