Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, this is FEHB plan. That's Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. That's paid for by the taxpayers. This is the perfect example of government waste. Private insurers not contracted by the government to provide health benefits to federal employees would never allow this. Ever. I'm not sure your point other than to point out government excess and wasteful spending. Although, in your specific case, it does make sense to replace his aids.
Actually the plan is paid by the USPS, not the taxpayers, but anyway...
My father was a physician (retired last year). He owned his own business. He used to tell me ridiculous stories of insurance company incompetence and outright fraud. It cut both ways -- indefensible wastes and Draconian stinginess.
He got fed up and stopped accepting insurance.
I don't see much evidence that my insurer has cleaned up its act much, although our coverage is MORE than generous. Way more.
Okay...what do you want from me? The whole point I was trying to make was that insurance companies would rather spend a lot then spend a few bucks.
I could give you several instances of this and it didn't include the option of us shelling out a few bucks.
One....insurance paid for only the rental of an oxygen concentrator for several years, after which time it would become ours (at the enormously inflated price)
By that time the cost would be about 10 times what an outright purchase would be.
Ins co said that simply wasn't standard policy and maybe the fact that the rental company would be responsible for any failure, etc etc.
I told her the purchased one was guaranteed for 5 years and for the money saved, we could buy a brand new one every five years and still save (the company)thousands.
As a regular person she could see the point but company policy just didn't allow for it.
Multiply this times the other equipment that also was needed.
When we switched ins companies, they without, were going to start the rental process all over again....same old machine.
I did call the company, reminded them it was now our machine, and if they didn't change the billing to just a maintance service charge, we would switch companies.
It took a three way phone call to get it done, but it got done.
Yes....we could have just let it happen since the ins co didn't seem to care. To me it was the principle of the thing.
I am sure many people are not even aware these things happen as long as it is no money out of their pocket but does show the kind of waste that helps increase premiums.
Gee..that was a long story
Why should a set of hearing aids consisting of a simple electronic amplifier cost $3,000? The electronics are far cheaper than that. There should be enough hearing disabled that mass production of the amplifiers for about $1 a piece should be possible.
Talk about ripping off the government and the consumer.
PS: Insurance companies make money off the amount processed. They make more off $3,000 hearing aids or O2 concentrators then they would if the items were sold without the markup. There is little difference between an insurance company and a casino except the casino has more competition and is more efficiently operated. The old time mob bosses didn't send their kids for MBA's for grins. Now they just sit back and watch the money roll in. We get to pay for it.
Why should a set of hearing aids consisting of a simple electronic amplifier cost $3,000? The electronics are far cheaper than that. There should be enough hearing disabled that mass production of the amplifiers for about $1 a piece should be possible.
I don't know about $1, but I agree in general. Decent in-ear-monitors can be had for $80, very good ones for $250, and absolutely world-class ones with the most insane levels of accurate detail reproduction for $800. I understand hearing aids also have microphones and receivers and a power source, but $3000 for mid-level is high.
I do some purchasing at my company, and we bought a $1500 42" TV a couple years ago, and purchase $80 phone and USB headsets that would be about $12 for a consumer to buy. Our "ergonomic" chairs are also $400 and not near as nice as any $120 special down at Staples. Totally unrelated to health insurance, but the bloated cost discussion can't help but remind me of these.
Why should a set of hearing aids consisting of a simple electronic amplifier cost $3,000? The electronics are far cheaper than that. There should be enough hearing disabled that mass production of the amplifiers for about $1 a piece should be possible.
Talk about ripping off the government and the consumer.
PS: Insurance companies make money off the amount processed. They make more off $3,000 hearing aids or O2 concentrators then they would if the items were sold without the markup. There is little difference between an insurance company and a casino except the casino has more competition and is more efficiently operated. The old time mob bosses didn't send their kids for MBA's for grins. Now they just sit back and watch the money roll in. We get to pay for it.
You shouldn't pass judgement on things you obviously know nothing about. It's unbecoming. Hearing aids don't consist of "simple amplifiers". It's far more advanced than that. These are computer programmable devices that are capable of decibel and frequency compression, have compression ratios capable of changing according to the input and frequency spectrum of the incoming sound based on the amplification needs of the individual, have noise cancellation capabilities with dual microphone technology, and advanced background noise filtration capabilities. There are only a handful of research audiologists doing research for a handful of hearing aid manufacturers worldwide. Do you have any clue the cost and time involved to run clinical trials and bring new research to market and gain FDA approval? Don't answer that, we know the answer.
Secondly, it's not the insurance company who profits off of hearing aid sales, it's the hearing aid manufacturer and the audiologist. Insurance companies are the ones who are paying for them (for the few plans that cover hearing aids), but they aren't the ones ordering them. There is approximately a 100% mark-up on hearing aids sold by audiologists. This goes to pay for the audiologist's time, education, and expertise, overhead, supplies, follow-up appointments, etc. Do you realize that you need a doctorate to become an audiologist? The hearing aid manufacturers use their profits to fund ongoing research and clinical trials. Hearing aid technology is constantly advancing thanks to these dedicated researchers, and the hearing aids of today are nothing like the hearing aids of just a decade ago.
I don't know about $1, but I agree in general. Decent in-ear-monitors can be had for $80, very good ones for $250, and absolutely world-class ones with the most insane levels of accurate detail reproduction for $800. I understand hearing aids also have microphones and receivers and a power source, but $3000 for mid-level is high.
If you're talking about a straight linear amplifier, sure, it can be bought very cheaply. Hearing aids very rarely are linear these days, nor do those in-ear-monitors take into account a person's actual loss. It's a straight amplifier, nothing more. Actually, $3000 for mid level is average to low for a decent pair of hearing aids. It's not just a matter of accurately reproducing the incoming sound at a louder level. That is grossly simplistic and doesn't accurately represent what hearing aids do.
Everyone should do whatever they can to actively resist the government by taking every red cent you possibly can from it.
Unless they are corporation or rich people right? So we should not see another post of yours that says anything about the evil rich and corporations right?
Why not just do the honorable thing and pay the $75 for what you actually need?
It's people like you that make the system what it is.
This and your other posts on the subject are absolute nonsense. So the honorable thing is for the OP to pay his insurance premiums and pay extra on top? Why pay insurance then? It isn't his fault that the insurance company are morons so why should he be penalized for having to pay $75 on top of his premiums?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
