Good news! Regence has evaluated R.'s
"special circumstances" and determined that they
were indeed special, and will pay what they are
required to pay. This is a good thing.
But I shouldn't have had to pursue this.
And why someone should be required to have
a referral for an emergency hospitalization
And consider the following:
The total bill (for 2 days) was $35k.
Because R. has insurance, the bill was knocked
down to $18k. Aha! A bonus from the generous
insurance industry and/or hospital!
Goodie! Woo Hoo! Feelin' lucky!
But my question is: what is the actual cost?
If R. wasn't insured, would his actual cost be $35k?
But because he is insured, it actually only cost $18k?
Huh? Is what I am buying when I buy insurance,
in effect, a discount program?
Don't get me wrong -- I don't object to paying for
insurance. I just want to get what I've paid for.
When I go into a deli and order and pay for a pound
of salami, I can reasonably expect a pound of salami
to be in my bag when I walk out of the store.
When I pay my monthly insurance premium
(waaaaaay more costly per pound than salami!),
I expect to get in return what I have purchased,
what the company very clearly presents in their
myriad graphs and charts.
I know, this is not a new argument. It's one we're all
sick to death of. I admit to having been in a bit of a
la-la state these past seven weeks, with no television
and no American news headlines glaring at me
everywhere I turn. So it's been somewhat of an adjustment
to come back home to the raging health-care debate
AND my own personal health insurance hell.
(And since R. is still recovering, and not working,
Mom is paying the bills.)
Paying for medical insurance is a little like buying
a lottery ticket -- if you're really lucky, you'll get
that million-dollar payout. If you're like the rest
of us Americans, you're going to have to make do
with that $2 return on your investment.