Yearly Archives: 2016

I do not intend this to become an eye-health blog, but I do have to make another comment about health care costs.  As many of you know, I need periodic injections in my left eye to eliminate fluid that collects behind my retina.  I recently had to switch eye doctors and took this opportunity to select a (somewhat) closer facility.  For now, let’s call the facilities University Hospital A and University Hospital B.

I have met my health care deductible for this year, so I did not receive a bill from UHB after my recent visit there.  I did, however, get an Explanation of Benefits from my insurer, showing how much UHB charged them and what the “allowed” charges were.  It is the allowed charges that I would have been responsible for, had I not met my deductible.

So, here was the eye-opener.  I thought my original facility, UHA, was expensive, as the allowed charges per visit were $687 for the physician, $3,222 for the medicine (!) and $357 for the facility.  I compared these charges to those for my first visit at UHB: $781 for the physician (which includes a new patient charge), $5,039 for the medicine (!!) and $621 for the facility.  Overall, UHB would have cost me almost $2,200 more than UHA, mostly due to the pharmacy bill.  How can two hospitals charge my insurer such wildly different amounts for the same drug, and why does my insurance company agree to pay them that?

This is even more incentive for me to find a facility that can tell me upfront what it will  cost me for my exams and injections.  This should also be an incentive for all of us to vote for politicians who support fundamental changes to address health care and drug costs.  Single payer anyone?  I’m for it.

Read 2 comments and add yours | Read other posts in News and Comment

vigaHey barkeep.  Gimme another shot of ol’ Red-Eye.  Or better yet, why don’t you just put that bottle right down here in front of me.  Yeh, that’s right, I’m good for it.  Just got back from the mine, struck it rich.  It’s what, 15o dollars?  Hey, whatever you say, you’re the man behind the bar.

Yeh, I have to put a drop of this ol’ Red-Eye in my eye three times a day.  This is the elixir Doc Smith told me to buy.  The blessed nectar of the farm-a-co-logical gods, or so he says.  Pretty damn tiny bottle though.  If I reckon right, this bottle is like $1500 an ounce.  So it better be good.  I do need my shootin’ eye.

I may have to do some bounty-huntin’ to pay for this bottle, barkeep, but you know me… my credit’s always been good here right?  What’s your name again?  Lloyd, was it?

Read 2 comments and add yours | Read other posts in News and Comment
Monroe over South AmericaA few years shy of two centuries ago,
a slave-holding president named Monroe
declared that no other power shall interfere
in the affairs of states of this Hemisphere.

His doctrine was not then deemed imperious
as his powers to enforce it were hardly serious:
The Royal Navy held primacy over the seas,
invaded the Falklands, did what they pleased.

It seems Monroe’s words were meant to constrain
not so much Britain but, rather, France and Spain
in their quest to retain their colonies.  How ironic,
then, that the U.S. itself would grow Napoleonic.

Chileans and Argentines were rightly suspicious
of this “line in the sea” that was mostly fictitious.
And Dominicans felt the force of its text when
President Grant sought to use it to annex them.

The doctrine’s true gist would become well known
as Uncle Sam’s fist would land blow after blow on
unfriendly navies across faraway waters —
“Only in our sphere shall we not abide slaughter.”

Today, Monroe’s doctine of no interdiction
in American interests is in contradistinction
to how the U.S. conducts its own foreign policy,
adventurous wherever it damn well wants to be.

Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia,
Panama, Cuba, Chile and Grenada,
Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil,
involved in them all,
ignoring them still.

Doctrine indeed.

Read 2 comments and add yours | Read other posts in Creativity