I've been suggested to go for lasik eye surgery. Do I get coverage for it? Will my health insurance cover it?
Total Comments: 17
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 05:42 am Post Subject:
In all likelihood, no....Lasik is an elective surgery, so unless you work for a union with pay-for-absolutely-everything benefits, probably not.
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:00 pm Post Subject:
Lasik is an elective surgery, so unless you work for a union with pay-for-absolutely-everything benefits, probably not.
I do agree that it's an elective surgery. But, I'm amazed to think of such benefits that pay for anything. Do such benefits really exist?
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 05:30 pm Post Subject:
Yes. But mostly to government employees (federal, state, county, city) and union employees of the largest unions (which often include state, county, and city workers) . . . and Members of Congress (past and present).
Outside of a few non-union employers in the software and high tech industires, people working in the REAL WORLD generally do not have such rich benefit plans. Never did, never will.
And if you think you have a pretty good plan today, kiss it goodbye on January 1, 2014, unless "reason and sound judgment" returns to Washington, DC long before then. Vegas is not taking any bets on that.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 06:23 am Post Subject:
Very few of the managed care plans (HMOs/PPOs) will be able to offer discounts on refractive surgeries through their network of doctors. One negative aspect of such offers is that the market rate is sometimes lower than the rate negotiated under such offers.
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 09:31 am Post Subject:
Cosmetic surgeries aren't generally covered by insurance carriers. There are quite a few insurance companies that offer a 10-15% discount towards lasik through certain centres.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 07:04 pm Post Subject:
There are quite a few insurance companies that offer a 10-15% discount
Or more. But I know of no individual plans that cover the cost itself. And there are almost none in the group sector that do. Medical insurance usually insists on the need for eye surgery as "medically necessary" and no other treatment alternative exists. Things such as torn retinas, cataracts, and other vision disablements that can be surgically corrected are generally covered conditions, and laser-assisted surgical procedures are frequently covered in full. Other eye conditions such as glaucoma and macular degeneration are covered to varying degrees from one contract to another.
Since eyeglasses and contact lenses are still available to correct distance vision ("refractive errors"), LASIK eye procedures are considered both elective and cosmetic, not medically-necessary. It's unlikely that they will ever become covered services, unless the price drops to something like $19.95 per eye on sale. But with a $30 copay, you'd only be saving $10.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 04:11 pm Post Subject:
dgoldenz is absolutely correct. In all likelihood, your insurer will not cover lasik eye surgery, an elective procedure. However, being a government employee or powerful union member is not the only way to get coverage for such a surgery. Health Savings Accounts, HSA's, allow you to use your account to pay for any medical procedure you choose.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 05:40 pm Post Subject:
Health Savings Accounts, HSA's, allow you to use your account to pay for any medical procedure you choose.
Not necessarily true.
But an HSA is really "self-insuring", except that the government allows pretax dollars to pay for procedures that would otherwise be paid for with mostly nondeductible dollars (due to the 7.5% of AGI test on Sch. A of the Federal 1040 return).
And, courtesy of Obamacare, the allowable contribution to HSAs is being reduced in order to raise tax revenue from those "wealthy" persons who can afford to contribute to an HSA.
So much for Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on persons earning less than $200,000. Taking away deductions = raising taxes (without explicitly saying, "We're raising taxes.").
Such a lack of integrity deserves no second term of office. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a reasonable replacement come forward from any party.[/quote]
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 09:15 am Post Subject:
And, courtesy of Obamacare, the allowable contribution to HSAs is being reduced in order to raise tax revenue from those "wealthy" persons who can afford to contribute to an HSA.
I don't see such things going well in the long run.
I've heard that there could be tax hikes worth $11 billion for HSA contributors by the next decade. I'm wondering if that's true.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 02:11 pm Post Subject:
tax hikes worth $11 billion for HSA contributors
Who knows how much it will be? The sad fact is that Obamacare will ultimately COST the American people trillions of dollars. By 2014, the allowable HSA contribution will be reduced by 50%, increasing annual taxes for those in the 39% tax bracket by just under $1000, and on the majority of taxpayers in the 27% tax bracket by almost $700.
According to AHIP, there were approximately 6 million taxpayers enrolled in HSAs by 2008. If that's all there are, and the annual tax increase for all was only $675, it would amount to over $4 BILLION PER YEAR in additional revenue. So over ten years the number is more like $40 BILLION than $11 BILLION.
The fallacy of the whole argument was that, "It will save billions of dollars." That's like the episode of I Love Lucy when Lucy tells Ricky that she saved money by buying the fur coat on sale. "But Ricky, I saved 50%!"
Maybe you DON'T PAY AS MUCH, but YOU'RE STILL PAYING, and paying more than you did before you even thought about spending the money.
But, according to the Congressional mindset (for which there is no analog in society), spending $1,000,000,000,000 to save $100,000,000,000 is economically sound. To me it still means $900,000,000,000 in more spending that has to be offset with (1) $900,000,000,000 in reduced spending or (2) $900,000,000,000 in more taxes.
Congress only knows how to bury us taxpayers under a deeper pile of "Number Two". (And it makes no difference if you're thinking about Democrats or Republicans, they're pretty much all the same.)
An article about HSAs on Wikipedia (not that everything there is 100% reliable) concludes that
Opponents of HSAs say they worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems because people who are healthy will leave insurance plans while people who have health problems will avoid HSAs. There is also debate about consumer satisfaction with these plans. Some opponents believe medical expenses should be tax deductible for all individuals, not only those who have a savings plan.
Well, with all due respect for the pig, that's pigheaded reasoning on both accounts. If I can "save" money by reducing my premiums for healthcare by putting money in an HSA and obtaining a high deductible health plan (HDHP), I am reducing the costs of the insurance company I once had HMO/PPO/Major Medical coverage from. I'm not doing it because I'm healthy or not, I'm doing it because it makes economic sense.
But if a politician thinks I'm doing it because I'm wealthy, then they see it as a "tax dodge" and take away my incentive/ability to save by increasing my taxes.
And to those who think healthcare expense are not tax deductible, they are mistaken. Expenses not covered by insurance ARE deductible . . . if they exceed 7.5% of AGI. That's the part that is impossible for most people, and it's the reason we CAN use pre-tax dollars to pay for our health insurance AND not pay tax on the healthcare benefits we receive.
If the federal government would JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and do what it was created to do: provide for the common defense (of 'we the People'), life would be simpler, less complex, and we would truly be the land of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . instead of the land of death and taxes and depression/recession.
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 05:42 am Post Subject:
In all likelihood, no....Lasik is an elective surgery, so unless you work for a union with pay-for-absolutely-everything benefits, probably not.
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:00 pm Post Subject:
Lasik is an elective surgery, so unless you work for a union with pay-for-absolutely-everything benefits, probably not.
I do agree that it's an elective surgery. But, I'm amazed to think of such benefits that pay for anything. Do such benefits really exist?
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 05:30 pm Post Subject:
Yes. But mostly to government employees (federal, state, county, city) and union employees of the largest unions (which often include state, county, and city workers) . . . and Members of Congress (past and present).
Outside of a few non-union employers in the software and high tech industires, people working in the REAL WORLD generally do not have such rich benefit plans. Never did, never will.
And if you think you have a pretty good plan today, kiss it goodbye on January 1, 2014, unless "reason and sound judgment" returns to Washington, DC long before then. Vegas is not taking any bets on that.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 06:23 am Post Subject:
Very few of the managed care plans (HMOs/PPOs) will be able to offer discounts on refractive surgeries through their network of doctors. One negative aspect of such offers is that the market rate is sometimes lower than the rate negotiated under such offers.
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 09:31 am Post Subject:
Cosmetic surgeries aren't generally covered by insurance carriers. There are quite a few insurance companies that offer a 10-15% discount towards lasik through certain centres.
Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 07:04 pm Post Subject:
There are quite a few insurance companies that offer a 10-15% discount
Or more. But I know of no individual plans that cover the cost itself. And there are almost none in the group sector that do. Medical insurance usually insists on the need for eye surgery as "medically necessary" and no other treatment alternative exists. Things such as torn retinas, cataracts, and other vision disablements that can be surgically corrected are generally covered conditions, and laser-assisted surgical procedures are frequently covered in full. Other eye conditions such as glaucoma and macular degeneration are covered to varying degrees from one contract to another.
Since eyeglasses and contact lenses are still available to correct distance vision ("refractive errors"), LASIK eye procedures are considered both elective and cosmetic, not medically-necessary. It's unlikely that they will ever become covered services, unless the price drops to something like $19.95 per eye on sale. But with a $30 copay, you'd only be saving $10.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 04:11 pm Post Subject:
dgoldenz is absolutely correct. In all likelihood, your insurer will not cover lasik eye surgery, an elective procedure. However, being a government employee or powerful union member is not the only way to get coverage for such a surgery. Health Savings Accounts, HSA's, allow you to use your account to pay for any medical procedure you choose.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 05:40 pm Post Subject:
Health Savings Accounts, HSA's, allow you to use your account to pay for any medical procedure you choose.
Not necessarily true.
But an HSA is really "self-insuring", except that the government allows pretax dollars to pay for procedures that would otherwise be paid for with mostly nondeductible dollars (due to the 7.5% of AGI test on Sch. A of the Federal 1040 return).
And, courtesy of Obamacare, the allowable contribution to HSAs is being reduced in order to raise tax revenue from those "wealthy" persons who can afford to contribute to an HSA.
So much for Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on persons earning less than $200,000. Taking away deductions = raising taxes (without explicitly saying, "We're raising taxes.").
Such a lack of integrity deserves no second term of office. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a reasonable replacement come forward from any party.[/quote]
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 09:15 am Post Subject:
And, courtesy of Obamacare, the allowable contribution to HSAs is being reduced in order to raise tax revenue from those "wealthy" persons who can afford to contribute to an HSA.
I don't see such things going well in the long run.
I've heard that there could be tax hikes worth $11 billion for HSA contributors by the next decade. I'm wondering if that's true.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 02:11 pm Post Subject:
tax hikes worth $11 billion for HSA contributors
Who knows how much it will be? The sad fact is that Obamacare will ultimately COST the American people trillions of dollars. By 2014, the allowable HSA contribution will be reduced by 50%, increasing annual taxes for those in the 39% tax bracket by just under $1000, and on the majority of taxpayers in the 27% tax bracket by almost $700.
According to AHIP, there were approximately 6 million taxpayers enrolled in HSAs by 2008. If that's all there are, and the annual tax increase for all was only $675, it would amount to over $4 BILLION PER YEAR in additional revenue. So over ten years the number is more like $40 BILLION than $11 BILLION.
The fallacy of the whole argument was that, "It will save billions of dollars." That's like the episode of I Love Lucy when Lucy tells Ricky that she saved money by buying the fur coat on sale. "But Ricky, I saved 50%!"
Maybe you DON'T PAY AS MUCH, but YOU'RE STILL PAYING, and paying more than you did before you even thought about spending the money.
But, according to the Congressional mindset (for which there is no analog in society), spending $1,000,000,000,000 to save $100,000,000,000 is economically sound. To me it still means $900,000,000,000 in more spending that has to be offset with (1) $900,000,000,000 in reduced spending or (2) $900,000,000,000 in more taxes.
Congress only knows how to bury us taxpayers under a deeper pile of "Number Two". (And it makes no difference if you're thinking about Democrats or Republicans, they're pretty much all the same.)
An article about HSAs on Wikipedia (not that everything there is 100% reliable) concludes that
Opponents of HSAs say they worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems because people who are healthy will leave insurance plans while people who have health problems will avoid HSAs. There is also debate about consumer satisfaction with these plans. Some opponents believe medical expenses should be tax deductible for all individuals, not only those who have a savings plan.
Well, with all due respect for the pig, that's pigheaded reasoning on both accounts. If I can "save" money by reducing my premiums for healthcare by putting money in an HSA and obtaining a high deductible health plan (HDHP), I am reducing the costs of the insurance company I once had HMO/PPO/Major Medical coverage from. I'm not doing it because I'm healthy or not, I'm doing it because it makes economic sense.
But if a politician thinks I'm doing it because I'm wealthy, then they see it as a "tax dodge" and take away my incentive/ability to save by increasing my taxes.
And to those who think healthcare expense are not tax deductible, they are mistaken. Expenses not covered by insurance ARE deductible . . . if they exceed 7.5% of AGI. That's the part that is impossible for most people, and it's the reason we CAN use pre-tax dollars to pay for our health insurance AND not pay tax on the healthcare benefits we receive.
If the federal government would JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, and do what it was created to do: provide for the common defense (of 'we the People'), life would be simpler, less complex, and we would truly be the land of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . instead of the land of death and taxes and depression/recession.
Add your comment