And is it a failure to mitigate if I choose not use to use my health insurance and their internal authorization system and instead just pay sticker price to the doctor to treat me as he sees fit on the timeline he sees fit?

If that’s not failure to mitigate then I think we’ve got a deal.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by shrevetigertom

Shreveport

Member since Sep 2005

4020 posts

Posted on 6/13/19 at 6:34 am to boosiebadazz

If you don’t owe the medical because of your insurer’s contractual deal with the provider then you shouldn’t be “reimbursed “. It is free money, period. I don’t know how anyone, except a plaintiff attorney, can defend it.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boosiebadazz

Member since Feb 2008

80228 posts

Posted on 6/13/19 at 6:38 am to shrevetigertom

Because your client is not a party to the arrangement I have with BCBS and the medical provider.

But if your client is statutorily bound to reimburse all premium, co-pays, and deductibles during the pendency of treatment then I think it’s more equitable for all involved.

But why wasn’t that a part of Talbot’s bill to begin with?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by shrevetigertom

Shreveport

Member since Sep 2005

4020 posts

Posted on 6/13/19 at 6:40 am to boosiebadazz

Again, I agree with the premium argument. I have said the same thing many times. I don’t know why it hasn’t been advanced.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boosiebadazz

Member since Feb 2008

80228 posts

Posted on 6/13/19 at 6:48 am to shrevetigertom

Call Wags and Lauren Chauvin and tell them we’ve got the outline of a deal

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by shrevetigertom

Shreveport

Member since Sep 2005

4020 posts

Posted on 6/13/19 at 7:27 am to boosiebadazz

Don’t get me wrong, it is still a windfall. People obtain health insurance for their overall health, not just in case they are in an accident, but if you are going to buy into the “procurement“ argument then the premium reimbursement makes more sense than collateral source.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Dead End