Posts by Casey Bennett2

Angela Campbell84 said:No, I didn't realize that until now. Thanks for the heads up.

My question still stands.

What question? You mean the rates? It shouldn't be a secret—and honestly, I don't think it is—exactly how much every exam or diagnostic procedure costs at any facility. Since we’re all indirectly footing the bill, the rate is just based on what it actually costs to perform.

Sure, the cost varies because equipment, hospital facilities, doctors, and nurses all have different price tags, but let's not get distracted. Every single service has a clear calculation and a set cost based on known parameters.

If someone truly needs emergency care, then the government (meaning, all of us) pays for it. Same goes for people who know it isn't an emergency and go to their primary care doctor in the morning following standard procedure; we pay for them too. I have no issue with that. But those who show up at the ER for non-emergencies—which is way more expensive than routine care—fine, but they should be paying out of pocket.

Angela Campbell84 said:You wrote this differently in your last post.

Not really. I said what I said, and I still feel the same way. It’s all just a matter of how and when things actually get recorded.

Angela Campbell84 said:What kind of rate would they even charge for that?

You think there isn't a clear cost for every service? Every single checkup gets billed to Medicare. Nothing is actually free—not now, not then. We all just foot the bill, which makes it look "free" to some people.

melloworca6 said:From what I gather about how this was supposed to work, doctors would examine you and assess the situation. Once they decide if it’s an emergency or not, they tell the patient it doesn't qualify as urgent. If the patient insists on more tests, they just pay the fee.
I guarantee you, after a month of this being practiced—and getting some media coverage—the waiting room crowds would be cut in half. Emergencies would still be handled like they are now; everyone else would either go home or pay up if they felt like being difficult.

It was a solid idea. Not sure where it went wrong. This was one of the few decent things actually promised in the healthcare reform (alongside increasing outpatient clinics).

The issue remains on the ground: you'll have an angry patient who thinks they're an emergency, only for some doctor to tell them they aren't. Determining the exact parameters of what qualifies as "urgent" shouldn't be a burden for ER doctors or nurses. They shouldn't waste their energy on that; they should just do their jobs according to triage order, and then let the administration look at the results, slot everything into the right categories, and decide whether the patient covers the cost.

It's just like how medical transport costs are approved or denied. Everything gets sorted properly. Based on the findings, the patient pays if they showed up for nothing, or Medicare picks up the tab if it was truly something that couldn't wait until morning.

Again, for patients who are clearly in crisis—where their life is genuinely at risk without immediate action—nobody gets billed. It's just recorded, and the administration handles the paperwork later, just like they always do. (Do people really think every single exam isn't being tracked and logged right now?)

Angela Campbell84 said:Basically, if you're broke and you suddenly have a stroke or get into a car wreck, you're screwed.

It’s hard to argue whether that's more urgent than someone showing up with a stomach bug.

I assume it would be obvious when someone is an actual emergency. No waiting lists there—you just settle the bill and get the paperwork approved to check the box.

There's no need to oversimplify this. Any rational person knows the billing system isn't going to make a critical patient wait when it's clear they need immediate help.

But hey, if you want to pretend otherwise...

melloworca6 said:I didn't invent this whole payment thing. There was already a decision made that anyone showing up at the ER for non-emergencies who insists on being seen would be billed. Why that hasn't actually kicked in yet? I have no idea.

Doctors have enough expertise and common sense to distinguish between a real emergency and someone just being dramatic. If you spent three hours tanning and ended up with a mild sunburn, you aren't an ER case. If you’ve got actual blisters covering your body, then yeah, get to the hospital. If someone's fever hits 104, they need help. But if you've had a low-grade fever for a week and decided the ER is your personal diagnostic lab, you're wasting everyone's time. It's that simple.

Since no doctor can actually tell you if a case is a true emergency without running a bunch of tests just to cover their own backs, then... The only way to handle this is to charge everyone upfront. If the diagnostics show someone actually needed emergency care, then we just process the reimbursement through Medicare later. Simple.And we shouldn't be issuing refunds to those who aren't eligible.

That would clear out the ER crowds looking for treatment over a minor stomach bug or a bee sting pretty fast. But it opens up a massive headache: how do you actually draw the line for truly critical patients? Determining who qualifies for coverage—even after they've been seen and diagnosed—becomes a mess. You’d be stuck constantly deciding what can wait until morning or the next business day and what absolutely cannot.

I assume setting those criteria would be a lot easier than this current system, where everyone just claims they feel terrible and heads straight to the ER if it's actually true.

Also, why not? Let people pay out of pocket for an exam at 2 a.m. if they want to, provided they respect the triage order and cover the full market rate. ☕

I know this isn't going to be a crowd-pleaser, but I figure freedom of speech still counts for something.

dustysurfer3 said:It doesn’t matter whether you deposited the funds into a bank account the following day or if the courier service transferred them directly to your balance; you are legally obligated to issue a retail receipt and complete the fiscalization process immediately.

Paying via COD is functionally identical to paying with cash—the only difference is that instead of handing over bills yourself, you're sending some guy from FedEx to collect the money and bring it back to you.

That's wrong.

Like others already pointed out, if a customer pays the delivery service in cash and then FedEx transfers those funds to the online store's account, it counts as a cashless transaction. No fiscalization required. (You still have to issue an invoice, record it in the books, and send it to the buyer, but it doesn't need to be fiscalized.)

Delivery services are essentially providing a service where they collect cash from the customer and then deposit it into the merchant's account.

Paying via bank transfer means the customer sends funds directly to your account through something like Zelle or an online wire transfer. There is zero cash involved in this transaction.

It doesn't count if you take cash you've already collected and deposit it into your account later. 🙂

By your logic, nobody would ever need to report sales to the IRS, since everyone is required to deposit their daily cash intake by the next business day anyway.

If a customer pays you in cash for an order, you still have to issue a formal receipt and then make sure that cash hits your bank account by tomorrow at the latest.

I need some help here if anyone knows the deal. My dad has an appointment scheduled at Mayo Clinic with his ophthalmologist—he’s been seeing this specialist for a while following eye surgery. He has a D1 referral and the follow-up is set for early December.

The catch is, he also just got scheduled for rehab at a medical spa because of a separate issue and a major surgery he had this summer (unrelated to the eyes). The eye appointment falls right in the middle of his rehab stay.

That’s where we hit a wall. We asked the facility if they could provide medical transport to Mayo, and they said no. We asked if we could drive him ourselves, and they said no to that too. To make a long story short, their explanation was that as long as he’s receiving treatment at the spa under Medicare coverage, he isn't allowed to receive any other medical services via referrals at other hospitals.

Honestly, this sounds insane. I don't get why he can't just go to his scheduled appointment with his own doctor within the insurance system—even if we pay for the transport ourselves. I’m lost on how this actually works, so if anyone more experienced with this bureaucratic nightmare has advice on how to handle this, I’d appreciate it.

- Is there really no way for him to attend the exam at the hospital he was referred to?
- If that’s truly the case, can we cancel the appointment and get rescheduled for a date after his rehab is over? My concern is that we’d end up skipping a whole month of necessary check-ups, plus dealing with the holidays, and I don't think waiting that long without a follow-up is safe.

Anyway, I’m grateful for any info you can throw my way so I can start tackling this tomorrow.

Thanks!

Bringing this thread back up because the admins need to be fully aware of what’s happening over on the alternative PDF:

It looks to me like this topic was quietly moved to some suggestion subforum just to get it out of the admins' sight, hoping nobody would actually step up to deal with the issue.

The admins should probably just read through everything at the link provided and decide on a course of action—or at least set some guidelines—so we all know where we stand.

Just philosophizing in a random subforum isn't going to solve anything.

Thanks.

Is the moderator intentionally derailing this thread into complete nonsense?

I have no idea what's going on here, but this situation is weird enough to warrant a comment.

How does an airport discussion suddenly pivot into talking about Tom Hanks' performance and his neckties... especially when they start threatening to use moderator powers? I haven't seen anything this bizarre before. Check out everything from post 192 onwards.

electricorca95 said:going to bed

There isn't a single agency in America where some kind of law isn't being broken somewhere, so what am I supposed to report? Everything?😕 And social workers 😂... do those even exist? To add to that, they hate it when someone reaches out generally, and if you actually have a request, they treat it like an attack on the state—or on them personally.

Besides, what's the point of reporting someone anyway? All it does is mess with you. There's zero benefit in it.

Look, if you actually have hard evidence or specific details, report it. Post it here too—explain exactly who you reported and why—then send it over to Index, 24 News, and Morning.
Just talking nonsense is pointless. 🙂 I can't sleep anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Look, you're a free man now. If you actually have firsthand knowledge that certain agencies are breaking the law, it isn't just an option—it’s your responsibility to report it.

Don't waste my time with empty demagoguery; there's already more than enough of that floating around. Either say something concrete if you actually have something to say, or stop wasting the social worker's time. They get paid to listen to you.

Mark Nguyen6 said:What on earth does this have to do with politics?

I’d say this belongs in Psychology—or maybe even Religion.

🙏

So you're just some bitter guy who got burned by the system, and now you're salty because nobody stepped up to defend you? 😂

I mean, clearly you know how the gears turn under the hood—most of us regular folks don't see those details.

Richard Wright said:You’ll find plenty of solid answers to that question scattered throughout this thread. Honestly, I’ve already given my take on this three or four times just on this single page, so do me a favor and scroll up a bit...

I have absolutely no intention of sinking to the level of mindless provocations. Other than that, go back and actually read the very last sentence of my previous post...

Sorry, I'm a little slow and I don't really get it.

But I still don't see how this works legally. ☕

Richard Wright said:The bottom line? Based on what you wrote, you clearly have no clue how their business model actually works, yet you love playing armchair theorist...

Look, we're talking about the shadow economy here. You can move money legally through these channels if you're willing to pay the specific commissions required by the US authorities...

My best advice? They don't need a middleman. Of course they don't—people could just hop on a plane to Austria tomorrow and handle the entire loan realization disclosure process themselves! Where, how, when, why, and all the other fine print—yeah, that’s the easy part, right?!!

I’m not exactly singing praises for this way of borrowing, but for people who can't get a loan in the States for whatever reason, but desperately need one—this isn't a bad option...
Because every single loan is a necessary evil. How "necessary" it is and exactly how much "evil" is involved? That's a call only the borrower gets to make.

Fine then, why don't you explain exactly how they operate.

I mean, if everything is legal, it shouldn't be a secret. 🙄 Maybe they'll even pick up more clients.

fadedeagle39 said:In America, the intellectual right is the only force actually preserving this country's dignity. As for what people call the left? It’s a national disgrace. By any standard, I fall on the left, but I have absolutely nothing in common with the unpatriotic American left—the kind whose entire platform is built on erasing our history and spitting on our identity.

The right isn't more progressive; they're just more self-aware.

Thanks for dropping this on me before bed. You summed up everything I'm too tired to handle at this hour. 🙏

Susan James42 said:Historically speaking—and honestly, it’s quite evident—conservative movements tend to attract:
a) individuals with less formal education
b) those struggling with self-confidence; people who feel somewhat insecure and are therefore more prone to adopting whatever opinion is being shouted loudest rather than cultivating their own independent thought.

It makes sense, really. That deep-seated hostility toward anything unfamiliar or different usually stems from a fundamental fear of change. It's driven by those who are terrified of progress and cling to the status quo because they feel they've already learned everything worth knowing.

In other words, it's just your typical American electorate...

I used to think I leaned left until I saw how the Democratic Party in America devolved into this level of primitivism and exclusivity. It has nothing to do with my views on human rights or progress anymore.

So, this pathetic version of the left lost another "urban, highly educated" voter from Washington, D.C. who can actually think for themselves (that was back during the last election). And honestly, look at those points you listed above—they don't align with any actual leftist ideals.

If anyone actually cares, we're talking about completely illegal transactions here. You can't just move foreign loans into the US without registering them with the Federal Reserve.

It might be possible, but if we're talking about doing this legally:

1. A bank would deposit the funds directly into your account rather than handing over cash through some middleman. They’d also need all the proper documentation approved by both the Federal Reserve and the central bank of the country where the loan originates.

2. You wouldn't need a middleman at all. These guys clearly exist just to act as a buffer between you and the bank—likely because they're guaranteeing the bank with assets in, say, Austria, while you're pledging your own property here in the States. If you think this is an "easy way out," you're incredibly naive and deserve whatever fallout comes from that choice.

Does it really not occur to anyone that if this were legitimate, some foreign bank would be advertising these credit lines in the American media? There’s clearly enough interest to make it happen.

Dennis Mitchell2 said:Hey everyone, I could really use some advice.
I'm 30 and want to start putting money aside for long-term savings—something I can build up over the next 30 years. I'm not interested in those retirement fund accounts, and I can't commit to high monthly insurance premiums because my salary isn't great. (Side note: I’m staying far away from those types of plans because my parents signed up for one, hit a rough patch, couldn't cover the back payments, and ended up losing $1,500 down the drain.)
What I'm looking for is something flexible. Since I get extra cash a few times a year, I'd like an option where I can dump in extra whenever I have it, while just chipping in small amounts monthly. Does anything like that exist here in the States?
Thanks.

You should look into open-ended savings accounts at JP Morgan Chase; I'm pretty sure other major banks offer similar stuff.

The interest rates are basically the same as a standard CD, but you have the freedom to deposit whenever and however much you want. Interest is calculated based on your total balance at any given time.

More info here: http://www.chase.com/personal/savings