Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In your own words, explain insurance deductibles.


pstall

Recommended Posts

Higher (or lower) deductible plans do not generate higher profits for an insurance company.

I don't really care about that. I care about coming out of pocket twice. Each pay period with my "premiums", nice fancy euphemism and then for whatever visits during the year.

I have a high deduct and an HSA and it's my fault we dipped into the HSA during the year.

Fortunately nothing major but meeting that deductible is frickin hard to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care about that. I care about coming out of pocket twice. Each pay period with my "premiums", nice fancy euphemism and then for whatever visits during the year.

I have a high deduct and an HSA and it's my fault we dipped into the HSA during the year.

Fortunately nothing major but meeting that deductible is frickin hard to do.

Well the insurance company doesn't care. If you don't want the deductible then pay the higher premium. On average you will pay the same amount

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we had no kids we were on a high deductible plan and saved money because we never went to the doctor. It was emergency insurance. I would go to my one doctor visit a year and it was covered 100% because it was a well visit. Would never have a my kid on a high deduct plan. they get sick too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...