"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
.247...
> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>
>>
>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it. The
>>>> costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want to pay a
>>>> lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>
>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's a
>>> quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing the
>>> pills.
>>>
>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>
>> lol
>
> There is Viagara for women, as well.

Good grief!

morphing whore wrote:

>> No, I think you were in chat since then. It was one night, when Lin
>> and I, Steve Pope and maybe a few other folks were talking. I think
>> sf was there. Maybe you weren't there, but I think you came in. I
>> think Lin messaged you or something.... It was this year, I am pretty
>> sure of it. We started talking about getting a house in Italy for a
>> foodie vacation...
>>
>> It wasn't that long ago....really.
>>
>> I could swear you came in...
>>
>> We were having a blast talking about this possibility....
>>
>
> Look at his photo on the mugshots page. Bob's got to be blacking out at
> this stage.


Nobody with fifteen cents in your alley tonight, shit-for-brains? Decided to
morph and stir some shit when you know I have your normal nym killfiled?
****ing crackpipe-sucking rimjob monkey.

Christine, I chatted with Lin just a few moments ago, and she remembers the
conversation, but doesn't believe I was in the chat at the time.

Bob

cybercat > wrote:

>"sf" > wrote in message

>> Fortunately, it has a good reputation here. I live in a city where a
>> lot of people want to be, so Kaiser skims the cream of the Dr. crop.

>Hmm, where to start with the shaky assumptions....

SF speaks the truth. Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest
in quality of any provider in this region. My Kaiser primary care
physician is a UCSF medical professor. Numerous other
physicians there are also attached to the medschools at UCSF or
Stanford. I can't recall a truly bummer doctor there and I've seen
quite a few of them over the past 25 years. Local people who
are in the Kaiser system will do just about anything not to get
kicked out, because you know you have good coverage.

Perhaps quality declines as you get further from their homebase.


Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest in quality of any provider in
> this region.

Hmmm.... Where are those rankings published? It's about to be "open
enrollment" season with my employer, meaning I have the opportunity to
switch providers for the next month or so. Kaiser is one of my options, but
I'm curious as to where my current provider stands in the rankings.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest in quality of any provider in
>> this region.

>Hmmm.... Where are those rankings published?

By the state of California, for one.

http://www.opa.ca.gov/report_card/hmorating.aspx

HTH
Steve

Steve wrote:

>>> Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest in quality of any provider in
>>> this region.
>
>>Hmmm.... Where are those rankings published?
>
> By the state of California, for one.
>
> http://www.opa.ca.gov/report_card/hmorating.aspx

Looks like my current provider and medical group have the same scores as
Kaiser NorCal, so I might as well stay with the current one.

Thanks for the information!

Bob

Christine Dabney > wrote:

> Tuscany is one of the places I want to visit someday, and preferably
> spend some time. I fell in love with the descriptions of it in
> Frances Mayes' books...
>
> A few rfc'ers have talked about maybe doing a semi-foodie vacation in
> Italy somewhe my vote is for Tuscany. The idea was to maybe rent a
> house for a few weeks/month..and make it our base. Plus do a great
> amount of cooking and eating while we are there..shopping from the
> local markets, etc.

Heh! Speaking from some experience, I'd say it would be realistic only
for someone who's been actually living - or staying - for a long time in
Tuscany (or in any other Italian region). This is a crucial
distinction.

Most any one-time or just occasional visitor would find that other
things take up most of the time. And, in such a case, if you mean
staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti region),
considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there would be
really not much time for cooking at all. When I was in Venice a few
years ago, which was not even my first time there, and with Venice being
a relatively small place with most everything accessible by just walking
there, I think we cooked something just twice in a week we were there -
and it was not even anything specifically Venetian. Who wants to stay
inside, even if it is a flat/apartment in a particularly charming
16th-century Venetian palazzetto, as in our case (I always prefer to
stay at a serviced flat rather than at an hotel, in part to be able to
cook if I want to - and I did the same thing the last time I was in
Rome, too)? It is not much different anywhere else in Italy where it is
worth staying.

You do not want to stay inside, you want to be out there, at least at
the places you seem to have in mind! It's Italy! It's magic (if you
choose carefully)! You can cook at home. In Italy, it would be worth
doing only if you are a resident or a (semi-)regular visitor.

Victor

Victor wrote about a food trip to Italy:

> if you mean staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti
> region), considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there would
> be really not much time for cooking at all. When I was in Venice a few
> years ago, which was not even my first time there, and with Venice being a
> relatively small place with most everything accessible by just walking
> there, I think we cooked something just twice in a week we were there -
> and it was not even anything specifically Venetian. Who wants to stay
> inside, even if it is a flat/apartment in a particularly charming
> 16th-century Venetian palazzetto, as in our case (I always prefer to stay
> at a serviced flat rather than at an hotel, in part to be able to cook if
> I want to - and I did the same thing the last time I was in Rome, too)?
> It is not much different anywhere else in Italy where it is worth staying.

As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing the great
food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
shop there and cook afterward?

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> Victor wrote about a food trip to Italy:
>
> > if you mean staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti
> > region), considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there would
> > be really not much time for cooking at all. When I was in Venice a few
> > years ago, which was not even my first time there, and with Venice being a
> > relatively small place with most everything accessible by just walking
> > there, I think we cooked something just twice in a week we were there -
> > and it was not even anything specifically Venetian. Who wants to stay
> > inside, even if it is a flat/apartment in a particularly charming
> > 16th-century Venetian palazzetto, as in our case (I always prefer to stay
> > at a serviced flat rather than at an hotel, in part to be able to cook if
> > I want to - and I did the same thing the last time I was in Rome, too)?
> > It is not much different anywhere else in Italy where it is worth staying.
>
> As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing the great
> food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
> shop there and cook afterward?

There is not really all that much to see in Milan (well, it is not one
of my favourite cities...). There, I would cook!

Victor

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bob Terwilliger > wrote:
>
>> Victor wrote about a food trip to Italy:
>>
>> > if you mean staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti
>> > region), considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there
>> > would
>> > be really not much time for cooking at all. When I was in Venice a few
>> > years ago, which was not even my first time there, and with Venice
>> > being a
>> > relatively small place with most everything accessible by just walking
>> > there, I think we cooked something just twice in a week we were there -
>> > and it was not even anything specifically Venetian. Who wants to stay
>> > inside, even if it is a flat/apartment in a particularly charming
>> > 16th-century Venetian palazzetto, as in our case (I always prefer to
>> > stay
>> > at a serviced flat rather than at an hotel, in part to be able to cook
>> > if
>> > I want to - and I did the same thing the last time I was in Rome, too)?
>> > It is not much different anywhere else in Italy where it is worth
>> > staying.
>>
>> As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing the
>> great
>> food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
>> shop there and cook afterward?
>
> There is not really all that much to see in Milan (well, it is not one
> of my favourite cities...). There, I would cook!
>
No, there really isn't that much to see there any more. Sad but true.

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
...
> Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
>> Tuscany is one of the places I want to visit someday, and preferably

> Heh! Speaking from some experience, I'd say it would be realistic only
> for someone who's been actually living - or staying - for a long time in
> Tuscany (or in any other Italian region). This is a crucial
> distinction.
>
> Most any one-time or just occasional visitor would find that other
> things take up most of the time.

It's true.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat > wrote:
>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
>
>>> Fortunately, it has a good reputation here. I live in a city where a
>>> lot of people want to be, so Kaiser skims the cream of the Dr. crop.
>
>>Hmm, where to start with the shaky assumptions....
>
> SF speaks the truth. Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest
> in quality of any provider in this region. My Kaiser primary care
> physician is a UCSF medical professor. Numerous other
> physicians there are also attached to the medschools at UCSF or
> Stanford. I can't recall a truly bummer doctor there and I've seen
> quite a few of them over the past 25 years. Local people who
> are in the Kaiser system will do just about anything not to get
> kicked out, because you know you have good coverage.
>
> Perhaps quality declines as you get further from their homebase.

Kaiser has done some really heinous things. It's best to be aware of that
before one waxes beatific about the company, regardless of where one lives.
Is my point.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> .247...
>> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>>
>>>
>>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it. The
>>>>> costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want to pay a
>>>>> lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>>
>>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's a
>>>> quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing the
>>>> pills.
>>>>
>>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>>
>>> lol
>>
>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>
> Good grief!

Pardon me, doctor, but my little soldier is just not saluting at the
appropriate times. Can you help me?

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
>> .247...
>>> On Sun 27 Sep 2009 12:25:23a, Ophelia told us...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kathleen" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> For Viagra, any large group that wants the coverage, can get it. The
>>>>>> costs will be raised to cover it. How many of you women want to pay
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> lot of money so that your plan covers Viagra?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno. Maybe. Ask me again a decade or so on down the line. It's a
>>>>> quality of life thing, and NOT just for the gentlemen swallowing the
>>>>> pills.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Giddy-up Cowboy!"
>>>>
>>>> lol
>>>
>>> There is Viagara for women, as well.
>>
>> Good grief!
>
> Pardon me, doctor, but my little soldier is just not saluting at the
> appropriate times. Can you help me?

lol

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing the great
> food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
> shop there and cook afterward?
>
> Bob

I'd be more interested in shopping for foods to bring home with me and
then eating 'out' somewhere. But I'm a slug.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
>>
>> A few rfc'ers have talked about maybe doing a semi-foodie vacation in
>> Italy somewhe my vote is for Tuscany. The idea was to maybe rent a
>> house for a few weeks/month..and make it our base. Plus do a great
>> amount of cooking and eating while we are there..shopping from the
>> local markets, etc.
>
> Heh! Speaking from some experience, I'd say it would be realistic only
> for someone who's been actually living - or staying - for a long time in
> Tuscany (or in any other Italian region). This is a crucial
> distinction.
>
> Most any one-time or just occasional visitor would find that other
> things take up most of the time. And, in such a case, if you mean
> staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti region),
> considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there would be
> really not much time for cooking at all.

Pretty much true, but we did have our evening meal at the villa every night.
It consisted of most items eaten "as is" rather than elaborate cooking. I
enjoyed going to the markets and buying things I don't usually see at home,
be it a bread, fruit, or a prepared dish. . Most evenings we'd be too tired
to want to make anything elaborate or to clean up a lot of dishes.

Part of the fun of the trip though, was going to the stores where the locals
shop. The up side was, we'd eat good, inexpensively, and try things not
readily available in the US. Not to mention the inexpensive wine.

If you went with a few couples, perhaps one day some would prefer to stay
"at home" to just relax and cook and have something ready for when the
others returned. Depends on the people too. After a few days of heavy
touring, it may be relaxing to stay put just cook.

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-3EA318.18111326092009@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> Some are things that Kaiser doesn't want to
> pay for. Since it is a non-profit, if they pay, then they raise their
> rates to cover their costs.

If people are paying rates with the expectaTion they will be covered should
these cases arises, then refusing to authorize treatment when they do arise
is criminal. It's called fraud.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Wayne Boatwright > wrote in
.247:

> There is Viagara for women, as well.

Yeah, it's called the romance novel ;-)

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-6A599C.21191026092009@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> So, according to what Michel posted, you pay US$8 or more each time you
> want sex.

But the point is the plan is supposed to cover it (obviously if they are
complaining) and they are denied this to save the company a few bucks.

The company promises but once it has gotten their payment, it fails to
deliver. Again, that's fraud.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

On 2009-09-27, Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> enrollment" season with my employer, meaning I have the opportunity to
> switch providers for the next month or so. Kaiser is one of my options, but
> I'm curious as to where my current provider stands in the rankings.

The real question is, where does you current job stand?

A Tale of Two Plans

When I worked at a major Fortune 500 company in Silicon Valley, I also
had a choice of two plans. Kaiser and Prudential. I'd been on Kaiser
for almost 15 yrs when I came down with gout. I had the bad luck to
run across a bevy of young Kaiser doctors not knowledgable or
particularly sympathetic with this ailment. Bad mojo ensued.

On a cow orker's advice, I changed to Prudential which gave me access
to the Palo Alto Medical clinic (PAMC), just spitting distance from
Stanford Medical Center, with which they shared many docs. I ended up
seeing a $300 per visit rheumatologist every two weeks for 6 mos. He
fixed me up good as new. I also came across the best dermatologist
I've ever had and had a toe surgery as an outpatient. Brilliant docs,
one and all.

Then, the dot come bubble burst. Tens of thousands were laid off,
myself included. When I got my pink, I was still with Pru-Care.
Didn't think much of it. I had $$$ to spare. I'll pay the premium.
I'll pay double! Sorry, said Pru-Care. As you are no longer
employed, we no longer care. Buh-bye. I discovered COBRA and
exercised it. About 12 mos into my 18 mo stay of no-insurance
execution, Pru-Care dumped PAMC or vice versa. So, for the next six
mos, I had coverage which very few places would honor.

End of sad story: My COBRA ran out and PruCare would no longer cover
me at any price. If I'd stayed with Kaiser, I still have full care
for under $200 mo FOR LIFE!! The worst part, my brilliant
dermatologist quit PAMC and defected to Kaiser.

My advice, Bob, is to investigate what you'll actually have in the way
of coverage if you lose your current job under your current plan. You
may be in for a rude awakening.

nb

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote in news:dabel-3EA318.18111326092009@c-61-
> 68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
> > Some are things that Kaiser doesn't want to
> > pay for. Since it is a non-profit, if they pay, then they raise their
> > rates to cover their costs.
>
> If people are paying rates with the expectaTion they will be covered should
> these cases arises, then refusing to authorize treatment when they do arise
> is criminal. It's called fraud.

If I don't like the shape of my nose, then Kaiser will fix it. After I
sign the paper saying that I will pay 100% of the cost. If I want
Viagra, then Kaiser will give it to me. Either my plan agrees to a fee
hike, or I pay the full price when I pick it up at the pharmacy. When I
signed up for Kaiser, Viagra didn't exist. That doesn't sound like
fraud to me. If I expect Kaiser to provide recreational drugs at little
or no cost, I will be disappointed.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:33:05 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure all this is true, but I don't think it makes sense to make a
> >blanket statement about how wonderful Kaiser is.
> >
> I don't remember telling anyone to rush out and change their health
> coverage just because I like Kaiser. Do what you want. Kaiser isn't
> an option for you anyway.

Kaiser has worked well for sf and myself. It hasn't worked well for cc.

http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/aboutkp/fastfacts.html

Kaiser has 8.6 million members. Somebody likes them. Still, their
biggest area is NC (Northern California), which is the headquarters for
Kaiser. Of those 8.6 million members, 6.5 million are in California.
Although Southern California has a larger population than Northern
California, there are more Kaiser members in Northern California than
Southern. I understand, from one datapoint, that the reputation of
Kaiser in SouCal isn't as good as NoCal.

I don't remember either sf or myself making blanket statements. I think
we said we are happy, and gave examples and reasons.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:06:58 +0200, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>Heh! Speaking from some experience, I'd say it would be realistic only
>for someone who's been actually living - or staying - for a long time in
>Tuscany (or in any other Italian region). This is a crucial
>distinction.
>
>Most any one-time or just occasional visitor would find that other
>things take up most of the time. And, in such a case, if you mean
>staying in the country (such as the most wonderful Chianti region),
>considering the logistics of staying at such a place, there would be
>really not much time for cooking at all. When I was in Venice a few
>years ago, which was not even my first time there, and with Venice being
>a relatively small place with most everything accessible by just walking
>there, I think we cooked something just twice in a week we were there -
>and it was not even anything specifically Venetian. Who wants to stay
>inside, even if it is a flat/apartment in a particularly charming
>16th-century Venetian palazzetto, as in our case (I always prefer to
>stay at a serviced flat rather than at an hotel, in part to be able to
>cook if I want to - and I did the same thing the last time I was in
>Rome, too)? It is not much different anywhere else in Italy where it is
>worth staying.
>
>You do not want to stay inside, you want to be out there, at least at
>the places you seem to have in mind! It's Italy! It's magic (if you
>choose carefully)! You can cook at home. In Italy, it would be worth
>doing only if you are a resident or a (semi-)regular visitor.
>
>Victor

I did cook one meal a day for a week when we were in Venice last
October, but then we were eating that meal on a lovely terrace on the
Giudecca... (Yes we were insanely lucky, including with the weather).
And the fresh shrimp was to die for :-)

Nathalie in Switzerland

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:15:07 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Well, the first one would be that conditions were the same in NC as they
>>> are in NC (Northern California). I suspect not. Perhaps the medical
>>> establishment in NC (North Carolina) was not accepting of Kaiser. Maybe
>>> they got the worst patients and poor medical staff. But that's an
>>> assumption.
>
>>> The doctors I've known in the 30+ years we've belonged to Kaiser seem
>>> pretty happy practicing medicine. They aren't business people and they
>>> don't supervise employees. They just do medicine. They are all on
>>> salary, so they don't worry about money at all.
>
>> It was not that way when they were in Raleigh, which by the way, is no small
>> shakes when it comes to high-income, high-real estate, etc.
>
>> This was in 1994-1997.
>
> I've belonged to Kaiser continuously since 1972. With few exceptions,
> the doctors are on straight salary.
>
>> All I wanted was a referral so that I could get an
>> allergy test to see if I might avoid some allergens rather than begin
>> pumping steroids up my nose, and getting shots and such. I had to fight the
>> doctor's evasive tactics, finally saying, after he gave me a list of
>> "options" "At what point did we try to identify the source of the
>> allergens?" He wrote the referral, but his face was red and his hands were
>> shaking he was so angry. He clearly lost money when he referred patients to
>> specialists.
>
> How could he "lose money" if he was on salary? If Kaiser there had an
> allergist on salary, it should have been no big deal. If they didn't,
> then I'm sure doctors get dinged for too many referrals to doctors on
> contract, because Kaiser has to pay those doctors. It depends on the
> contract, obviously, but still, those referrals represent money out the
> door for each referral.
>
> I hope you switched doctors at that point. Kaiser only assigns doctors
> if you are new and don't request a specific doctor. They really want
> you to pick a primary (and secondary) doctor(s). I have two eye
> doctors, an OD for routine eye exams and an OMD for my eye diseases.
> I've had the same primary care doctor for many years.

i've been with kaiser for about 20 years and am pretty happy with them. at
one point, i did get a primary physician who was an ass, and i gave him the
boot with no problem. the other two i've had/have are pretty sharp people
who don't mind questions.

your pal,
blake

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>> As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing the great
>> food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
>> shop there and cook afterward?
>>
>> Bob
>
> I'd be more interested in shopping for foods to bring home with me and
> then eating 'out' somewhere. But I'm a slug.


Me, too, I guess.

"Vacation" is when someone else cooks ALL the meals (or at least breakfast.)

VENT: I do notice when the husbands suggest renting a condo and "eating
in", the wives still do all the shopping, prep, cooking, and cleanup.
Yeah, the guys in our family are spoiled rotten.

gloria p

Gloria P wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>>
>>> As I read what you wrote there, I was thinking about Milan. Seeing
>>> the great
>>> food markets in Milan, wouldn't many people in this forum be inspired to
>>> shop there and cook afterward?
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> I'd be more interested in shopping for foods to bring home with me and
>> then eating 'out' somewhere. But I'm a slug.
>
>
>
> Me, too, I guess.
>
> "Vacation" is when someone else cooks ALL the meals (or at least
> breakfast.)
>
> VENT: I do notice when the husbands suggest renting a condo and "eating
> in", the wives still do all the shopping, prep, cooking, and cleanup.
> Yeah, the guys in our family are spoiled rotten.

Technically, I agree. But as a practical matter, on the last vacation I
went on with this sort of arrangement, I quite enjoyed driving into town
each day with my sister, our mom, and the various spawn, to buy
provisions for the day's dinner.

Breakfast was purchased from the lady who trudged up the beach each
morning, towing her cooler, the guys were on their own for lunch, and
supper was fresh seafood grilled on the patio.

Dan Abel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
>> If people are paying rates with the expectaTion they will be covered
>> should these cases arises, then refusing to authorize treatment when
>> they do arise is criminal. It's called fraud.
>
> If I don't like the shape of my nose, then Kaiser will fix it. After
> I sign the paper saying that I will pay 100% of the cost. If I want
> Viagra, then Kaiser will give it to me. Either my plan agrees to a
> fee hike, or I pay the full price when I pick it up at the pharmacy.
> When I signed up for Kaiser, Viagra didn't exist. That doesn't sound
> like fraud to me. If I expect Kaiser to provide recreational drugs at
> little or no cost, I will be disappointed.

However, if you had read the article, it states:

"The state Department of Corporations is investigating whether the Kaiser
Permanente health maintenance organization is violating state law by
refusing to cover the cost of providing the impotence drug Viagra,
officials said Thursday.

"A corporations department spokeswoman, Julie Stewart, said the agency 'has
been reviewing Kaiser's position regarding Viagra for over a month. A
formal investigation was instituted as soon as we learned that Kaiser's
decision to deny coverage was based on economic considerations.'"

This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal to
abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
general malaise in the insurance scam biz.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

Michel Boucher wrote:

>
> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal to
> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
> believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
> general malaise in the insurance scam biz.
>



The discussion of drug coverage all too often comes back to Viagra.

I know from many of my younger online friends that many insurance
companies do not cover birth control pills or devices which certainly
costs them less than pregnancy. It makes you wonder when they invoke
the financial rationale.

gloria p

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>
> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their refusal
> to
> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously, they
> believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign of a
> general malaise in the insurance scam biz.

If in violation of some law, they should do it. OTOH, as a corporate policy,
I'd be against it. Should they also provide hookers for those unable to
meet hot women?

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in
:

>> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their
>> refusal to
>> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously,
>> they believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign
>> of a general malaise in the insurance scam biz.
>
> If in violation of some law, they should do it. OTOH, as a corporate
> policy, I'd be against it. Should they also provide hookers for those
> unable to meet hot women?

But we're not discussing the act of sexual congress, merely the acquisition
of a drug as sanctioned by the local authorities. Once insurance companies
start denying Viagra where they are obliged to provide it, it's a slippery
slope to denying services to the mentally deficient, the elderly, etc.

Too bad no one has identified conservatism as a pre-existing condition that
would disqualify sufferers from cold remedies, or some such thing.

If anyone has a plan to "kill grandma", it has to be the current slate of
insurance companies.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:42:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 27 Sep 2009 09:48:24a, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:15:07 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, "cybercat"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Well, the first one would be that conditions were the same in NC as
>>>>> they are in NC (Northern California). I suspect not. Perhaps the
>>>>> medical establishment in NC (North Carolina) was not accepting of
>>>>> Kaiser. Maybe they got the worst patients and poor medical staff.
>>>>> But that's an assumption.
>>>
>>>>> The doctors I've known in the 30+ years we've belonged to Kaiser seem
>>>>> pretty happy practicing medicine. They aren't business people and
>>>>> they don't supervise employees. They just do medicine. They are all
>>>>> on salary, so they don't worry about money at all.
>>>
>>>> It was not that way when they were in Raleigh, which by the way, is no
>>>> small shakes when it comes to high-income, high-real estate, etc.
>>>
>>>> This was in 1994-1997.
>>>
>>> I've belonged to Kaiser continuously since 1972. With few exceptions,
>>> the doctors are on straight salary.
>>>
>>>> All I wanted was a referral so that I could get an
>>>> allergy test to see if I might avoid some allergens rather than begin
>>>> pumping steroids up my nose, and getting shots and such. I had to
>>>> fight the doctor's evasive tactics, finally saying, after he gave me a
>>>> list of "options" "At what point did we try to identify the source of
>>>> the allergens?" He wrote the referral, but his face was red and his
>>>> hands were shaking he was so angry. He clearly lost money when he
>>>> referred patients to specialists.
>>>
>>> How could he "lose money" if he was on salary? If Kaiser there had an
>>> allergist on salary, it should have been no big deal. If they didn't,
>>> then I'm sure doctors get dinged for too many referrals to doctors on
>>> contract, because Kaiser has to pay those doctors. It depends on the
>>> contract, obviously, but still, those referrals represent money out
>>> the door for each referral.
>>>
>>> I hope you switched doctors at that point. Kaiser only assigns doctors
>>> if you are new and don't request a specific doctor. They really want
>>> you to pick a primary (and secondary) doctor(s). I have two eye
>>> doctors, an OD for routine eye exams and an OMD for my eye diseases.
>>> I've had the same primary care doctor for many years.
>>
>> i've been with kaiser for about 20 years and am pretty happy with them.
>> at one point, i did get a primary physician who was an ass, and i gave
>> him the boot with no problem. the other two i've had/have are pretty
>> sharp people who don't mind questions.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
>For many years I worked for a company that was self-insured, with Blue
>Cross administering our plan. There was no employee-paid premium, the co-
>pays were small and there was really no difference whether you chose a
>physician or facility that was in or out of network.
>
>For the past 7 years I've had United Healtcare through my employer. My
>portion of the premium in reasonably small, and again, there is really no
>difference whether you choose a physician or facility that is in or out of
>network.
>
>When I lived in the Cleveland area, Kaiser had an extremely bad reputation,
>at least from those subscribers I knew. Most didn't have a choice to move
>to another carrier unless they were able to pay the full premium
>themselves. For those who had a choice, they swiched to another carrier as
>soon as they could.
>
>Perhaps it's a geographical difference, or perhaps Kaiser has changed
>considerably since that time.
>
>In January, 2010, I will be going on Medicare. I have made preliminary
>choices on my supplemental plan as well as the Medicare Part D
>(prescription) plan. Altogether, the costs are well above my current
>contributioin, but the coverage is very compresensive. My out-of-pocket
>costs virtually nil except for one medication I take which is not covered
>at all and one medication which has a co-pay far less than the current co-
>pay I have to pay now for the same medication.
>
>I would consider skipping the Part D coverage altogether since all but the
>one medication I take are generic and very inexpensive. However, for that
>one medication my Part D co-pay will be $38 compared to the retail price of
>over $400.


I have been on Medicare since 2006. My husband is retired military so
we have Tricare for Life which also includes drugs. Co-pay on drugs
is $3 per refill for generic and $9 for brand name. We pay the $90+
per month charge for part B. Other than that we have not seen a
medical bill at all. And not because we had no doctor visits or
hospitalization.

We get our prescriptions filled on a 30 day cycle so we hit the co-pay
each time. If we wanted to go mail-order we could get 90 days at a
time for the same money. However I do like my small town pharmacy
where the owner knows everyone who comes in. If he is not on the
phone he speaks to you, asks how you are doing. If you have questions
or problems with your medication he will take all the time he needs to
make sure that you understand. I have seen him out on the curb
talking to someone who could not come into the store. The fact that I
have known him all of his life counts too.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> morphing whore wrote:

> > Look at his photo on the mugshots page. Bob's got to be blacking out at
> > this stage.
>
> Nobody with fifteen cents in your alley tonight, shit-for-brains? Decided to
> morph and stir some shit when you know I have your normal nym killfiled?
> ****ing crackpipe-sucking rimjob monkey.

This has all been explained before, Bob, although maybe you were lucky
enough to miss the posts. Speaking of blackouts, cc can't remember her
newsgroup name. She has more than one computer, so when she set up
access from the other computer, she used her Email address as her name.
You can either set up another entry in your killfile (because she
doesn't appear to morph), or you can just killfile her Email address,
since that first word appears for both her computers.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> cybercat > wrote:
>
> >"sf" > wrote in message
>
> >> Fortunately, it has a good reputation here. I live in a city where a
> >> lot of people want to be, so Kaiser skims the cream of the Dr. crop.
>
> >Hmm, where to start with the shaky assumptions....
>
> SF speaks the truth. Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest
> in quality of any provider in this region. My Kaiser primary care
> physician is a UCSF medical professor. Numerous other
> physicians there are also attached to the medschools at UCSF or
> Stanford. I can't recall a truly bummer doctor there and I've seen
> quite a few of them over the past 25 years. Local people who
> are in the Kaiser system will do just about anything not to get
> kicked out, because you know you have good coverage.
>
> Perhaps quality declines as you get further from their homebase.

Steve practically lives within spitting distance of their headquarters
(Oakland, California).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
notbob > wrote:


> End of sad story: My COBRA ran out and PruCare would no longer cover
> me at any price. If I'd stayed with Kaiser, I still have full care
> for under $200 mo FOR LIFE!! The worst part, my brilliant
> dermatologist quit PAMC and defected to Kaiser.

US$200 for life sounds good. TOO good. Kaiser raises their rates to
keep up with costs. You certainly would have trouble signing up with
them today for that rate for a single person.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Steve Pope wrote:
>
> > Kaiser NorCal consistently ranks highest in quality of any provider in
> > this region.
>
> Hmmm.... Where are those rankings published? It's about to be "open
> enrollment" season with my employer, meaning I have the opportunity to
> switch providers for the next month or so. Kaiser is one of my options, but
> I'm curious as to where my current provider stands in the rankings.

Here's a little tidbit:

http://www.consumerreports.org/healt...-plans/overvie
w/best-health-plans-ov.htm

Note that you have to be a paid subscriber to go deeper and see the
actual ratings. I did that once, a long time ago, when buying a car. I
subscribed for a month for US$2.95, and then cancelled. It was worth
it. Many libraries carry Consumer Reports, so that should be free.

kp.org is the general health web site. You might be interested in
browsing there. Some sub-pages are for members only.

https://members.kaiserpermanente.org...r/entrypage.do

is a map of facilities. Kaiser would be a bad choice if you like your
local hospital, and the nearest Kaiser hospital is in Sacramento (or
maybe not). The map also shows medical offices.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article 0>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:


> In January, 2010, I will be going on Medicare. I have made preliminary
> choices on my supplemental plan as well as the Medicare Part D
> (prescription) plan. Altogether, the costs are well above my current
> contributioin, but the coverage is very compresensive. My out-of-pocket
> costs virtually nil except for one medication I take which is not covered
> at all and one medication which has a co-pay far less than the current co-
> pay I have to pay now for the same medication.

I have five years to go until Medicare. From what I understand from
Kaiser, it will be very simple. My coverage will remain exactly the
same. The lack of paperwork will remain exactly the same. A few months
before I turn 65, I go into Kaiser and sign up for Medicare. That's
required. I will continue to use Kaiser services exactly as before, but
Kaiser will then bill Medicare for whatever they can get reimbursed for.
I don't know what happens to my premiums. I assume that my retirement
system will pay lots less, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

cybercat > wrote:

>Kaiser has done some really heinous things. It's best to be aware of that
>before one waxes beatific about the company, regardless of where one lives.
>Is my point.

Sure. I agree Kaiser has done some heinous things, but they
are also the largest provider in the country, so even if
they're as good as everyone else they will have the most
horror stories.

That's why one has to look at formal, objective evaluations
and not just horror stories -- to see is statistically,
they are doing well.

Steve

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> This has nothing to do with your weewee and all to do with their
>>> refusal to
>>> abide by regulations in areas in which they "operate". Obviously,
>>> they believe themselves to be above the law, which is the first sign
>>> of a general malaise in the insurance scam biz.
>>
>> If in violation of some law, they should do it. OTOH, as a corporate
>> policy, I'd be against it. Should they also provide hookers for those
>> unable to meet hot women?
>
> But we're not discussing the act of sexual congress, merely the
> acquisition
> of a drug as sanctioned by the local authorities. Once insurance
> companies
> start denying Viagra where they are obliged to provide it, it's a slippery
> slope to denying services to the mentally deficient, the elderly, etc.
>
> Too bad no one has identified conservatism as a pre-existing condition
> that
> would disqualify sufferers from cold remedies, or some such thing.
>
> If anyone has a plan to "kill grandma", it has to be the current slate of
> insurance companies.

In UK we are currently teetering on the edge of that particular
abyss..........

On 2009-09-27, Dan Abel > wrote:

> US$200 for life sounds good. TOO good. Kaiser raises their rates to
> keep up with costs. You certainly would have trouble signing up with
> them today for that rate for a single person.

I meant I would be covered "for life". I sure rates do increase.
OTOH, getting on Kaiser, if not through a group plan, is very
difficult. A friend's wife was rejected because she exceeded 10lb
above allowed weight for her size/age. My care would have been $175
for MAX coverage, including free meds, eyecare, glasses (copay 20%),
etc. I'm sure it's more, now, but no one else even came close to that
level of coverage per $$$.


nb

notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-27, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> US$200 for life sounds good. TOO good. Kaiser raises their rates to
>> keep up with costs. You certainly would have trouble signing up with
>> them today for that rate for a single person.

>I meant I would be covered "for life". I sure rates do increase.
>OTOH, getting on Kaiser, if not through a group plan, is very
>difficult. A friend's wife was rejected because she exceeded 10lb
>above allowed weight for her size/age. My care would have been $175
>for MAX coverage, including free meds, eyecare, glasses (copay 20%),
>etc. I'm sure it's more, now, but no one else even came close to that
>level of coverage per $$$.

That sounds like the monthly rate for Kaiser Senior Advantage,
which Obama wants to ax, because it's "waste and fraud".
(Nevermind that the retired public employees have the
essentially identical coverage, under Medicare-approved Kaiser
employer plans, but there it's not "waste and fraud", it's a reasonable
public expenditure.)


Steve