4 ms·

When we had a $10 copay for in network visits we took the kids in every time they were a little sick. With 3 kids thst could mean 3 visits in one week. My copa

by ap3 10y ago

When we had a $10 copay for in network visits we took the kids in every time they were a little sick. With 3 kids thst could mean 3 visits in one week. My copays are now $35, it adds up - if was paying full price I can see how I would first call the nurse hotline or go to the pharmacy to describe the symptoms and get OTC medication

dionidium 10y ago
we took the kids in every time they were a little sick Why? There's really not a lot a doctor is going to do for your kid's sniffles. Just wait it out. Even if it were free, I wouldn't take a kid in for a minor illness. Hell, even if you paid me a nominal amount, I wouldn't waste the time. This is an education problem. It sounds like you're taking your kids to the doctor too often, regardless of cost.
mikestew 10y ago
I never understood this amongst my cow-orkers when I worked at Microsoft ("co-pay? What co-pay?"). I don't care if a doctor visit is free, I'm not so starved for entertainment or human contact that I'm going to drag kids to a doctor because they have the sniffles.
- benjohnson 10y ago
  A lot of insurance companies also have a heath-line where you can call a Nurse and give they symptoms - they either tell you wait it out or go to the doctor. Saved us a bunch of time and money - and saved my life: I have a respiratory infection that I refused to see the doctor about. My wife eventually called the nurse, gave the symptoms and duration. Turns out, I was really close to dying.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  That's a pretty uncharitable way to look at it. I don't have kids but it's a lot easier to imagine that they're thinking something more like "I'd rather not take chances with my kids' health". It may not be particularly rational when you consider the time cost, but it's a hell of a lot more understandable than insultingly assuming they're "starved for entertainment or human contact". In general, plausible explanations that don't require being a dick tend to be better.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    In general, plausible explanations that don't require being a dick tend to be better. Oops, guess we both failed. I wasn't "explaining" anything, as I clearly stated that I didn't understand it. One will assume what they assume when there is a lack of information, whether you find it insulting or not.

by ap3 10y ago

dionidium 10y ago

we took the kids in every time they were a little sick Why? There's really not a lot a doctor is going to do for your kid's sniffles. Just wait it out. Even if it were free, I wouldn't take a kid in for a minor illness. Hell, even if you paid me a nominal amount, I wouldn't waste the time. This is an education problem. It sounds like you're taking your kids to the doctor too often, regardless of cost.

mikestew 10y ago

I never understood this amongst my cow-orkers when I worked at Microsoft ("co-pay? What co-pay?"). I don't care if a doctor visit is free, I'm not so starved for entertainment or human contact that I'm going to drag kids to a doctor because they have the sniffles.

benjohnson 10y ago
A lot of insurance companies also have a heath-line where you can call a Nurse and give they symptoms - they either tell you wait it out or go to the doctor. Saved us a bunch of time and money - and saved my life: I have a respiratory infection that I refused to see the doctor about. My wife eventually called the nurse, gave the symptoms and duration. Turns out, I was really close to dying.
wutbrodo 10y ago
That's a pretty uncharitable way to look at it. I don't have kids but it's a lot easier to imagine that they're thinking something more like "I'd rather not take chances with my kids' health". It may not be particularly rational when you consider the time cost, but it's a hell of a lot more understandable than insultingly assuming they're "starved for entertainment or human contact". In general, plausible explanations that don't require being a dick tend to be better.
- mikestew 10y ago
  In general, plausible explanations that don't require being a dick tend to be better. Oops, guess we both failed. I wasn't "explaining" anything, as I clearly stated that I didn't understand it. One will assume what they assume when there is a lack of information, whether you find it insulting or not.