Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SouthShoreSerenade t1_iqtb3c1 wrote

Considering insurers are telling me to vote no because if we vote yes they'll be forced to raise prices, I'm absolutely voting yes because they can go impale themselves on a rusty pike.

Absolute trash. If an individual ran the campaign they're running, they'd be imprisoned for blackmail.

15

Fantastic-Surprise98 t1_iqunhgh wrote

Voting yes. Currently most of our dental payments to these insurance corporations are going to their profits rather than paying for dental care.

7

sardaukarma t1_iqvyuh0 wrote

>A YES vote ensures better coverage and value for patients, instead of unreasonable corporate waste.
For example, according to its own 2019 Form 990, Delta Dental (in Massachusetts alone) paid executive bonuses, commissions, and payments to affiliates of $382 million, while only paying $177 million for patient care.

lmfao

yeah this is a hard yes, insurance "providers" can get fucked, if we were a civilized country the idea of putting a profit-driven parasitic bureaucracy between you and your teeth (or 'luxury bones') would be ridiculous

6

Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_iqs8bkk wrote

In order to find out, you should maybe look into what the No voters, dental insurers are saying about this. Usually you can see what their fears are by checking them out. I personally would vote yes.

3

fourfivesausages OP t1_iqs9m8c wrote

They are saying it’ll result in higher premiums in less choice/access. I can see higher premiums being a result, but don’t see why less choice/access. Even for the premium increase, I don’t think it’ll outweigh the benefits of this measure

2

Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_iqtgzsp wrote

If I understand what Q2 is saying, people who do not use their insurance get a rebate on what they have paid. Where the insurer would only get to keep the amount of administration fees.

Now I don't know what other people are getting for dental insurance, but my experience has been I pay say $900/yr and my coverage is $1200. Any more price increases, is going to make having insurance unnecessary as what you pay in will be the same as what they cover. Dental insurance is really quite lame anyways and is far to small coverage for anything besides cleanings and maybe 1 filling.

Makes you wonder how much money they make from people who do not use it. Frankly, dental insurance should be included in health insurance and covered for whatever you need to be done.

6

vartanarsen t1_iqty4g0 wrote

Agreed , root canals for 2k and now you’re screwed

1

rinic t1_iqwin64 wrote

And another 2-3k for the crown.

1

vartanarsen t1_iqwnmkn wrote

Honestly root canals need to be reclassified into basic medical treatment, it’s not cosmetic or looks, the patients are in agonizing pain

3

GalDebored t1_ir2h37k wrote

I'm waiting for the day the question is: Should dental care be bundled together with regular healthcare under a universal, no-cost plan. You know, like every single other "first world" country (not to mention a few so-called "developing" ones as well) has implemented?

2

Academic_Guava_4190 t1_iqt8s5q wrote

I have to re-read the question booklet, but I recently heard a take on it being about wanting the insurers to pay dentists less. If that’s the case then I vote no. Dental insurers already have limits on when certain services can be provided/covered, it as of right now I haven’t had to pay much out of pocket. If this law means now I have to starting dishing out every time I see the dentist like for ever time you fart in a doctors office then I am definitely against it.

1

lefty557 t1_iqtiqu8 wrote

Dentists to whom I have spoken feel the question, if passed, creates a paperwork nightmare for them before they can provide any treatment. They are heavily against it as they believe it will impede treatment and create the need for return visits. That's enough for me to vote against it.

−2

PakkyT t1_iqxuudu wrote

How would their paperwork change at all? The doctor bills the insurance for the procedure and that is about it. But with insurance companies made to actually pay some of their premiums back for care, then the only thing that will change is less rejections of the claim and maybe more of it covered than before.

2