<p>Well, fine if they like them enough to throw in a benefits package but I would guess that would cause some chaos when pet-sub passes the 30 hour mark. That would not fly here.</p>
<p>The lookback. Is there confusion about what the lookback means? Go back to that k-12 link I gave. You can crack 30 hours, you can work 40. But not over a long continuous period of time that represents a long term average of 30 per week.</p>
<p>Do you think subs routinely work 30 hour weeks, for months? Are we going to argue based on onesie-twosie examples of someone who filled in for some unusually long time?</p>
<p>No, I don’t think most subs work anywhere near that and I don’t think most want to, either. We are talking about subs because of the article posted earlier where the district spokesperson talked about having to cut the part-timers hours. He mentioned substitute teachers but it was about all part-time employees. Subs are a unique position in that they are not actually part-time employees. They are day workers.</p>
<p>But Flossy, the district spokesman did not give the full details!!!</p>
<p>Someone said: omg, to give subs benefits, to pay for those, what do we do, reduce full time teachers? Scary, huh? But totally misrepresenting. </p>
<p>My friend in Texas is a high demand sub. ($55/day, btw.) She only worked 100 days/year. </p>
<p>No bluebayou… You dont get to edit that because you used those numbers and you said this and you meant it…</p>
<p>“and that money is so high because they don’t get benefits.”</p>
<p>20,000 instead of 200,000…</p>
<p>That is not so high, is it? </p>
<p>That is pretty low…
That should change the argument.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be living too well on $20,000 a year.
Since there are people that don’t want to pay for that person’s benefits…</p>
<p>Thankfully, we now have subsidized health insurance for some of these people.</p>
<p>If these people were making 200,000 a year…I would change my mind.</p>
<p>Dstark, don’t feel so sorry for subs. Those I know have spouses paying for their benefits. It’s a second income. They are working temporarily while their kids are in school often in the same district. It’s a pretty nice gig and they are not there for the health insurance. You are feeling bad about a scenario that is simply not the reality.</p>
<p>My friend earned $5500/year, in Texas. Could do anything from teach chem to coach tennis. </p>
<p>Sorry about this, but it makes me uneasy when subs or day workers are dismissed as not really needing work, just earning a little pocket money or to help pay for a Folio for the kid or an extra day at Disneyworld. This was real income to my friend. Same for many of those WalMart folks previously discussed.</p>
<p>Some subs. </p>
<p>For anybody that makes 20,000 a year, I am glad there is subsidized insurance out there now if they arent covered elsewhere.</p>
<p>I mentioned Charles Gaba’s numbers. When I first started talking about his numbers, they were too high. So I used my own. </p>
<p>His numbers are good now. I would use his numbers.</p>
<p>Pocket money is real income. Nobody is dismissing pocket money. </p>
<p>“Dstark, don’t feel so sorry for subs. Those I know have spouses paying for their benefits.
It’s a second income.”</p>
<p>I think this is the case most of the time (at least where I live) but I’ve heard since it is hard to get a teaching position now, newly minted teachers are reduced to subbing now. And they are usually young and have no insurance from a spouse. </p>
<p>I also recall a problem in states which banned teachers unions (Indiana is one I think) where they are hiring full time teachers and not giving benefits at all and paying really low salaries, too. Don’t quote me on this as it was a few years ago I saw this so I may have it wrong. </p>
<p>Flossy --“Those I know have spouses paying for their benefits. It’s a second income. They are working temporarily while their kids are in school often in the same district. It’s a pretty nice gig and they are not there for the health insurance. You are feeling bad about a scenario that is simply not the reality.”</p>
<p>How nice for them. I know several young college grads who are subbing while waiting to find full-time teaching positions. They struggle – struggle – to make ends meet on sub pay of $85/day with no benefits. One of them is also a barista at Starbucks because of the insurance, and another works evenings and weekends at another part-time job since she can’t work a day position that would interfere with getting that last minute sub call.</p>
<p>Good grief. I realize that people struggle at the beginning of their careers. I have kids, remember? I also recall being 25 years old and not having health insurance. Although, I honestly don’t recall being all freaked out about it. To each his own, I guess. </p>
<p>^ But in the teaching field it is a relatively new phenomenon, only since the 2008 crash. Before that districts were hiring teachers left and right. Then the economy tanked and viola! </p>
<p>“Dstark, don’t feel so sorry for subs. Those I know have spouses paying for their benefits.
It’s a second income.”</p>
<p>It’s pretty cavalier to dismiss a second income as a luxury in this economy, as if families were normally able to survive on one income. My sister-in-law is a teacher (not a sub) and her family needs her income as well as my brothers’ income. </p>
<p>Moreover, a lot of us are discovering that suddenly second incomes become first incomes without warning, if the spouse loses their job.</p>
<p>$55/day? They pay minimum wage to subs? Wow. </p>
<p>I like to think that if we all met, we’d have more fun than arguing on these threads makes it seem.</p>
<p>I just received my bill for my annual exam, (two weeks ago.) Waiting to see if this thought is confirmed, but I feel as if having insurance gives me an advocate or at least a middle man. Without it, unless the bill were negotiated or similar special efforts, I would have paid $250 ($170 for the exam, then the EKG, and one short consultation.) The insurer brought it down to allowed charges for each, then covered with a $150 payment to the doctor. My balance is roughly $20, (a coding issue on the EKG, which I will later discuss with the doc,) which will be applied to deductible. </p>
<p>For one of the additional tests I need (specialist, not complicated,) the Healthcare Blue Book list price in my area is $400. I learned allowable on my plan is around $250. That’s what the specialist’s billing rep said is the max I will pay, depending on how much the insurer covers, again based on coding, whether the doc does a little more, etc. She wasn’t fazed.</p>
<p>I called BCBS because I haven’t seen a Benefits Summary booklet yet (for more specific details on our plan.) The detail I do have on our plan says my extra test would cost me 10% after I meet deductible. But as you can see, the insurer is already notching down the cost, as I work toward that deductible. </p>
<p>D2 may need a specialist visit and possibly a procedure, near college, 3 hours away, another state. BCBS confirmed that as long as she goes with a PPO doc (and I already checked before, there are many,) it is in-network. </p>
<p>I get it that you folks in CA are having your minds bent by the basics. I get it that some docs may be upset at reimbursements. But you can see what BCBS is so-far doing for me.</p>
<p>Snowing hard here, EB.
Also, I hope there isn’t some knee-jerk auto reply to my little case here.</p>
<p>ps. Per HBB, a “fair price” (that just means reasonable average in the market- not whether it is merited) for Sandostatin is about $4300 per dose. Catherine Blackwood was getting 2/month. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly right. The insurance company negotiates a rate with their providers. Your payment, if you end up with one, will be based on that negotiated amount rather than the uninsured rate.</p>
<p>The amount that uninsured people are initially billed is ALWAYS bigger than the insurance company rate. If you are uninsured, you might be able to negotiate your payments down-- indeed, you probably could-- but you almost certainly wouldn’t be able to negotiate them down to less than what the insurance company negotiated, and in any case do you really want to negotiate with your primary care doctor, your specialist, the place where they do mammograms, and the labs where they do bloodwork, every time you have some tests?</p>
<p>Beautiful weather here. </p>
<p>I agree. Every poster here knows that insurance companies negotiated rates are lower than somebody with no insurance is charged. Every poster.</p>
<p>Another reason to have insurance.</p>
<p>No, of course you don’t, CF. The system is the system. But, I have had the experience more than once of a doctor finding out I was uninsured and routinely sending a cash bill that was easily ten times less than what the insurance company was billing. This was when my husband worked for a small employer that went out of business and cancelled our insurance. Anyway, my $2000 dollar bill was quickly settled for S200 and there was no complicated negotiating. It can’t help but make you wonder about these charges. </p>
<p>The negotiated insurance price can be a huge decrease from non-negotiated price. I just got a letter from a provider (a lab) for a urine test saying that they hadn’t received payment from my insurer. The bill was $263. I called my insurer to find out. They had mistakenly coded it as out-of network and corrected it immediately. They said I should get a bill for $9.63. This test is so cheap if you are in network that it doesn’t even rise to my usual co-pay (which is $20.) My insurance company will pay the provider zilch. </p>
<p>Flossy… Come on…</p>
<p>When I was in the hospital my bill was $40,000. The insurance company’s negotiated rate was $4,000</p>
<p>My son sprained his ankle last year. The bill was $4,000. After the negotiated rate the bill was $800.</p>