Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wife getting massages
- Thread starter Chas Douglass
- Start date
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That's not an answer.
Let's be real...has anything you've said been anything but fiction so far?
- your personal bi-curious fantasies about the OPs wife
- your response to my question
- your massages at work
- your health insurance covering massages
See? Anthem Blue doesn't cover massages lol.
Why should I believe anything that you say?
Edit- This doesn't seem to be going as you hoped. You should quit while you're wayyyyyy behind.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm far from war in the sense that my husband is not all that stands between me and a would-be gang-rapist mob of invaders. That whole claim about husbandly "protection" is a myth.
No, it's not. The reason I'm able to go about my day without being assaulted, is not that my husband is at my side providing physical protection.
Un-hunh. Did you know that there were women involved in the process of Federation in Australia, and that, in fact, women's suffrage groups were pivotal in making sure that it went ahead (on condition that women could vote in the new nation)? (Eg. see here: The role of women in federation and the writing of the Australian Constitution ).
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I think we all understand that you're husband isn’t reliable in that manner...you rely on the police.
It is.
Involved huh? I know that Edmund and Alfred were the delegates dispatched to England. Which one was a woman?
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
And yet, if I have followed the train of your argument, you aren't suggesting that the police (who are somewhere around one-third women, by the way) are entitled to any particular relational perks from me, in exchange for their protection.
Upvote
0
o_mlly
“Behold, I make all things new.”
- May 20, 2021
- 3,136
- 574
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Very good. Initially, I thought that poster had finally entered the domain of rationality. I was wrong. (See, a "toxic alpha male" can admit to being wrong.)
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 6,685
- 4,781
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 6,685
- 4,781
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It’s not an answer you like, which isn’t the same as it not being an answer.
Uh oh… You’re about to sound silly.
Well that didn’t happen,
That wasn’t a lie.
EO is “employee owner.” LoL, take *several* seats.
Well, that’s not a page written by or put out by BCBS. This is though:
Don’t pretend like you know my medical coverage better than I do, my dude. That’s a silly hill to die on, lol.
I may be many things, but a liar isn’t one of them.
Pfffffft, get out of here with that nonsense. I don’t know who you think you’re fooling, but it sure isn’t me, lol.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
It's fiction.
I don't think so.
I used the word fiction....it's against forum rules to call someone a liar.
So at best...you can sign up for an employer paid massage every two weeks or so....I don't think we need to contrast that with your original answer to see the fiction.
This is funny...on that we agree. You're proving your insurance will maybe "reimburse" you if you're diagnosed with a medical condition that makes this a medical necessity and your doctor writes an entire letter explaining everything, every time....
....because clearly not only does your insurance not cover massages, the masseuse most likely won't accept your insurance either. You're paying upfront and hoping insurance will reimburse you later. Thanks for making my point.
Again, it would be against forum rules to call you a liar.
What nonsense? You just proved my point for me. Your doctor literally has to become a pen-pal with your insurance provider every time to potentially get a reimbursement for the massage that you would need to pay for first.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
So, we now have a situation where you concede that husbands are not actually protecting their wives from physical threats in day-to-day life, but you want to claim that they should be entitled to wifely obedience due to some idealised myth of male protection?
Good grief. Not only is that a grimly exploitative view of marriage, it's an amazing amount of front to try to claim entitlement in exchange for a benefit not actually provided!
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 6,685
- 4,781
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No kidding.
So you stayed in forum rules to call me a liar, you still said it.
Oh, I do think we need to contrast it. For fun, let’s compare it to my original answer:
It’s literally in my original post that it happens bi-weekly, lol.
Weird, it’s almost as if I literally said that a few posts ago:
You saying “AH HA! You’ve just proven my point that it works exactly as you said it did!” Is not the gotcha you think it is, lol.
They don’t cover it, they just reimburse it? Like… Do you not have insurance in the US? Is that the disconnect here…?
If they’re reimbursing it, that means it’s covered. No insurance company decides something isn’t covered, but then sends you a check anyway, lol.
The difference between a reimbursement and a direct pay comes down the size of the provider and the frequency of the treatment. Larger places, like hospitals, do a volume where the provider and the insurance negotiate the fee charged and the amount reimbursed, and they can wait longer for their reimbursements. Smaller providers or providers that have you get regular treatments go via reimbursement. They can’t wait as long as a hospital can for claims to settle out, so you pay the provider and then you submit the bill to insurance. I get reimbursed, minus if I have an outstanding deductible payment or insurance bill.
And I don’t need to hope insurance reimburses me later… I pick from the people on their “covered providers” list, which is basically everybody who is licensed/certified via the state to give massages and keeps medical records.
I just had to take an ambulance to the hospital, I got the bill for the ambulance, they’re a small company, so I pay them, then I submit it to insurance to get what I paid to the ambulance company back. My ambulance was covered (and actually I will get the ambulance reimbursed plus $1,000 for the insurance tier I have), so they pay it, just they pay me to cover what I already paid the ambulance.
For real, it’s not that deep. If insurance pays for any portion of care you get, either through directly reimbursing the facility or reimbursing you for paying out of pocket for a covered service, it’s covered by insurance.
Yes, you’re splitting hairs, I get it, but we all know what you were doing and I handily proved you quite wrong, lol.
They literally don’t, lol.
Once a year, my doctor sends one note that says “Tropical Wilds needs (insert number) massages over the next 12 months for treatment of X, Y, and Z. She will go to suggested provider A, suggested provider A is in-network and I have access to the medical records for her bi-monthly wellness checks in our facility so I can see their feedback.” My insurance says “k, have fun” and that’s it until the next year.
(Ok, they don’t say “k, have fun.” They say “number of massages at provider A approved through 11:59pm 12/31/(year), submit receipts via patient portal for direct reimbursement minus outstanding monies owed to BCBS.” But you get the point. I can take a picture, if you want.)
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
No....I haven't conceded that. I'm simply not arguing that your husband does.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
So you argue that - some? Many? - wives are kept physically safe in day to day life only because of their husband's protection?
From where I'm standing, that's a ridiculous claim. Every day, millions of wives go about their lives, studying, working, socialising, parenting, whatever else; without encountering any physical threat, and without needing their husbands' constant physical presence for safety.
And, as noted, for many women, the most unsafe person in their lives is actually their husband.
So this whole argument is just nonsense.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Well then why are you arguing with me about characterizing your posts this way?
I characterized certain posts you've made as fictional. A liar is someone who deliberately states something false with the intent to deceive. I don't know if you're intentionally telling fictional stories about your experiences with massages to deceive people or whether it's part of some grand narrative architecture that's going to be relevant to the thread at some point....I certainly don't know, nor do I care, because I don't have to know to point out the fictional nature of the posts.
That wasn't your original answer. Your original answer was...
That's pretty far from what you claimed later (and what evidence you've provided) but that's ok....maybe there was a good reason for this fictional story.
Also, your insurance doesn't cover it....as you're about to describe what that might actually look like if your insurance did cover it in the exact same post.
Odd....we've gone from "my insurance covers it" to "sometimes covered by medical insurance"
Now...interestingly, you described "most people" as having "medical conditions" that are treated by "doctors" and also "massage therapists" but I don't see any evidence of that (in fact, its such a clearly fictional statement that I didn't bother even looking it up) so despite being upset or uncomfortable with my characterizing your posts as containing fiction....I'm actually being generous with only pointing out a small amount of the fiction.
Again, if I were trying to be mean or attack you personally...I'd point out that this also appears to be fictional based on the evidence you provided. Your statement from your employer doesn't say that you've chosen both time slots available for a massage....it appears to be saying that you've chosen 1 of the 2 available, probably because you can't choose both, or it would say "and" instead of "or". I think that perhaps you meant to say "bi-monthly" (twice a month) instead of "bi-weekly" (twice a week) on accident or by mistake.
Isn't that nice of me?
Oh ok...do you think I don't know how insurance works like every other adult here with health insurance?
Here's a hint....my insurance is so good that it covers any provider (even those outside the provider list) at 85% of the costs....and that's for any medical necessity or prescribed treatment. Wild huh? It's far cheaper than most as well....because I work for federal government in a job that has real health concerns.
Anyway, the point is that even if a provider isn't part of my insurance plan, even if they don't take my particular insurance company....guess what happens?
They still bill my insurance and find out that my insurance covers 85% of the bill.....before sending me a bill in the mail to me to cover the other 15% of the treatment lol. At no point....does insurance require you to pay for something that they cover, but need a receipt and diagnosis and personal letter from the physician explaining why the treatment was a medical necessity.
The only reason why all those things are required from your insurance is rather simple....they don't cover massages.
Your massage therapist doesn't bill your insurance because they don't either take insurance or they don't take your insurance. They aren't even taking a minimum fee that many providers require if they are uncertain about whether or not your insurance covers any of the treatment. You're quite literally paying for the entire massage....and according to the evidence you provided....hoping that your insurance might reimburse you for the cost if you can show....
1. You've been diagnosed with a condition that's on a very short list of conditions your insurance will reimburse you for.
2. Your doctor prescribed the massage as a medically necessary treatment.
3. Your massage therapist is recognized by your insurance as professionally certified to provide treatment.
4. You've got a receipt, showing that you paid for the treatment that they don't cover. That's what the receipt is for....it literally tells both you and your insurance who paid for the massage lol.
5. Your doctor also provides a letter explaining in detail why this was a medical necessity (you know, not something you can just take a couple of aspirin for, like a stiff neck, or sore muscles) and your insurance agrees with the doctor.
That's why unlike the things your insurance does cover....there was no little green checkmark to the left of "massage therapy" like everything else your insurance covers.
And only in what seems to be very rare circumstances of medical necessity which are explicitly explained in detail by the doctor prescribing the massage....but yes, that would be the difference between your insurance covering treatment and your insurance reimbursing you for a very rare situation they don't normally cover.
I do...in fact, I'm all too familiar with how it works and why....and the sort of efforts that the overwhelming majority of insurance providers will go to in attempt to deny payment for treatments they actually do cover once it's clear a patient is going to cost the insurer more than they could hope to ever pay the insurer for coverage.
But hey....maybe I'm wrong because you've got some super duper version of BCBS that hardly anyone has....
Just provide a list of those massage therapists in your plan (because your plan would certainly have this list available to you) that you claimed was "basically everybody" and the short list of conditions that they would cover for massage therapy (also something your insurer would provide if they covered massages) and I'll admit I was wrong about the nature of your insurance and it's coverage of your massages....despite clearly being correct in describing the OPs situation as not even remotely likely to be medical treatment.
Golly...I guess that's not basically everybody then. Perhaps your insurance does cover a physical therapist who also gives massages at the big expensive hospital nearby....but they would still tell you who they cover and what sort of conditions are covered.
I believe this...because I think the massages you're getting are covered by your employer at about two dozen to half a dozen a year....since your email seems to indicate that frequency.
It also seems to suggest that you wear loose clothes, likely because this is a fully clothed massage, and the masseuse isn't described as a massage therapist anywhere in the email or text or whatever they sent you.
When insurance pays a provider....that's coverage...not reimbursement. I've only ever seen reimbursement for a mistake made by the insurer....not for regularly covered treatment.
And I'm not splitting hairs. Your insurance seems to be making it rather clear...your insurance is only reimbursing very rare or unique circumstances of medical necessity made very clear by your doctor and the specialist they referred you to.
Obviously, your doctor may prescribe you things that are or aren't considered medical treatment by your insurance. Telling you that you should watch your diet exercise more often to lose 20 lbs won't covered by your insurance. Of however, he refers you to a dietitian and physical therapist that you need to work with to lose 200lbs....might be covered by your insurance.
I don't think it's right to actually ask you for something that personal, nor do I think it's right to argue. I can think of how someone with like....Multiple Sclerosis or some ongoing chronic issue might be covered for massages....but that's obviously rare and specific. If you still really want to prove it...a list of in-plan covered massage therapists and a list of in-plan covered issues is fine. Neither I nor anyone else needs to know who you're seeing and for what.
I've had my doctor prescribe me 2 weeks off work (completely true) after allergen testing and other lab work had been unsuccessful in discovering why I couldn't sleep and had kept breaking out in random hives. It was just work/home related stress. I took an week off....and though my employer was giving me sick leave, I wasn't reimbursed for the overtime I lost by them or my insurance. You would think if the massage therapy was anywhere near as common as you suggest....that would have been a prescription. My wife has dealt with a chronic pain issue so severe it has an estimated 40-60% suicide rate. You can imagine that it required a significant amount of high potency painkillers. Once her tolerance grew too high for regular doses to help...her doctor raised her prescription to beyond the upper limit for really any insurance....and he had to write a written confirmation and explanation every single month, or the insurance wouldn't cover it and the pharmacy wouldn't fill it. Even in that situation, I wasn't paying up front and hoping for reimbursement.
Even though I'm very confident your insurance doesn't actually cover massages the way you claim (and I looked, they possibly do around Chicago, Portland, and maybe even Seattle) even if I'm wrong about your specific plan....there's very little chance I'm wrong about the OP's circumstances. Nothing in it indicated any sort of health insurance, doctors, diagnosis, etc. It sounded entirely frivolous, indulgent, and in no way necessary let alone medically necessary or beneficial.
And in spite of any attempted slight on my character for not being able to "admit being wrong" I've admitted being wrong multiple times on this forum. My most recent time (that I recall anyway) involved a particularly heinous allegation of police brutality in Mississippi if I remember correctly. When the story came out....it was so bad that I thought it must have been wildly exaggerated or at least partly false just because it was only allegations made against the police department and no statements at all involving the perspective of the police department or anyone defending them in the case. As such, I said I was skeptical of the claims and wasn't willing to judge the police without any further details. A poster either remembered this or noticed when those details emerged later and I was asked what I thought after those details and facts came out. All I recall specifically was say "I was wrong" followed by why I was wrong, and how my views on the case changed now that I knew I was wrong. I don't like being proven wrong anymore than the next person but I simply stop posting or ignore those facts to keep arguing with people who are correct. I don't just admit to being wrong when proven so....I'll actually admit it and change my views if proven wrong over a relevant fact.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
How badly do you want to read a 2014 study showing married women are victims of violence (domestic and otherwise) less than any other group?
You're standing in a nation created and defended by men.
It's a 2014 study....so obviously not the most up to date, but it does make sense.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Does that study make any investigation into the reasons for that difference?
In Australia, one woman dies from domestic violence every week.
It wasn't even true the first time you said it. It's a nation created, and sustained, by people; men and women together.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
If it did....would it matter?
I think the obvious was a shared future together made the husband less likely to offend....and of course, stranger violence is less likely with a man around.
Again....there's no revolution started and finished by women....no nation negotiated into existence by a woman.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 35,764
- 20,090
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes. Intimate partner violence contributes to more deaths, disabilities and illnesses in Australian women aged 25 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor (source: Australian Institute of Health & Welfare). So making out that partnering with a man is somehow some amazing preventative measure comes across as pretty gross denial of reality.
So what? Why should that even matter? And what possible relevance does it have to the matter of a wife having a therapeutic massage?
Male physical dominance does not justify male control of women. The attempt to do so just sets men up as petty domestic tyrants, but we can aspire to better than that.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
