A few years ago I was erroneously quoted the “no insurance” cost for an eye exam, which was $35 less than what was charged once they found out I had insurance. Since my insurance pays a lump sum within a set time period I started denying having insurance, payed out of pocket, and got reimbursed which has saved money on exams and glasses/contacts. Similar thing with the orthodontist. I’d realized that almost everyone I’d talked to about what their kid’s braces cost came up within approximately $300-400 of the same amount once insurance benefit was factored in (only one orthodontist in the neighbordood & they don’t quote a price until after you give insurance info). I denied having an insurance benefit & ended up with a bill about $1500 less than most people which was exactly my orthodontic benefit. Again I filed for reimbursement myself.
I have asked the eye place & my dentist (shares an office with the orthodontist), who have posted signs that an ‘no insurance discount’ is available, why they offer it and was told both times that it was to help people afford services. Because people with insurance are getting free services.
My insurance for a family of four is currently north of $600/month and we’re told will go up (unknown amount) come March. That’s in excess of $7200/year now. There’s nothing ‘free’ about that. We spend no where near that amount on all medical services per year. It does protect us in the future if someone develops a disease or condition requiring significant expense.
I know we’re fortunate to be able to afford insurance. There are people who can’t and I think the system stinks (I’m pro reform all the way). But is it wrong for me to lie to providers about something I disagree with (no insurance discout) to save some bucks?
Since you’re doing all of the paperwork to get your reimbursement I don’t think the service provider loses anything. You’re not asking them to submit directly to the insurance company and wait on them for payment so I think you’re good.
Sounds more like exploiting a loophole than a moral failing. Just because you have insurance does not obligate you to have the service provider submit claims for you.
Are you sure it’s really all that different of a price?
When the doc bills my insurance, they bill pretty high. Then the insurance company comes back and says “for procedure X, we pay $Y” which is anywhere from 25%-50% less than the doc bills, and because the doc has agreed to take whatever insurance it is, they accept the lower payment.
My understanding of “no-insurance discounts” is that they bill a price closer to $Y to the people without insurance. Effectively, everyone pays close to the same rate.
Lying for personal benefit is pretty much always wrong.
It’s not illegal or any great moral outrage, but if I was doing it I wouldn’t deny that it was immoral. I think most people commit petty immoralities like this (I know I do), so it isn’t a big deal. But yes, if you have to pick between “is this right” or “is this wrong” I don’t see how “telling something I know to be false for my own personal benefit” can be anything other than “wrong.”
That’s the way it works for most of my medical care. Provider gets reimbursed based on the deal the insurance company offers. Which is why some providers won’t take some insurances - won’t pay enough.
But I get a lump sum for some benefits. Like $400 over two years for eye care. Insurance doesn’t negotiate a price with the provider, they just pay up to the total. So if you’re getting a discounted fee and file for reimbursement you come out ahead.
I don’t agree. I think you can say, “lying is always wrong, regardless of the reason” but if there are situations when it’s ok to lie then having personal benefit doesn’t neccessarily mean it’s bad.
If I had a different insurance which didn’t do lump sum reimbursement for some things I’d still think it it was fine for others to lie to get the non insurance discount.
Some of that is because of the fallicy that people with insurance are getting ‘free’ services. Paying for insurance makes a difference in our savings & lifestyle. Our choice, yes, but still not ‘free’. I also take exception to the self congratulatory “we are giving the uninsured a discount”. Actually, you’re using my money (in full fees) to facilitate that charity. And advertising a discount is often a marketing tool to draw in customers. It’s business, not the goodness of their heart. These reasons would make me disagree with their business practices regardless of my personal benefit.
I think it’s reasonable to take a stance against lying in any situation. I just don’t think a determination of immoral/unethical behavior can be done merely on the basis of whether you get personal benefit.
No, it isn’t. Lying is morally risky, because it is more likely to be wrong than telling the truth, but there are situations in which telling the truth is immoral and telling a lie is the moral choice; and there are other situations in which lying is morally neutral.
You are taking advantage of a system not meant for you so yes, you are lying.
Many healthcare providers understand the struggle of those people that can’t afford insurance and give them a break to encourage them to get the care they need. It isn’t a discount for not having to do paperwork.
Now that I think about it, I can recall a period a few years back when it was cheaper for me to buy glyburide from Walgreens without using my insurance (which Walgreens did not accept) than it was to let insurance pay for it at Walmart, Kroger’s, or CVS.)
(I may have gotten Walmart & Walgreen’s mixed up there.)
In my case, I didn’t lie to Walgreens at all. I just shopped around, and I literally could not use my insurance at Walgreens; they didn’t accept it. Happily their cost for glyburide was so low that I didn’t care. $4 for 60 pills was fine by me. The price they wanted for my blood pressure meds was too high, but Walmart was available, and they did take my insurance. If I recall aright, my cost was something like $25 for the blood pressure meds with insurance, so there I used the insurance.
The truth itself is neither moral nor immoral, it is only information. It is always an immoral act to lie.
It is anyway I can see it, I’m open to alternatives, though. A utilitarian looks at the greatest overall happiness, I don’t see where “lying to maximize personal financial benefit” is able to comport with maximizing happiness. Primarily because such lying will have to create people who are getting screwed over by it. Utilitarians aren’t egoists, and wouldn’t generally support deception for financial gain that benefits one person to the detriment of others.
No, it isn’t. If I am asked by a man intent on beating his wife where she is, it is moral of me to lie to
The morality of an action, in my view, is best determined by the foreseeable consequences of that action as much (or perhaps more) as by the adherence to a set of rules. I’d go on but it’s a hijack.
Exactly why is it wrong? Because there’s a lie? Or because I bear a responsibility to support the provider’s (dodgy and unproven) statement of charity? Isn’t it just as likely that the provider is charging what the market will bear and that they can make a living with when they charge the uninsured price but soaking the insurance company (and me) when they charge a higher price for the insured?
The immoral action is the man’s, not yours. It is still immoral for you to lie.
However unlike in Kant’s famous (infamous) letter on a similar topic I can say something a bit different. I agree with Kant it isn’t moral to lie to a man intent on beating his wife (or rather a murderer in Kant’s case), but it isn’t immoral to refuse to tell him where his wife is.