Answer:
Nick pay maximum $930
so correct option is d. $930
Explanation:
given data
health care policy = $250
co-insurance provision = 80 %
it mean claim to be paid by insurance company = 80%
and claim to be paid by Nick = 20 %
co payment cap = $1,000
claim insurance = $600
company paid = $280
total bills = $5,000
to find out
How much will Nick have to pay for the second claim
solution
we get first amount to be paid by insurance company and nick is
amount to be paid by insurance company and nick = $600 - $250
amount to be paid by insurance company and nick = $350
and
we know here 80% of $350 paid by insurance company
so paid by insurance company = 80% of $350 = $280
and paid by Nick = $350 - $280 = $70
so Limit available to co payment = $1000 - $70
Limit available to co payment = $930
so Nick pay maximum $930
so correct option is d. $930
Answer:
10%
25.14 years
Explanation:
A financial calculator can be used to solve these problems
PMT = $-1,100
PV = $5,355.26
FV = 0
N = 7
Compute I = 10%
PMT = $-25,000
FV = $1,387,311
I = 6%
PV = 0
Compute N = 25.14 years
Answer:
They create the money they lend to borrowers.
Explanation:
:) Let me know if this helps!
(Are you talking about commercial banks?)
Answer:
The answer is: She used the justice approach, realizing that the greater good is served because people learn to help each other in their own interest.
Explanation:
Justice approach: an ethical decision is a decision that distributes benefits and costs (or punishments) among those involved in a fair, equitable, and impartial way.
Paula used this approach because she believed the agents had acted improperly and that they were harming the US Secret Service.
I consider any organization a team, so in order for it to work well its members must be respected both by their peers and by the other teams´ members. If you consider the various types of activities this specific agency carries out, other not so friendly "teams" (other secret services or even terrorists) could use this type of information to damage or compromise those activities. So the well being of all the country was being jeopardized by a group of bad agents.
Answer:
The correct answer is Inductive reasoning.
Explanation:
Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning in which the truth of the premises supports the conclusion, but does not guarantee it. A classic example of inductive reasoning is:
- All the crows observed so far have been black
- Therefore, all crows are black
In principle, it could be that the next crow observed is not black. In contrast to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning has the advantage of being expansive, that is, the conclusion contains more information than is contained in the premises. Given its expansive nature, inductive reasoning is very useful and frequent in science and in everyday life. However, given its fallible nature, its justification is problematic. When are we justified in making an inductive inference, and concluding, for example, that all crows are black from a limited sample of them? What distinguishes a good inductive argument from a bad one? These and other related problems give rise to the problem of induction, whose validity and importance has continued for centuries.
