Medical debt in the United States is another one of those defining monuments to inequality we have erected in the past decade another being the student debt crisis.
Need based scholarships allow universities to have nearly perfect price discrimination. This allows them to charge different prices to different consumers and extract the maximum amount each consumer is willing/able to pay. If they had to charge everyone the same price, that price would be considerably lower than the sticker prices now.
The issue is that whenever anybody tries to fix it they're labelled as a socialist because that's how the right wing media has trained people to react. Apparently the only options are absolute survival-of-the-richest capitalism or Soviet Union socialism with no in betweens, go figure. In my opinion, democracy is dead and we're at a point where you can buy votes via professional gaslighting and mass misinformation.
People aren’t labeled socialist for fixing billing surprises. Trump is pushing a bill to do just that. People are labeled socialist for proposing new federal programs that will cost trillions of dollars more per year, on top of the $6-7 trillion a year that federal, state, and local governments already spend each year. Moreover, people are labeled socialist for proposing solutions, such as single payer, that are in the more government-run end of the overall spectrum of universal healthcare systems. Instead of trying to refine the ACA, for example, which would give us something like the Dutch or Swiss system, people are pushing for single payer and banning private health insurance, which is overall to the left of the various universal healthcare systems that exist.
I don't think anyone is opposed to letting people buy private insurance on top of the obligatory single payer. Does any country actually ban additional private insurance?
“ In fact, the bill would outright ban private insurance that provides similar coverage to the new Medicare for All plans after a short transition period. That means everyone with comprehensive employee benefits or a private plan through the Affordable Care Act today would be moved onto Medicare.
[. . .] Sanders has said he envisions these remaining plans covering a handful of items like cosmetic surgery that are left out of Medicare. For everything else, the only option is Medicare.”
It's not entirely clear, but I think the plans that are 'banned' in that case are not "on top of" Medicare, but instead of. I.e. there's a contribution you'd pay to private insurance that you don't pay to Medicare under those plans. Because otherwise... why bother banning them?
I believe the reason they are banned is to avoid a situation where doctors refuse to accept patients who only have Medicare-for-all insurance, and only care for patients who have private insurance.
Since private insurance is willing to pay far higher rates than Medicare, this would lead to Medicare-for-all failing. Doctors already exist who refuse to accept Medicaid-insured patients because the reimbursement rates are low compared to privately-insured patients.
Everything I can read about this plan says it would ban plans “on top of” Medicare, and contrasts it with other countries like the UK, Canada, and Denmark, which do have supplemental private coverage for medically necessary services available.
> people are pushing for single payer and banning private health insurance
Single-payer does not mean abolishing private insurance.
Take the UK’s NHS for example - there’s a thriving private healthcare insurance and private healthcare provider industry there.
Trump’s bill is about price transparency - while the bill is not a bad thing it won’t solve the problem of inflated prices to counter insurance lowballing - I believe the end-result will be something like the “room rate” signs you see in hotel rooms in many states that show the maximum legally allowed billable rate for the room which is usually very high compared to the rate you’re actually paying.
As for the cost argument - people will NET save money because the tax increases to pay for universal coverage will be less than most people’s current healthcare expenses (assuming employers will pass on the savings from not having to pay for workplace health insurance as salary/wage rises for everyone).
Of note, the author is a physician and also a professor: “Andrew Taylor is a professor of radiology and imaging sciences at Emory University School of Medicine.”
I love how everyone is susposed to be an expert in medical billing now. It’s hopeless. There’s no way people can beat the system on their own. Hospital chains, private equity, billing software consultants, these people are gunning for you every day. There’s no way you can compete with that.
This is mainly an issue with healthcare in the US, not “capitalism”.
The fact that providers can perform services on you without telling you up-front what the price will be is the problem. That isn’t how a lot of the rest of our capitalist society works - Amazon can’t raise the price of something I order from them after it’s shipped to me, my rent can’t change once I sign the lease contract which clearly states the charges up front, and so on...
> The fact that providers can perform services on you without telling you up-front what the price will be is the problem.
Of course. In an unregulated for-profit health care system that is definitely the problem and the way we got there was because of; if there are multiple vendors then prices will automatically go down.
I'm not anti-capitalism. It just doesn't work for certain parts of society but it seems that in the US everything needs to be capitalised and the government clearly doesn't want to regulate this industry.
This article itself is about someone who is on Medicare (government-run health insurance) getting a surprise bill because the hospital has mis-assigned his procedure to the wrong category to allow them to run up the bill.
FTA: “In a feeble attempt to ameliorate the problem, Congress passed the Notice Act in 2015, which requires hospitals to inform patients of the implications of their observation status within 36 hours after observation services have been initiated. In other words, hospitals must advise patients of their observation status only after they have already incurred the expense of surgery and hospitalization.”
This type of thing seems like the most immediate problem. It makes no sense that the price can be raised 36 hours after a procedure has already begun. How is anyone supposed to negotiate that properly?
Just saying, I don’t think “capitalism” is necessarily the boogeyman here. The government itself is failing to negotiate properly with the providers when running its socialist healthcare system in this instance. (And non-government payers will run into the same problems, getting unfair bills that couldn’t be anticipated or negotiated before agreeing to the service)
One of the primary reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US is that so many of the factors that influence price are not constrained by competition. Fixing those problems is largely a political matter, not an economic one. The economics of capitalist systems do not make any claims about the functionality of markets that are allowed to exist without competition. Which is why all serious free market economists exclusively promote competitive free markets. A free market economist who doesn’t believe government has a role in ensuring markets are competitive is really just an extreme libertarian.
Any market where the buyer is not the person who’s paying, or where the buyer has to make a purchasing decision before they know the price (or even what goods/services they’re agreeing to buy), cannot possibly be influenced by the laws of supply and demand. It’s the same reason that you can look at essentially any government spending project, and amaze yourself by how little the government manages to achieve with so much money. The payer doesn’t have any choice about how much taxes they pay, and the decision maker has a very poorly constrained supply of other people’s money to spend.
Healthcare is literally the least "capitalistic" industry in the US. Posting prices is literally like a foundational concept. In many states, you still need to ask your local competitors for permission for if you can open up your own hospital.
Perhaps the real issue is the lack of capitalist principles? Perhaps the issue is CMS trying to micromanage everything via billing in a very centrally planned manner?
I think its interesting that the areas of the economy with the most government intervention are doing the worst... Healthcare, education, housing...etc. You could even throw in ISPs with their government guaranteed monopolies.
Meanwhile tech had basically no regulation. What do we see? Many things are free (yes even to the poor! Without a government guarantee or people going around proclaiming that it is a human right! Insane!). The industry also has some of the highest paid (no tech minimum wage to bring it about, insane!) and best treated workers...
Tech is enabling dictators, genocides, election tampering, massive theft, massive surveillance, addiction, etc. It's hardly doing well. Unless your definition of doing well is a few people profiting from the suffering of the masses. In that case, you're right tech is doing wonderful and we don't need government intervention. We could regulate tech to get this under control. Or we can deregulate medicine and forget about sanitizing surgical tools or sterilizing this and that. I'm sure the healthcare providers will do it themselves without being forced to. What could possibly go wrong with expecting healthcare providers to pay for necessary things they do not deem necessary for budget purposes? The plan is genius.
It's not capitalist though, is it? The reason that hospitals can bill arbitrary amounts retroactively is because the government allows them to. The reason that there isn't strong competition between vendors is again because of government intervention.
> It's not capitalist though, is it? The reason that hospitals can bill arbitrary amounts retroactively is because the government allows them to. The reason that there isn't strong competition between vendors is again because of government intervention.
I think it's the opposite–yes, the government does allow this sort of behaviour, but that's because the health-care-adjacent parasites lobby so furiously against any efforts to stop it. It's scarcely the government stepping in to ensure this sort of banditry (why would they, when government officials don't benefit from it?).
Exactly. Also people should consult the Kaiser Family Foundation website and look into the statistics in general on Medicare. The data there is what you can expect to deal with once you are retired.
If you have an exorbitantly expensive medicine that is covered under Medicare Part D (extremely, extremely likely), then you will face something called Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage. One should especially look into the data on that.
It is really easy to be in the Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage situation. Even if you are sitting on a mountain of cash during retirement, it is profoundly wasteful to be paying anywhere from $20,000/year-$100,000/year for your medicine, which is usually a lifesaving medicine, and is life or death, whether you take it or not.
Not to mention: The third leading cause of death in the United States in preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me then Google it. When a country has the third leading cause of death as preventable medical errors, they are almost always developing or third world countries. But, the US is an anomaly in that respect.
You can go the the best hospitals and the best doctors in the United States, but you cannot evade a statistic like that. When that statistic is so high, these issues are so pervasive that they are definitely present in a completely unacceptable way, even with the best institutions, hospitals and doctors in the United States.
If one was smart, they would investigate this further and decide to leave. Europe, especially West and Northern Europe, should be places one should by vying for. But anywhere in the European Union typically will be a step up from this chaos of a system.
There has been a lot of research done about it. It would be foolish to underestimate the scale of the problem.
Also, if you are concerned about getting the best possible care, or even just staying alive long-term, one should spend a lot of time examining http://healthdata.org
Life expectancy can be a good start when it comes to just investigating things.
The research from this site is very solid and all of it is open access. It was funded partly by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation too. A lot of this research comes from the University of Washington. They have a remarkable statistics department in general. They also have an phenomenal medical school. In terms of public medical schools, it is by far one of the best. Only UCLA and UCSF compete with it. Their allied health programs are great too.
If you live in Seattle, the care tends to be fairly consistent. Anyways, I am basically affirming my allegiance to UW Medical School. They kept my grandmother alive for many more years than what we would have ever expected.
Anyways, you can bet on it that their research is solid, even though I have deep respect for UW Medical School.
My wife is a medical billing expert (a billing executive at a mid-sized (multi-doctor) practice).
You are correct. It took her two years of study (with full time job) to pass her medical coder exam, and she's only really an expert in her area of expertise. There are dozens of areas of expertise. It is virtually impossible to navigate the system without an insider to assist.
Unethical behavior by providers (like this) hasn't been addressed by any of the candidates on either side of the aisle.
Getting rid of insurance companies is only part of the equation, as far as I can tell. It could help quite a bit. But until we address the adversarial position that providers themselves take towards their patients, we're going to have galling and disgusting outcomes.
I think it is natural that when the government is picking up the tab, the government will necessarily follow through with regulations that protect their own interests.
It is definitely the horse needed before the cart, and expecting a pharmaceutical/insurance funded government to pass the requisite regulations against its own interests would be cart first.
Unless of course, we could somehow acquire a government that acts on the interests of the people.
As an outsider, it seems Bernie Sanders is a candidate that seriously wants to tackle these serious problems in the USA.
Apart from that, I wonder why the society in the USA is so adversarial. It is apparent in many aspects and it is damaging for the society. There are ways to reduce to adversity, but it seems that many people support and favour an adversial system. Is that a cultural curse of the USA?
It's adversarial, because it's good strategy for winning elections. In a two-party system, there's no need to compromise. All you need to do is to beat one person (generally speaking). The worst way to do that is to agree on anything with the other person. You want as many wedge issues as you can, if your constituents are in favor of your position. If they're not, you attack the other person's character. Preferably you do both.
It's been this way for a very long time, and it's only getting worse.
My impression is that the adversity extends the formal political process. For example the hierarchy in work relationships seems adversarial, because of the treatment and behaviour of labour unions. In the justice system, the harsh sentences and the popularity of /r/justiceserved, which celebrates cruel and archaic ideas of justice, are another example. This is not just dumb, but also dangerous. So much that I doubt that the culture in the USA genuinly cheers these violent escalations but rather foreign intelligence services (Russia?) push things like those subreddits to make the USA look bad. But even in other subreddits and events like shootings people are happy when the shooter is killed and not arrested uninjured, and the cheering of that gets massively upvoted. That reveals an underlying adversity which makes the culture of the USA look immature, uneducated, dumb. I don't mean to judge all the people of the USA here, and I don't even trust what I've read, because all I received was through (social) media and that might be manipulated or portrayed disproportionately. The image of excessive adversity still remains after I take a step back and look sceptically and what I've been shown and told.
> I wonder why the society in the USA is so adversarial.
In a nutshell, there is no unified US society - Americans fear and hate their neighbor, which has resulted in societal dysfunction.
You probably don't really want to know how deep the ugliness goes, but here's several reported reasons:
- holdover from the first European settlers, the Puritans, where the word "puritanical" originated
- half the voters are often stereotyped as "people afraid of somebody else getting more." See Fox news.
- "Just society" belief (the poor or unfortunate must have deserved it)
- lack of homogeneity. See "salad bowl."
- mobile population causes isolation from families
- "at will"/feudal employment and ruthless healthcare system
- anti-intellectualism, with Trump as the poster boy
- tax policies designed to help the rich, and strip the middle class
- otherwise, lack of policies at all levels of US government
- rulers more concerned with controlling foreign countries than actually governing their own
- "anybody can be sued for anything"
- "I got mine." attitude
- rich people saying "I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, as long as I get to choose what it's spent on."
- in California, Prop 13 and 8% pensions starve school districts and social services with mathematical certainty
It's not unheard of for people who are lost using a door bell or driveway and getting shot to death. In other words, homeowners are sitting in the dark with loaded weapons, waiting to proudly kill anybody who passes by. See "castle doctrine."
It would take leadership to admit there's a problem and to steward policies rather than engage in empty rhetoric.
Instead we have special interests and lobbyists, and the invisible hand of the wealthy writing our laws and pulling the strings.
When you look at the existing divisions in American society, you can see how a few thousand "fake news" accounts could do a lot of damage to magnify those divisions.
Is there an equivalent of a 'do not resuscitate' tattoo or something you can get that's along the lines of 'do not perform for-pay medical care on me'?
If I were in the US, travelling, I'd only want immediate life saving treatment (a heart attack, say) to take effect unless I was absolutely sure of the precise cost of what I was submitting myself for.
It baffles me that you can be billed unknown amounts for this. I don't do _anything_ without knowing roughly how much it costs. My rent? Known before signing. Utilities? Rates are published, there's a meter on the wall. Supermarket? Prices are right there. Taxi? Has a meter, or it's fixed price private hire.
The only example I can come up with right now where prices aren't generally known before the fact is the pub. If you serve me a pint and claim it costs 15 quid rather than the expected ~5, you better believe that you're pouring that down the sink.
I drove by a road toll today in Norway that cost $1. I'm given enough time to turn around and decide not to use that road.
Yet Americans are getting slammed for multiple years' income whilst they're essentially unconscious?
It would be impossible as even doctors and hospital staff straight up don't know what is covered and what isn't from person to person with much confidence....let alone the actual pricing.
As if they can't slap 2-3 procedures costing several grand during the resuscitating process and say they were "essential" when they were not required at all? Good like proving otherwise...
If not... why are we brainstorming ideas for an auxiliary medical information business whose apparent business model would involve fee for service to prevent beneficial-if-expensive medical interventions? That's arguably a step down from ideas to get people to click on ads. It really seems smart people out to be able to enjoy working on the hard problems of brainstorming contributions to a medical system in which effective providers are reasonably trained and rewarded, insurance risks are effectively pooled and managed, and access to care doesn't carry a risk of bankruptcy.
It really was just a joke. I agree that healthcare, esp emergency healthcare, should not bankrupt people. (But in the meantime, for only $9.99 a year...)
> auxiliary medical information business whose apparent business model would involve fee for service to prevent beneficial-if-expensive medical interventions
This has been tried in court. The general ruling is that emergency medical care has the right to reasonably assume, absent some health care proxy to the contrary, that you wish to be resuscitated and accept all good faith care administered to this effect.
> Is there an equivalent of a 'do not resuscitate' tattoo or something you can get that's along the lines of 'do not perform for-pay medical care on me'?
You can set yourself up to be judgment-proof, and hospitals can perform all the unwanted care they want to on you and they'll be able to collect basically $0. It's easier than it seems - move to Texas, leave all the assets in retirement accounts that you can, and plow all your liquid wealth into your primary residence.
How does that work if you're like, a working adult, with an income, not in retirement, though?
If I go on holiday to the US, and for whatever reason through some minor flaw in my travel insurance (or just not having it; I imagine millions of people fly there without it each year) I'm not covered, it sounds like a person could easily rack up tens of thousands without realising if they weren't aware of this sort of thing.
If you’re not from the US, it would also be far easier for you to simply default on your debt. Actually I’m curious how medical debt is even enforced for non-citizens. Related, I have completely separate credit scores in the UK (resident) and US (citizen). I’m sure the bureaus would like to change that, but there is no system that lets them know I’m the same person.
I have a good friend that did that. Was a legal resident, accumulated tens of thousands in medical bills due to emergency services coming out of an elective surgery. He just moved back home (out of country). He’s not been pursued. They called his domestic residence multiple times but after being told he left the country and nobody knows where, they stopped.
International legal cases are extremely expensive to prosecute - unless they know you have plenty of money and the amount in question is well into the 5-digit range, they'll probably just cut their losses.
Still works if you're a working adult - you just make sure that your outstanding cash balance is roughly zero (depending on wildcard/bank account exemptions). Wage garnishment basically isn't a thing in Texas (at least for medical debts), so if you don't have seizable cash in a bank account they pretty much just have to go pound sand.
Why would you care if you're not from the US? Get the healthcare and go back to whatever awesome place you come from with proper health care and be grateful you don't live here. US debt collectors cannot follow you outside the country.
I know this will get downvoted to oblivion, but these stories are just anecdotal. Thousands of people utilize medical care in the USA without much fanfare.
It should get downvoted; it's heartless. Given the hundreds of millions of people in the US, the fact that thousands, or even millions, of people successfully seek medical care doesn't demonstrate much. One or two people whose lives are ruined by rent-seeking in a life-or-death matter is too many (I think one wouldn't ignore several cases of food poisoning at a restaurant and respond that hundreds had eaten there without incident); I suspect that the actual number of people affected by this sort of catastrophe is at least in the thousands. Unless you're one of the people affected (and probably not even then), you have no right to dismiss the suffering of those who have been.
One of the “pleasures” of working in a cube farm is that you get to overhear a lot phone calls. I hear a lot of people spending hours and hours arguing with providers and insurance over billing mistakes. Based on this I believe it’s pretty common. My girlfriend got hit with a $300000 bill after a surgery. It was a mistake (several actually) but it took her almost a year and literally 100s of phone calls to clear this.
Only a minority of people get murdered too. Most people walk around alive and happy.
In Australia, the number one reason for personal bankruptcy prior to the Hawke Labor government introducing Medicare in the 1980s was unexpected medical expenses [1].
insurance is the USA is largely tied to having a job. You can buy your own insurance but it's terrible in comparison to better employment-based health insurance and the reason for that is exactly why we need a public safety net.
Company insurance plans a) form a group and b) have negotiating power with insurance companies. The first part is really important. Being diagnosed with diabetes and then having diabetes-related medical expenses be excluded from personal insurance as a pre-existing condition is Bad. Really Bad.
The only way insurance works is if you consider the total expenses of a sufficiently large group of people. Companies, unions and government organizations are the only way to get this in the US.
Getting hit with surprise medical bills is very common among my network.
Personally, I went for a physical and hospital billed me over $600 for it. They apparently performed things that are not covered by my insurance.
No matter how much you insist, hospitals won't tell you how much things would cost or if something is covered or not.
I try to be proactive about my health but surprise bills sometimes scare me out of visiting hospitals/doctors for checkups. Or even if I go, I'm always worried about getting surprise bills weeks later.
The same thing just happened to me. I scheduled a physical which is considered preventative which means it's free and covers things like the general blood panels..I go in, they order a blood test and a couple weeks later I got a bill for $800. I called the insurance and they said the doctor billed me as a "visit" and not a physical and I would have to call the doctor to have them change the billing code. So I did that but they wouldn't change, they said that because it was my first time at this office that they have a policy that all first appointments are billed as visits. keep in mind that this was stated no where and this was the first I was hearing about it. Anyway they refused to change the billing code and I'm stuck with $800 bill.
Make it clear you are not going to pay and will dispute anything that shows up on your credit report. It’s obvious you’re never going back to them at this point so burning bridges is perfectly ok.
Remember, medical bills don’t mean anything on their own and doctors want to get paid.
Here's the dirty little secret: in the kafkaesque industry that is 21st century medicine, a bill is like an offer to pay.
"$800 is what we think you owe us," isn't even quite the right explanation.
It's more like, "we think you're an $800 sucker who will cough up that number because it appears on this official-looking piece of paper."
And if you call one of them up (any of them: doctor, insurance, hospital, whatever) they're going to either: a) tell you to talk to one of the other two, or b) exactly what they think you need to hear so that they maximize their conversion rate, i.e. so that you send in your real money for their fake bill.
Did you put down your signature on a piece of paper stating to the effect that you owed them $800? Do they have in writing your acknowledgement that you supposedly owe them $800? No? Then why are you acting like it?
Collection is their problem, and right now they're playing a psychological trick on you because on works on people like you.
patio11 has some good comments on collections. I'm not going to dredge them up but anyone sufficiently interested can do so.
But all these stories are so absurd it's mind-boggling why you all Americans still put up with this BS. It's unthinkable anyone would even try to pull something like this in Europe. When I was going through a surgery in the facility I choose they presented me with a detailed bill (I could do it for free but I preferred to have more comfort with a private room etc.). Moreover, I paid it in full in advance. I was aware the costs might get higher in the case of complications but I roughly knew their cost.
It's really unbelievable anyone would ever agree to pay ridiculously high sums someone else just pulled out of thin air post factum. It's unfair, it's absurd, it's breaking people's lives. Why don't you collectively decide to end it once and for all?
Anecdotal can mean both "rare stuff that happened to some extreme outlier" and "personal experience of millions of people which don't have stats available, or official statistics push under the carpet in different creative ways".
I had two insurance companies and both times I had kids, they hit us with $10k bills a year after the birth because they couldn’t sort out insurance. I had to threaten to sue them twice to stop them from trying to collect on their idiotic fuckups.
Yep, all the things you mention are effectively contracts (in the broad sense) where both parties commit to previously agreed upon terms.
It's for this reason that most countries have some kind of mandatory insurance against emergency medical treatment where the person being treated basically has no choice (even if they're conscious) and is thus incapable of forming a valid contract.
You're right that in this scenario it's weird to expect someone to still pay for their treatment, but if you can't force people to be fully insured against such costs you need to force them to pay for costs they couldn't freely consent to.
> I suppose there's probably an equivalent scenario if a non-EU visitor falls ill in the UK.
The NHS charges at 150% of their standard charges for non-EU nationals. For most people this is a moot point since short-term visitors are required to have insurance anyway, and long-term visitors pay a surcharge which covers them for all NHS services.
As an EU citizen who watched “Breaking Bad” I always assumed that in the US there actually would be some kind of insurance check even in emergency situations.
I’m glad to learn that people in reality though, do get taken care of when in need. Anything else would be highly unethical, really. Life > debt.
With regards to your hypothetical scenario as a Norwegian citizen: are you sure your Norwegian social security wouldn’t reimburse you in case of emergency treatment in the US? I know for a fact that Austrian social security would be pretty much obliged to (I would guess it’s the same for many other EU countries).
It's against the law in the US for a hospital emergency room to turn away a patient based on ability to pay if they also accept Medicare. Practically speaking they all accept Medicare.
America has decided only one party needs to be a signatory of a contract and it will apply to both. No consciousness needed because there is nothing to agree to. Everything has already been pre-agreed to. This is the same in our other industries. Good luck if you cable provider, retailer, hotel, airline, landlord, or other service fucks you over. You agreed to some insane bullshit in the thousand page 2pt font popup that probably didn't even load correctly so now you are fucked. At least it's not a matter of life or death there, though, but it sure is a matter of our entire society being structured this way to take advantage of people and fuck them over for money. Police? Oh yes, they are some of the biggest thieves and are allowed not only legal violence, but legal theft. Corporations are often worse than the government. They will gladly kill thousands for minor profits. Hundreds of thousands or millions if they are not Americans. Minor crimes are just part of doing business. In our society, everything is a calculation, and lives have a dollar value. It's not very high, although admittedly, higher than most of the rest of the world. This mindset permeates the entire culture and society to the point that it's virtually indistinguishable from them. It's no wonder we as Americans cannot and do not trust each other. You simply never know who is out to fuck you over. You just know that there are many and that you will be fucked over. The more money you have, the more you can insulate yourself from it to the point where enough money gives you the privilege to fuck over other people in previously described manner. This also explains why people love their guns so much. Some people just get fucked over for money. Others, especially minorities, often get fucked over for their lives.
Is there a compilation of many of the "gotchas" (like this) that can be pulled in medical billing in the US? A wiki or GitHub repo would be a good place to start compiling them. Alternatively, post about any you know of here.
Another common misconception about medicare is that they won't deny tests or procedures that your physician deems medically necessary. Medicare can and does issue such denials. I worked next to a family medicine MD with a primarily medicare/medicaid patient panel and he would spend at least two hours per clinic day on the phone arguing with various counter parties about the medical necessity of certain orders he had submitted. He said it was by far the most frustrating part of his job. If you look at where CMS policy is headed, I would expect more care dictated by flow charts and algorithms and less autonomy in the hands of physicians.
Yeah, if the Americans on here were smart, they would investigate things about their healthcare system further, especially when it comes to being on Medicare and retired. For that they should study the Kaiser Family Foundation's Website, backwards and forwards. One can end up in a situation where they need an extremely expensive, lifesaving medication, that subjects them to Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage levels. I have Medicare and if I lose my employer based insurance coverage through a family member, I will have to pay $50,000/year to stay alive. This is something I cannot afford as I am disabled.
Not to mention, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, then Google it. You can go to the absolute best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but you cannot evade a statistic like that. It is way to pervasive. Our healthcare system, along with is quality, are absolutely deplorable.
But the good news is, most people on here are educated and are skilled workers. They can emigrate to other countries. I would recommend the European Union countries in general, but obviously Western Europe and Northern Europe are better. But, anywhere in the European Union really is a step up from American-style care.
I am a European Union citizen. I am Croatian, besides being American. I am leaving the United States soon. I cannot wait to start a new life and adventure. I am tired of living in fear about my healthcare.
In many areas of practice the US provides some of the best care in the world. Places like MD Anderson in Houston and Sloan in NYC attract sick people from all over the world for a reason. It's fair to credit these institutions for what they do well.
>you cannot evade a statistic like that
The best advice I tell people is to make sure you have a patient advocate (family member or friend) with you 24/7 when you are hospitalized aka "in the system". I stayed with a friend for a one week hospitalization and witnessed multiple preventable medical errors that could have resulted in intubation and admission to the ICU (and perhaps death). I had to physically intervene to prevent the administration of a contraindicated drug which my friend had explicitly declined. I had to diagnose and fix faulty bedside telemetry myself. I had to retrain the CNAs on how to accurately collect sublingual temperature readings. The entire experience was quite eye opening. I've never spent time in a hospital in Europe but I would be surprised if the benefit of an advocate was not somewhat universal.
I agree with you on this 100%. You do absolutely need somebody with you in the hospital 24/7, as a lot of things happen that should not. This is unquestionably true in the United States. However, everybody should have a friend or family member with them at the hospital 24/7, anywhere in the world.
While what you said is absolutely true, there are serious breaks in continuity of care that allow for these things to happen too. Not having a true standardized health record (versus something that is effectively a billing machine) that can be accessed anywhere, by healthcare professionals, and without obstacles is extremely disastrous.
This needs to be studied more.
What I am trying to say is that staying in the hospital 24/7 as an advocate may be a necessary and needed remedy, besides being something that should be necessary in general.
But only works as a remedy in the most basic sense.
I wish there was a tech solution to having oversight on the mistakes of the hospital care team. Maybe the patient can wear a sort of body cam over the bed to police the care team staff and have some machine learning algorithm develop a confidence score on their technique in administering correct medications (or catching incorrect medication or dosage pre-administration), verifying time spent since last time patient was checked and quality of care spent when they did check on patient (if they need to be changed, are they comfortable, do they need to be adjusted to avoid pressure sores, etc), policing them when not sanitizing hands or covering face to avoid infecting immunocompromised patient, policing physicians to see if they actually checked on patients and if they are charting procedures to bill insurance that they never performed or "upcoding" to extract more insurance $$$ etc etc.
I have a background in the sciences and was premed myself, so I am familiar with the medical field (completed premed coursework to attend medical school + know the process for becoming a board certified and practicing physician) and am passionate about healthcare and human centered design (have years of doing great UX work in tech and pharmaceutical companies). Contact info is in bio.
Would love to talk to anyone else interested in this to get something going and working on solving these problems. My dad had a hemorrhagic stroke and I'm bedside every night and passionate about making sure his care team does their job and prolongs his life so we can get out of the hospital and on he road to recovery. I would love to scale this up to patients in hospital beds globally and save lives from avoidable medical care mistakes and oversight!!
Also: I live in Houston. You can look at my comment history to verify this. We have a close friend whose husband died from stage 4 colon cancer. Our friend caught the nurses at MD Anderson hooking him up to the wrong chemotherapy drug--not once--but twice.
The doctors may be phenomenal and unbelievably amazing. But when it comes to general care, I have serious doubts.
Yup it's the recovery phase that can be more deadly. I have been fighting with nurses that come into the room, not covering their face while coughing and clearly having a cold when caring for my immunocompromised father, among dropping medical implements and not changing gloves after touching soiled or germ laden objects then attending to my father for medications etc.
This stuff is frightening, if I wasn't here he would surely develop a life threatening infection in his immunocompromised state (he already did a course of antibiotics for something he picked up from the hospital environment.. pseudomonas?)
Thank you for saying this as I'm sitting here bedside with my dad 2 months post intracranial hemorrhagic stroke and watching his care team make mistake after mistake, giving him aspirin, ibuprofen (blood thinners for a hemorrhagic stroke patient is not good!), not covering their face when visibly having a cold and coughing while he is in an immunocompromised state (can get deadly infection complications quick), not attending to his needs when he soils himself so he can be in bed for hours in agony and is not able to alert them (he is ESL and has stroke induced aphasia so can't speak much, right side paralysis so he can't really press the nurse call light let alone remember to).
To them he is just another patient and a number in the system. I've seen them cut corners and get frustrated doing their job (having to change him etc) and talking behind our backs in the hallways when I'm getting on their case to get his BP meds ASAP and notify doctor (high blood pressure >160 systolic is BAD for hemorrhagic stroke patients).
Anyone have any tips or resources for how I'm supposed to be optimizing his recovery and shield him from mistakes of his care team? Thanks, this is really taking a toll on me and I'm trying my best everyday to make sure he gets out of the hospital setting and on the road to recovery. I've been by his side every night switching with another family member for 24/7 coverage for months now.
Also, I saw your other comment. I am definitely in on the project. I have worked on other health-related projects. My background is in electrical engineering. I have 1 year left of school. I plan on returning in the fall.
Obviously artificially intelligence has been overhyped. But what it really is especially capable of doing at this point is preventing human error.
There are lots of various things that could be done. I am not focusing on purely AI as one has to be open-minded in the design process.
Awesome! HN is a wonderful place to find like-minded individuals :)
sorry if I'm slow to reply, my sleep schedule is all over the place but dad is being discharged soon so I promise I'll get back to you soon, added my email to bio.
> The EU countries are generally much less likely to pay for a new, expensive drug than the US is.
> And even if they do, it typically takes 1-2 years after it’s approved before they’ll pay.
This statement is very untrue for Germany. Germany brings medications to market typically very quickly after approval.
This is especially true in the realm of rare diseases (which are common: 6-8% of the general population has one) where access to these medications is often a life or death matter.
There has been research on stuff like this. I would look in to it if I were you before making assumptions. There are also other countries in the EU that do well with this.
Wrong. This is unbelievably wrong. Please stop spreading false information. Also, check your sources. A "brought to you by big pharma" article, from a website about big pharma news, let alone about an isolated case, is likely to be extremely biased.
First, these medications are absolutely never reimbursed the day after approval in the United States.
If you get a prescription for a medication the day after approval from your doctor, the insurance company will almost certainly (practically a 99% chance) call the medication "experimental" and "not medically necessary", and deny all coverage of the medication. You will have to appeal the denial, and you will be extremely lucky if you do get approval to take this medicine. To do so, you have to write an extremely detailed letter, very cohesive and without any sort of mistakes that give it any uncertainty. You basically have to tell them that you will either cost more to them than the cost of the drug, if it is not approved by them, or die.
If you are "extremely lucky" your insurance is (almost) guaranteed to send your doctor a prior authorization request. This takes weeks to resolve, if not months. This is basically a request so that a a bureaucrat from an insurance company can "give you permission" to take this medicine. If you are "lucky" it gets approved. There are people who are denied approval just because they have another condition (that is off-label) in addition to the FDA-approved condition that the drug was approved for, just because this was affirmed in a check box in the prior authorization. It is straight up incompetency. Also, doctors reviewing any sort of appeal or prior authorization are practically guaranteed to be practicing medicine in a board-certified field that is completely irrelevant to the condition you have.
They can also deny you the recently approved medicine because they require you to do step-therapy first, and sequestering this medication as not being an option for a very long time. This means that you must try a cheaper and less-effective medicine first, putting you at risk of having your condition worsen in potentially devastating and irreversible ways, before being able to try more effective medicines. So, patients with devastating conditions like multiple sclerosis will often have to go through a series of trials of less effective medications, often with their conditions worsening in an irreversible way, just because their insurance says so. There is no way to legally get around this in the United States as a patient.
To top this off, more than likely, the medication will not be put on the formulary. Pretty much all insurance companies in the US subject their subscribers to a formulary. A formulary means that you cannot take certain medications under any conditions, and the health insurance company will not cover the medication under any conditions whatsoever. It will absolutely be denied, no matter what. There are tons of medications that have legitimate medical uses, that are excluded from insurance plan coverage, even in the case when there is no alternative for it.
Between automatic denials, prior authorizations, step therapy, and formulary exclusions, which are standard practice in the United States, it is guaranteed that one will not get the needed, recently FDA-approved medication, for months at best, but in reality, it could be several years, or even never. They do let people die in life or death situations all the time.
Regarding Germany: By the way, orphan drugs (rare disease drugs) dominate current regulatory approvals, being the vast majority of current drug approvals.
These medications typically cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, if not millions per year, now in the United States. This is not the list price of the medication or the amount that was billed to insurance either. This is the reimbursement rate by insurance, that is paid under contract.
Countries like Germany have no issue paying for them, and they are reimbursed much quickly...
Yes, not all insurance companies in the US approve the day after. But some do (I’ve personally witnessed it). How else would newly launched drugs have sales in the first quarter? People sure as hell aren’t paying cash.
Since it’s before a policy is formally written, it’s often a manual approval based on medical necessity. The issue with PA denials is separate from actual reimbursement, Germany has PA requirements too (as they should, why pay for a new drug if an old drug works just fine). I never said it was easy, I just stayed they are paid for quite quickly.
A drug I recently launch was approved by the EMA last year, it’s still not available in many EU countries because reimbursement hasn’t yet been approved.
And yes, the drugs are expensive, but at least with orphan drugs, they still cost hundreds of thousands in the EU. The price window for orphan drugs is quite narrow between the US and EU.
There's no real fix for this outside of a banning providers from billing patients directly. As long as there is any legal route to people paying expenses directly, doctors will find sneaky ways to trick people into doing that.
Yet the US has approximately the same number of doctors per capita as Canada and the UK [1]. And the cost of healthcare in the US has sharply risen in the past few decades - presumably due to some unreported restriction in the supply of doctors?
All three have few doctors compared to other rich countries. In the UK and Canada there are price controls which means this is bad for doctors but good (well, cheap) for patients. In the US this scarcity just means exorbitant pay for doctors. And yes those dreaded administrators too.
I am working on finishing my education, as I only have 1 year left of engineering school, in electrical engineering, before I enter the workforce.
I require a blood product in order to survive. If I ONLY had Medicare (I don't--I also have employer-based insurance through a family member), I can expect to pay around $50,000/year for my care, due to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. I can definitely expect to have to pay $50,000/year soon if the Affordable Care Act is abolished. Fortunately, I am a European Union citizen, but it would be tremendously sad to have to leave the United States, my homeland, over this.
I really cannot go on a Medicare Advantage plan, which might resolve this issue, as I have a very rare condition that only a few doctors in my area are qualified to treat. Most Medicare Advantage plans are HMOs too. You also cannot switch back to traditional Medicare ever, once you get a Medicare Advantage plan. I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas by population too. It puts me in a strange place where I can almost be guaranteed not to get the care I need. My care is unbelievably complex.
It is very common to be admitted to the hospital by Medicare under observational status. I am surprised that the person writing this article was unaware of this, but almost everybody outside the healthcare field is unaware of it. There are also some really, really strange rules with respect to emergency room visits and being admitted under observational status by Medicare. It also takes a lot of time to look them up and understand them.
The Medicare Part B premium is typically $135/month for most Americans. This covers 80% of your costs for outpatient care, doctors visits, medical supplies, etc., under traditional Medicare (not a Medicare Advantage plan). To cover for the remaining 20% (which you should get coverage for--you are foolish not to) you need to get a Medigap plan. Those can be expensive.
I know this is unbelievably complex, and is a huge waste of time to have to go and understand, to prevent yourself from getting in trouble, if you have Medicare. It is ridiculous.
However, the author was being penny-wise and dollar foolish. It is very, very common for people to explicitly elect to have Medicare Parts A and B if they have traditional Medicare. Saving $135/month over something that could get you in trouble is not smart in the American healthcare system.
Yes, his situation should have never happened, in a decent healthcare system. It is sad. But he did make some pretty big mistakes, especially considering he is a doctor. But, he did not deserve this.
>You also cannot switch back to traditional Medicare ever, once you get a Medicare Advantage plan.
You can change plans during the annual enrollment period, from October 15 through December 7. You can enroll in or switch advantage plans or just go back to plain Medicare.
If you're on plain Medicare, you can also switch to a 5-star advantage plan between December 8 and November 30.
No. This is not well known, but what I stated was absolutely true. There are endless unbelievably insidious tricks and rules like these:
If I were to switch from a Medicare Advantage Plan back to Traditional Medicare, I could never get a Medigap (or supplemental plan) which covers the 20% that Medicare Part B does not cover. This is due to the fact that I have a pre-existing condition. Actually, I probably have 50+ pre-existing conditions from a medical insurance underwriter standpoint, but that is beside the point.
> Depending on their state, Medicare beneficiaries who miss these windows of opportunity may unwittingly forgo the chance to purchase a Medigap policy later in life if their needs or priorities change, OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO SWITCH TO TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF BEING IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN.
This is a huge deal. I have type 1 diabetes plus 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system. My insulin pump supplies are covered under Part B. A couple of my hospitalizations were covered under Part B under an "observational status". I used to receive infusions of a blood product in the hospital every 2 weeks that cost my insurance about $10,000 each time, under contract. I also need a couple of different infusions, although far less frequently, to stay alive.
So for me, unless I totally uproot my life and move to one of those 4 states that does not allow the pre-existing condition clause to preclude me from Medigap coverage, I am stuck on a Medicare Advantage plan. I am screwed. These plans only become more hardcore and strict.
I cannot be on an HMO, which many Medicare Advantage plans are. I have a very rare disease that maybe a few doctors can treat, even though I live in a huge, very populous city. I also need the doctors I currently have, which work like a team. I cannot afford the several prior authorizations and the delays that will happen from switching insurance.
I cannot afford to make a mistake. Switching to a Medicare Advantage Plan can be extremely problematic for somebody like me, due to logistical issues. They could cost me my life too, and that is no exaggeration.
I may have to switch to a Medicare Advantage Plan, as costs are capped and I have an exorbitantly expensive medication that I must take to survive. Under Traditional Medicare, under Medicare Part D, I am subjected to catastrophic coverage levels. I can expect to pay $50,000/year for my healthcare, if I lose employer based coverage through a family member via Affordable Care Act partial or full overturn.
In the case that I am forced to switch to a Medicare Advantage Plan, there is no going back to Traditional Medicare, due to pre-exisiting condition clauses in Medigap plans. That is extremely problemsome as it limits my access to doctors and other care, as I have a very rare disease.
Fortunately, I am a European Union citizen, so I can just leave. But, it makes me profoundly sad. What I mean is that I no longer feel welcome in my own country, my homeland. I have been in remission for a year now and I am close to completing my degree so I can work. I really want to work! But the United States makes it extremely hard for me. There are just way too many things tied to working, especially health insurance. It is really sad. My family is here, but I know I would be better off in Europe. Right now, I have been focused on language learning non-stop. Obviously you learn one language at a time. I am currently working on Croatian. All I can do is try to move on.
After you graduate, looking into employment in government might be a good idea. My grandmother is a survivor annuitant (grandfather worked for the federal government) and she has Aetna PPO through the OPM in addition to plain Medicare A/B. It acts as a medi-gap policy when a provider accepts Medicare, and acts as a normal PPO when they don't. I'm not sure if you would be eligible for something similar, but I think it's worth looking into.
The only thing that's a pain about it is Aetna conforms to Medicare's policies on covered care, so if you want something and Medicare won't authorize it, you have to go to a provider who does not accept Medicare to get it. You can also get coverage from a provider who accepts Medicare when the treatment isn't covered by Medicare by switching from Medicare to a 5-star advantage plan, since Aetna would not longer be able to fall back on Medicare not authorizing it, but then you lose the medi-gap aspect, although that's not too bad because Aetna has OK out of pocket maximums.
This is very misleading and surprising that a physician would make such a mistake.
It seems that he only had Medicare Part A, which is not alone really health insurance it is strictly for hospitalizations and has no premium. I think of it more like catastrophic insurance.
Medicare Part B is actually health insurance and requires a premium. He casually mentions that he didn’t have Part B but unclear why.
The 20% coinsurance he paid is what you’d pay under Part B, and unclear what other insurance he has, but for a high earner you should always buy Medigap which reduces the 20% since like in this example can still be thousands of dollars.
In fact he admits that he has a Blue Cross plan (probably a sort of Medicare Advantage plan) that covered 80% of the bill. But it’s obscured by the headline and the long rant preceding the admission.
> I wasn’t enrolled in Part B, but did have Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental insurance, which required me to pay 20% of the allowable hospital and surgical charges.
Not sure what this means. Medigap is supplemental insurance that reduces the 20% coinsurance responsibility. If he didn’t have Part B then he couldn’t have bought this.
Medicare Advantage is just A+B from a private insurance company.
Exactly. He made a big mistake. I suspect that he did not elect to have Medicare Part B, as he likely had private, employer-based insurance, which did not require him to. Usually the Medicare Part B premium is around $135/month. He was being penny-wise and dollar foolish, as Medicare Part B covers 80% of doctor's visits, outpatient care, medical supplies, etc. He probably would not need a Medigap plan, which covers the remaining 20% of Part B expenses, if he had employer-based insurance as creditable coverage.
He really should have known that Medicare is relegating certain hospitalizations to Part B. This is very common and not new news. However, the rules involved with it, from the ER to the actual floor, are really strange and take a lot of time to understand.
Yeah, you have to know and understand a ton of ridiculous rules prior to going on to Medicare. It is an unbelievable waste of time. Then, once you are on Medicare, you have to continue to keep a look-out of what is going on, including investigating certain rules, as things frequently change.
He has my sympathies as this sort of situation should never exist in a developed, civilized country, like the United States. But, he made a series of mistakes, passively mostly, which got him in to this situation.
> He has my sympathies as this sort of situation should never exist in a developed, civilized country, like the United States.
Some how nearly everyone in France manages to deal with buying top-up insurance for the 20-30% of medical costs the national health insurance doesn’t cover. This isn’t a uniquely American thing.
It should be noted that this sort of coverage is not some sort of weird American thing. In France, for example, the government insurance only pays 80% of hospital visits. Everyone signs up for private supplemental insurance to cover the gap.
It sounds like he’s employed, which is why he probably didn’t buy B, but if his private insurance plan still makes him pay 20% coinsurance for this then it’s a really bad plan and he should’ve just bought Part B + Medigap.
> Your home, your 401k, is easy pickings for a bankruptcy court.
No, they are not. 401k is a protected asset, and is basically off limits to creditors. Similarly, it depends on the state, but most states provide for homestead protection from creditors. In some states, like Texas, the homestead protection amount is unlimited.
FYI, there are good arguments that the 2/3 number is significantly misleading.
For instance, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ “ However, the magnitude of the bankruptcy effect is much smaller than previously thought: we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above.”
This. Every single American should take your comment to heart 100%.
I am an American in her 30s, on disability, who has Medicare. I am looking to return to the workforce, after I complete my final year of engineering school, in electrical engineering.
I require a blood product that costs $300,000/year in order to survive. I have 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system, which are in pharmaceutical remission, thanks to this medicine. It is the only thing that has worked, and we have tried about 10 treatments, plus combinations of them. It is my only option.
In addition to having Medicare, I also have employer-based insurance through a family member. For reasons which I will not discuss, it is extremely likely that I will lose this coverage if the Affordable Care Act is partly or completely repealed.
I can expect to pay at least $50,000/year for this via Medicare coverage, if it is my only insurance, as I will be subjected to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. Obviously, I cannot afford to. One would be lucky to be able to afford this, even if they saved and were living on a huge pile of money, which is unlikely even working as an engineer.
Living in the US is just not worth it. You would be lucky not to need an exorbitantly expensive medication at some point in your life. Cancer meds are unbelievably expensive too. Almost half of cancer patients exhaust their lifetime savings within 2 years of diagnosis. 62% are in debt from it.
Besides stuff like that, in the US the third leading cause of death is preventable medical errors (if you do not believe me, Google it), which is on par with third world countries. You can go to the best institutions and get the best possible medical care, but I can assure you that you cannot evade that statistic, with it being #3 as the cause of death.
I want to work in the US but with my healthcare being so tied to my insurance, it really does not work for me.
This country is no place to live, if you want to survive your health problems. The best place to go, in general, if you are concerned about healthcare are the European Union countries. They do not discriminate on the basis of your health status, but you will have to work and earn your citizenship.
You can also get citizenship by descent. I naturalized as Croatian (also as an European Union citizen), as I cannot afford to risk my health here any more. My situation is more precarious than one would think.
> Your home, your 401k, is easy pickings for a bankruptcy court.
Your 401k and retirement accounts ( pensions, IRAs, trust funds, etc ) are legally protected from bankruptcy or legal judgments. In some states ( like florida ), even your home is protected from bankruptcy or legal judgments. Otherwise OJ Simpson who be homeless begging on the street rather than playing golf every other day.
Medical issues can be a source of financial distress for sure, but your statement about 401k is simply not accurate.
The headline is incorrect. The patient did not get stuck with a $25k hospital bill. The patient co-insurance was 20% of $25k or $5k. Still a lot of money for surgery and 2 days in the hospital, but not $25k.
Since the amount billed typically is several times the negotiated rate between a healthcare provider and an insurance company and the 20% is based upon what the insurance company actually paid the patient likely paid significantly less than even $5k.
Why are hospitals allowed to withhold the price of service until after treatment? No other business that I know of is allowed to get away with this kind of behavior. You don't sign a contract to buy a car, then find out the price later.
Isn't there some precandent in law somewhere saying that one parting cant change an agreement after the fact or they would be acting in bad faith? Are hospitals acting in bad faith?
Part of the problem is that for many procedures, there are subprocedures or emergency measures or just unexpected routes that doctors have to take in order to complete the objective you did consent to which tack on charges. But TBH, I'm not convinced why they shouldn't just be forced to eat these costs as a matter of labor contingency like every other business, and raise the overall procedure cost to an amount that would cover the odds of this happening and tell us up front.
I agree. If i contract to have a house built, I understand there can be over runs, but those are treated as a special case. I still know, with fairly good certainty, what the final cost will be up front.
The Trump administration has a bill in the works that requires hospitals (and I believe all medical professionals) to publish the cost of their sevices.
Of course, it is being fought because Trump is behind it.
Politics is the relinquishing of critical thinking in favor of the interests of political parties. It is a disgusting, corrupt ecosystem populated by equally disgusting and corrupt people.
The only way someone like Trump comes into the scene is because things have become so putrid in politics that people decide their only option is to send someone into the White House who is perfectly comfortable throwing feces around.
> The only way someone like Trump comes into the scene is because things have become so putrid in politics that people decide their only option is to send someone into the White House who is perfectly comfortable throwing feces around.
That's almost poetic. And quite accurate in my particular case.
You are using the wrong time scale. Here’s a depressing exercise:
Go back as far as you can find video of promises made by Presidential, Senate and House candidates of any political party.
Write down the problems they list and solutions they promise.
Here we are, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years later with the same problems, the same promises and the same incompetence and lack of action.
Election after election, campaign after campaign, we are promised the world and, in exchange for our votes, receive absolutely nothing.
Through that time every single politician becomes a multi-millionaire at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent and help.
Don’t blame a guy who chose to step into a pit of vipers covered in fecal matter for what, in reality, is a monumental failure of our political system and the elites who run it.
The fact that we don’t have a sensible healthcare system is not Trump’s doing. It is the result of 50 or more years of people voting for charlatans and scam artists. It’s embarrassing, it’s a disgrace.
Yes, Trump is uniquely capable of inducing projectile vomiting. However, the real obscenity is what the political class has done to this country during the last several decades.
Imagine being the guy actually trying to fix that mess. Do you really think decades of corruption, partisanship and incompetence can be fixed in a couple of years? And, do you think fixing this putrid mess is going to be, say, dignified and clean in any way?
No, the way you clean a putrid mess is you open the doors and windows and you get to work. It’s going to be horrible, disgusting, smelly and vomit-inducing. Eventually, if you persevere, things improve and you can go from throwing feces at each other to pretending we are civilized and return to decorum.
I certainly don’t agree with all of his views and some of his social manner makes me want to vomit, but I am glad we have someone at the helm who is letting all the stench out for all to see and continues to fight them hard despite having been covered in shit for three years. Few people could endure such a thing. This is a remarkable time to witness.
The real obscenity is what our politicians have done to us for decades. Anything Trump may have said or done pales by comparison. I wish people could stop, think and understand this fact.
Bullshit. Obama passed the ACA. Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid. FDR passed social security. Trump hasn't done shit even with a Republican congress. Almost certainly for the best, but the point is that passing proper legislation is possible. You're just making excuses for Trump's failings. Proper healthcare has been overdue for decades now in America and not having it is one of the reasons we are sliding back into 'developing' country status.
> Bullshit. Obama passed the ACA. Johnson passed Medicare and Medicaid.
If these things were actually good we would not STILL have every single politician talking about having to fix healthcare.
Look, I get that you hate Trump. There's a lot of that going around. No problem. The issue is not to be blinded by hatred and to try to be objective about reality. In my decades in business I've had to do business and work with lots of people I did not agree with and, yes, in some cases, didn't like very much. Life isn't a nice linear ride into utopia. It's a twisty, complex and sometimes unpalatable path through less than ideal choices and outcomes.
Trump, in this sense, isn't any different from anyone who preceded him, from Obama's lies about the ACA (I am still looking for my $2,500 a year savings...in reality our insurance costs QUADRUPLED due to ACA, coverage got worse, we could not keep our prior insurance and lost doctors) to Bush's stupid wars. This is life. We don't have to love all of it. All we can do is try to progressively make things better.
BTW, it is disingenuous to say that Trump has not done anything in three years. He has actually likely done a lot more than prior Presidents. If we want to focus on healthcare alone, here's a short article listing a few non-trivial important achievements:
I hope you'll read it because it is obvious your hatred for Trump has caused you to not be well informed on these points.
As I said in a prior comment, he takes me to the edge of projectile vomiting every time he opens his mouth. However, my aforementioned business experience has taught me to focus on results rather than style. The results he has delivered in three years --while getting dumped-on and attacked from every angle in way and at a scale never before seen in US history-- are nothing less than incredible. I struggle to comprehend how it is that this man is able to do so much while being under attack 24/7 by half the government and nearly all of the media.
I wonder how you might support this statement? It is patently false. I am a Classical Liberal voter. I do not align with either one of the two main parties. All I care about are results, not style. Drama is of no importance at all. Results don't lie.
If you can ignore your hatred long enough to read through this larger list, perhaps you can comment on how this is, to paraphrase your comment, "not doing shit":
Most of my friends are Democrats and some even call themselves "as Left as you can be". I've had many in-person conversations with them over the last few months. Once emotion is removed from the dialog every single one of them is amazed by how much this man has achieved. My own parents are Democrats. They are voting for Trump in 2020. Why? Because of what what he has achieved while being the target of the largest political attack in the history of this nation.
People who can set ideology aside are recognizing what's going on here and starting to understand who --despite the lack of style and decorum-- is actually working for them.
What we are watching is a Democratic party living in abject fear of having become so incompetent and irrelevant that there's a real concern they will not win elections for some time to come if they allow Trump to win a second term and, perhaps, achieve s...
Honest question: what has Trump achieved? The right wingers talk as if he singlehandedly has lifted the country out of recession where in reality he inherited a boom and managed to keep that going (nothing wrong with that). He certainly has achieved exactly zero in terms of health care and this is what my initial response was about.
Sorry, but you are wrong on healthcare. Please take a look at this sub-list and tell me how this equates with achieving exactly zero. I want to understand how one goes from a list of undeniable achievements in healthcare to concluding something like "He certainly has achieved exactly zero".
Again, echoing your intent, I am having trouble understanding how, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, people can believe he has achieved nothing on healthcare.
Look, we all agree that healthcare in the US is a disaster. I hope we all agree that Trump had nothing to do with that. This is the result of lies, political games and incompetence going back 50 years or more. Let's be careful not to attribute the disaster our political class has handed down decade-after-decade to a man who --as all evidence indicates-- is actively trying to fix it.
The reason these things are not addressed after decades of promises is that politicians work for themselves, not for us. It should cause everyone pause that every single election in modern history puts exactly the same issues on the table as the most pressing issues of the time. The incompetence and lack of results is, at the very least, embarrassing and at some level criminal. Anyone delivering these kinds of results in the private sector would be relegated to using a hammer to turn big rocks into little rocks.
Trump is a nasty SOB, but if you leave emotion out of the equation and look through the list of what his administration has achieved in three years it is very hard to argue with the results. As I said before, this is all I care about. The theatrics will be meaningless in ten years. However, the results will have long-lasting effects way past his stay in the White House. That's the part that matters, nothing else.
I maintain that Trump has achieved zero in health care. His only achievement is undermining
Obamacare (“repeal and then having no idea what to do”). So far I haven’t seen any real effort to make health insurance any better (where is the “wonderful” plan he promised coming in?) other than bringing us back to the glory days before 2008 when people with preconditions couldn’t get insurance and plans would dump you whenever you got actually sick. He also didn’t “jumpstart” the economy as claimed on the site. I have no problem with you voting for Trump. Go ahead.
You can maintain that view if you'd like, but understand it does not align with reality at all.
BTW, this isn't a discussion about who I might vote for, please don't get defensive. This is a good conversation so far, no need to go there.
Let me add something about healthcare. I'd like to suggest you are focusing on the wrong thing (as are millions others).
The US healthcare problem is NOT an issue of insurance. Not even close. That's the biggest fallacy and lie told by politicians for decades now.
Put in very simple terms: You cannot fix the US healthcare system with insurance. Period. It is NOT an insurance problem.
I don't care if we pass Medicare for All, None or the Pink Unicon Plan. Insurance is not the problem.
What's the problem?
Costs. Well, it's layers of issues really. In no particular order at all:
The cost of medical education is ridiculous. The government needs to get out of the student loan game and allow the free market to drive education costs down. Today a doctor graduates with $300K or more in student debt. This means, in no uncertain terms, that this person cannot work for a salary lower than what's require in order to have a hope of paying back that loan and, on top of that, having a life, raising a family, owning a home, etc.
BTW, my wife is a physician, so I have first-hand data on some of the internals of the business side of medicine.
The next problem --and this affects everyone, not just doctors-- is that our education system loads-up degrees with a bunch of unnecessary pork clearly designed to add another year, if not more, to the process of obtaining a degree. In other countries, if you study, say, electrical engineering, you are treated to science and engineering courses, you don't have to burn months taking myriad unnecessary general education, sociology or other non-engineering courses.
When a university is charging you $50K a year to keep you within their walls it is quite profitable to require you to take a bunch of other stuff with the excuse of these things being degree requirements. This adds at least $50K, if not more, to the cost of getting a degree.
Moving on from there, the cost of malpractice insurance is ridiculous. Of course, there's variance from specialty to specialty. The range is from $5K to $50K per year and it also depends on where the physician might be practicing (which State).
These costs are an important element of the equation that ultimately determines how much we have to pay to have a dozen people attend to us during a surgery or half a dozen people involved in emergency care, etc.
Then there's tort reform. Yes, things have been getting better, with some States doing better than others. However, the consequences of our litigious society is that doctors are forced to cover their behind by sometimes ordering all kinds of unnecessary tests and medicine. This costs money and that cost is passed on to the patient one way or the other.
Now you start looking at medicine at the hospital level and things get worse. The hospital employs a bunch of people with huge student loans and varying degrees of malpractice insurance and office expenses to cover. The hospital itself has to cover itself through expensive insurance. And then there's the regulatory burden of actually running a hospital. Costs pile-up and, once again, they are passed on to the patient.
Then we move on to drug companies. The cost of developing drugs and obtaining regulatory approval is massive. Some drugs cost in the region of $5 billion. The FDA mandates testing that costs in the range of $300 million.
Drug companies have non-trivial costs associated with dealing with the regulatory burden. In addition to this they have to worry about lawsuits as well, which means they have expensive insurance, people to manage this (entire legal teams) and the cost of occasional settlements reached in litigation. Once again, costs pile-up and patients end-up paying for them.
You are making some good points. everybody agrees the the US system is f...ed. But don't forget how this discussion started. You stated that Trump is addressing things and I am saying he has done nothing and will do nothing other than talking tough. That point still stands.
No, sorry, your point is vacuous. It is based on a lack of information and an obvious refusal to read the material I posted. You are not informed.
OK, here, I'll post the list here. This list is not exhaustive. You can google each and every one of these and find further details. This is far, very far, massively far, from your idea that Trump has not achieved anything in healthcare. The exact opposite is actually true, what this administration has been able to achieve in this domain while being under absolutely brutal attack 24/7 on the part of the Democrats and almost the entire media is, well, nothing less than remarkable. He still has at least a year to go, some think he has five. I can only imagine what he would have been able to accomplish under more favorable circumstances.
This political war has cost this country dearly.
He has lists like this one in almost every domain affected by Federal policy. It's simply amazing. People don't know about it because the media are so incredibly biased and one-sided that they hide it all, they don't talk about it, they only focus on the hatred. And so it isn't a surprise that someone can actually believe that he has done nothing, despite all the evidence and documentation that shows otherwise. I mean, you can literally go dig-up the executive orders and read them. This is real.
I hope you re-evaluate your belief system, because you are 100% wrong on this. You don't have to believe me, go dig-up the executive orders and read them. Everything below can be corroborated. No lies. You can still, as I, dislike his public persona, yet you can and should be honest enough to accept the fact that the results he is delivering are likely without parallel in modern US history. It's amazing.
- The Department of Agriculture provided more than $1 billion in FY2017 to be used to improve access to health care services for 2.5 million people in rural communities.
- The Trump administration expanded access to Association Health Plans (AHPs) allowing small business to pool risk across states.
- The Trump Administration allows for Short-Term Limited Duration plans to be extended up to 12 months.
- President Trump signed a six-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to fund healthcare for 9 million. Keeping CHIP is expected to save the Federal government about $6 billion dollars.
- President Trump has mobilized his entire administration to address drug addiction and opioid abuse by declaring the opioid crisis a nationwide public health emergency
- Trump created a bipartisan opioid commission that issued 56 recommendations to help defeat the opioid crisis
- In October 2017, President Trump directed The Department of Health and Human Services to declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency, allowing grant money to be used to combat abuse
- President Trump signed the International Narcotics Trafficking Emergency Response by Detecting Incoming Contraband with Technology (INTERDICT Act) that would give customs agents $9 million for screening tools on the border
- In FY2017, HHS invested nearly $900 million in opioid-specific funding
- Trump successfully pressured China to close dangerous loopholes that allowed Chines fentanyl manufacturers to legally ship the compound worldwide, much of which ended up in the U.S.
- Under President Trump, The FDA has approved the largest number of generic drugs in history.
- Generics increase competition in the marketplace and lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans.
- In December 2018, year-end drug prices fell for the first time in nearly 50 years.
- The Trump Administration issued guidance expanding options for individuals with chronic conditions. High deductible plans can now cover products such as insulin, inhalers and statins pre-deductible
- President Trump signed an executive order to modernize flu vaccines and help protect more Americans by promoting new technologies to improve vaccine manufacturing and effectiveness.
BTW, I truly believe neither Obama nor Trump had anything to do with the economic recovery. The principle is easy: Once you dig a hole deep enough and reach bottom the only way is up. We hit bottom in 2008/9 or thereabouts. People lost homes, businesses, jobs, etc. After that, people and businesses rebuilt. Because that's what people do, they don't need government to tell them they have to do this.
Actually, politicians are far more likely to cause damage than to fix things. Once again, the fact that exactly the same issues are put on the table in every single election in modern memory is evidence of that. They run the country. If they keep saying the same things are broken either they are incompetent, don't care or are only looking after themselves and their respective parties. In the meantime we sit in the middle and suffer the consequences.
So, yeah, I agree with you, Trump isn't responsible for the entirety of the economy improving and neither was Obama. A little, maybe, but not the bulk of it. I hate it when politicians take credit for what they did not do.
>The fact that we don’t have a sensible healthcare system is not Trump’s doing. It is the result of 50 or more years of people voting for charlatans and scam artists. It’s embarrassing, it’s a disgrace.
The vast majority of the people generally get the govt that they deserve, don't they? Not disagreeing with anything that you said. But I would be surprised if in a typical democracy people +elected smart, analytical upright people versus scam artists. One sees similar dynamics play out even in small groups so how are large groups like nations supposed to be immune?
+=Of course it is another subject if the elections are indeed 'fair' or rigged.
>The only way someone like Trump comes into the scene is because things have become so putrid in politics that people decide their only option is to send someone into the White House who is perfectly comfortable throwing feces around.
I agree.
Robomartin, mind contacting me? Email is on my profile. ( I could not see any contact information on your profile).
The answer is not what the author wants -- to close this one particular loophole. The answer is force price transparency, which is what we have in almost every other market. In other words, you have to be told what the price is, in advance, and you have to agree to it. If that doesn't happen, and the provider tries to hit you with charges you haven't agreed to, then it's fraud.
at this point it seems not unreasonable to say that the collective dark parasitic menace associated with the medical system in the US (to include all of the following: leadership, admins, providers, policymakers, etc. is actively hostile towards individual citizens of the US. the whole charade of nobly helping people should be pretty well dead and buried by now: it's all about dollars and extracting the maximum possible.
i am not surprised to learn that seniors are also exposed to some goofy backdoor likely engineered by some clever lobbyists ages ago.
from where i sit the risk of existential financial danger of being inside the US is probably not worth it for the vast majority of those no longer earning a normalish W2 income. what's the point staying in the US for "retirement" when you can get clobbered by some technicality?
some people may figuratively and literally live to fight another day but you'll probably do battle with this monster until you die warding off literal mercenaries trying to get you to pay the bill... and whatever assets you have tried to build up over the years as well.
given that a large percentage of the US economy is based on this behavior (and not really getting any smaller; it's big source of jobs - check job growth reports), it's fairly unreasonable to think it will get better before it gets worse. i am not optimistic that even if Sanders were elected he could fix this. there are too many grubby hands in the money pot, and it is too easy to sell the people on the """cost""" because second order effects (lost productivity, mental health issues, crime, ability to change jobs/situations without fear of death or permanent ruin, deleterious effects on youth without access etc.) are completely ignored. big numbers on federal budgets are too easy for those of the Free Market mindset to fixate upon.
i would humbly submit that if you are worried at all about this, there are lots of opportunities to take a social security income and live out a respectable life and/or death in countries where you are not treated like a financial bloodbag to be reaped and tossed aside. a lot of these places would be happy to have your dollars and you'd also reduce your contributions to this system.
Americans: Pay attention the the above comment and take it to heart.
I urge you to, as a dual national of both the United States and the European Union (Croatia). I am also on Medicare, as I am disabled.
One would be foolish to underestimate this comment and the overall situation it describes. It is unwinnable.
You can very easily end up paying a fortune every single year during your lifetime ($20,000/year-$100,000/year) for medications that are covered under Medicare Part D, due to a clause called Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage levels, just so you can stay alive. There are people in the top 1% that cannot afford these sorts of costs during retirement.
To top it off, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, Google it. You can go to the very best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but nobody can evade a statistic like that. The problem is just way to invasive and ingrained in to how we give healthcare in the United States.
If you want to stay alive long-term, then the best thing to do is to emigrate, particularly to a European Union country. They never discriminate on the basis of health status (including the cost of your healthcare or care), but you do have to be able to work to stay on a visa to eventually acquire citizenship. Obviously western or northern Europe is more desirable, but anywhere in the European Union is a step up in quality from the chaos of our system.
166 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 218 ms ] threadOn first glance it seems like only the well-off would go to college. I won’t respond further unless I’m sure I understand your proposal
Sounds ridiculous right?
So the make the price $30.000 and give discounts if your parents don't make $100.000 instead.
Education loans just bring more money into the system and inflate tuition, just like how 0% down mortgages inflate real estate prices
I don't think anyone is opposed to letting people buy private insurance on top of the obligatory single payer. Does any country actually ban additional private insurance?
I wonder how travel health insurance works for tourists there.
“ In fact, the bill would outright ban private insurance that provides similar coverage to the new Medicare for All plans after a short transition period. That means everyone with comprehensive employee benefits or a private plan through the Affordable Care Act today would be moved onto Medicare.
[. . .] Sanders has said he envisions these remaining plans covering a handful of items like cosmetic surgery that are left out of Medicare. For everything else, the only option is Medicare.”
Since private insurance is willing to pay far higher rates than Medicare, this would lead to Medicare-for-all failing. Doctors already exist who refuse to accept Medicaid-insured patients because the reimbursement rates are low compared to privately-insured patients.
Everything I can read about this plan says it would ban plans “on top of” Medicare, and contrasts it with other countries like the UK, Canada, and Denmark, which do have supplemental private coverage for medically necessary services available.
As a physician, you have to pick either the public or private system. You can’t practice in both.
Single-payer does not mean abolishing private insurance.
Take the UK’s NHS for example - there’s a thriving private healthcare insurance and private healthcare provider industry there.
Trump’s bill is about price transparency - while the bill is not a bad thing it won’t solve the problem of inflated prices to counter insurance lowballing - I believe the end-result will be something like the “room rate” signs you see in hotel rooms in many states that show the maximum legally allowed billable rate for the room which is usually very high compared to the rate you’re actually paying.
As for the cost argument - people will NET save money because the tax increases to pay for universal coverage will be less than most people’s current healthcare expenses (assuming employers will pass on the savings from not having to pay for workplace health insurance as salary/wage rises for everyone).
The fact that providers can perform services on you without telling you up-front what the price will be is the problem. That isn’t how a lot of the rest of our capitalist society works - Amazon can’t raise the price of something I order from them after it’s shipped to me, my rent can’t change once I sign the lease contract which clearly states the charges up front, and so on...
Of course. In an unregulated for-profit health care system that is definitely the problem and the way we got there was because of; if there are multiple vendors then prices will automatically go down.
I'm not anti-capitalism. It just doesn't work for certain parts of society but it seems that in the US everything needs to be capitalised and the government clearly doesn't want to regulate this industry.
FTA: “In a feeble attempt to ameliorate the problem, Congress passed the Notice Act in 2015, which requires hospitals to inform patients of the implications of their observation status within 36 hours after observation services have been initiated. In other words, hospitals must advise patients of their observation status only after they have already incurred the expense of surgery and hospitalization.”
This type of thing seems like the most immediate problem. It makes no sense that the price can be raised 36 hours after a procedure has already begun. How is anyone supposed to negotiate that properly?
Just saying, I don’t think “capitalism” is necessarily the boogeyman here. The government itself is failing to negotiate properly with the providers when running its socialist healthcare system in this instance. (And non-government payers will run into the same problems, getting unfair bills that couldn’t be anticipated or negotiated before agreeing to the service)
Any market where the buyer is not the person who’s paying, or where the buyer has to make a purchasing decision before they know the price (or even what goods/services they’re agreeing to buy), cannot possibly be influenced by the laws of supply and demand. It’s the same reason that you can look at essentially any government spending project, and amaze yourself by how little the government manages to achieve with so much money. The payer doesn’t have any choice about how much taxes they pay, and the decision maker has a very poorly constrained supply of other people’s money to spend.
Perhaps the real issue is the lack of capitalist principles? Perhaps the issue is CMS trying to micromanage everything via billing in a very centrally planned manner?
I think its interesting that the areas of the economy with the most government intervention are doing the worst... Healthcare, education, housing...etc. You could even throw in ISPs with their government guaranteed monopolies.
Meanwhile tech had basically no regulation. What do we see? Many things are free (yes even to the poor! Without a government guarantee or people going around proclaiming that it is a human right! Insane!). The industry also has some of the highest paid (no tech minimum wage to bring it about, insane!) and best treated workers...
I think it's the opposite–yes, the government does allow this sort of behaviour, but that's because the health-care-adjacent parasites lobby so furiously against any efforts to stop it. It's scarcely the government stepping in to ensure this sort of banditry (why would they, when government officials don't benefit from it?).
What?
If you have an exorbitantly expensive medicine that is covered under Medicare Part D (extremely, extremely likely), then you will face something called Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage. One should especially look into the data on that.
It is really easy to be in the Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage situation. Even if you are sitting on a mountain of cash during retirement, it is profoundly wasteful to be paying anywhere from $20,000/year-$100,000/year for your medicine, which is usually a lifesaving medicine, and is life or death, whether you take it or not.
Not to mention: The third leading cause of death in the United States in preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me then Google it. When a country has the third leading cause of death as preventable medical errors, they are almost always developing or third world countries. But, the US is an anomaly in that respect.
You can go the the best hospitals and the best doctors in the United States, but you cannot evade a statistic like that. When that statistic is so high, these issues are so pervasive that they are definitely present in a completely unacceptable way, even with the best institutions, hospitals and doctors in the United States.
If one was smart, they would investigate this further and decide to leave. Europe, especially West and Northern Europe, should be places one should by vying for. But anywhere in the European Union typically will be a step up from this chaos of a system.
I googled it. The third leading cause of death is 'accidents.' Where are you seeing 'preventable medical errors'?
There has been a lot of research done about it. It would be foolish to underestimate the scale of the problem.
Also, if you are concerned about getting the best possible care, or even just staying alive long-term, one should spend a lot of time examining http://healthdata.org
Life expectancy can be a good start when it comes to just investigating things.
The research from this site is very solid and all of it is open access. It was funded partly by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation too. A lot of this research comes from the University of Washington. They have a remarkable statistics department in general. They also have an phenomenal medical school. In terms of public medical schools, it is by far one of the best. Only UCLA and UCSF compete with it. Their allied health programs are great too.
If you live in Seattle, the care tends to be fairly consistent. Anyways, I am basically affirming my allegiance to UW Medical School. They kept my grandmother alive for many more years than what we would have ever expected.
Anyways, you can bet on it that their research is solid, even though I have deep respect for UW Medical School.
You are correct. It took her two years of study (with full time job) to pass her medical coder exam, and she's only really an expert in her area of expertise. There are dozens of areas of expertise. It is virtually impossible to navigate the system without an insider to assist.
Getting rid of insurance companies is only part of the equation, as far as I can tell. It could help quite a bit. But until we address the adversarial position that providers themselves take towards their patients, we're going to have galling and disgusting outcomes.
It is definitely the horse needed before the cart, and expecting a pharmaceutical/insurance funded government to pass the requisite regulations against its own interests would be cart first.
Unless of course, we could somehow acquire a government that acts on the interests of the people.
Apart from that, I wonder why the society in the USA is so adversarial. It is apparent in many aspects and it is damaging for the society. There are ways to reduce to adversity, but it seems that many people support and favour an adversial system. Is that a cultural curse of the USA?
It's been this way for a very long time, and it's only getting worse.
In a nutshell, there is no unified US society - Americans fear and hate their neighbor, which has resulted in societal dysfunction.
You probably don't really want to know how deep the ugliness goes, but here's several reported reasons:
- holdover from the first European settlers, the Puritans, where the word "puritanical" originated
- half the voters are often stereotyped as "people afraid of somebody else getting more." See Fox news.
- "Just society" belief (the poor or unfortunate must have deserved it)
- lack of homogeneity. See "salad bowl."
- mobile population causes isolation from families
- "at will"/feudal employment and ruthless healthcare system
- anti-intellectualism, with Trump as the poster boy
- tax policies designed to help the rich, and strip the middle class
- otherwise, lack of policies at all levels of US government
- rulers more concerned with controlling foreign countries than actually governing their own
- "anybody can be sued for anything"
- "I got mine." attitude
- rich people saying "I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, as long as I get to choose what it's spent on."
- in California, Prop 13 and 8% pensions starve school districts and social services with mathematical certainty
It's not unheard of for people who are lost using a door bell or driveway and getting shot to death. In other words, homeowners are sitting in the dark with loaded weapons, waiting to proudly kill anybody who passes by. See "castle doctrine."
It would take leadership to admit there's a problem and to steward policies rather than engage in empty rhetoric.
Instead we have special interests and lobbyists, and the invisible hand of the wealthy writing our laws and pulling the strings.
When you look at the existing divisions in American society, you can see how a few thousand "fake news" accounts could do a lot of damage to magnify those divisions.
If I were in the US, travelling, I'd only want immediate life saving treatment (a heart attack, say) to take effect unless I was absolutely sure of the precise cost of what I was submitting myself for.
It baffles me that you can be billed unknown amounts for this. I don't do _anything_ without knowing roughly how much it costs. My rent? Known before signing. Utilities? Rates are published, there's a meter on the wall. Supermarket? Prices are right there. Taxi? Has a meter, or it's fixed price private hire.
The only example I can come up with right now where prices aren't generally known before the fact is the pub. If you serve me a pint and claim it costs 15 quid rather than the expected ~5, you better believe that you're pouring that down the sink.
I drove by a road toll today in Norway that cost $1. I'm given enough time to turn around and decide not to use that road.
Yet Americans are getting slammed for multiple years' income whilst they're essentially unconscious?
Absolute madness.
It would be impossible as even doctors and hospital staff straight up don't know what is covered and what isn't from person to person with much confidence....let alone the actual pricing.
Heh.
If not... why are we brainstorming ideas for an auxiliary medical information business whose apparent business model would involve fee for service to prevent beneficial-if-expensive medical interventions? That's arguably a step down from ideas to get people to click on ads. It really seems smart people out to be able to enjoy working on the hard problems of brainstorming contributions to a medical system in which effective providers are reasonably trained and rewarded, insurance risks are effectively pooled and managed, and access to care doesn't carry a risk of bankruptcy.
I think you just described medical insurance
You can set yourself up to be judgment-proof, and hospitals can perform all the unwanted care they want to on you and they'll be able to collect basically $0. It's easier than it seems - move to Texas, leave all the assets in retirement accounts that you can, and plow all your liquid wealth into your primary residence.
If I go on holiday to the US, and for whatever reason through some minor flaw in my travel insurance (or just not having it; I imagine millions of people fly there without it each year) I'm not covered, it sounds like a person could easily rack up tens of thousands without realising if they weren't aware of this sort of thing.
That kind of situation can be avoided with International SOS insurance, on top of travel insurance.
Basically, it is medevac (helicopter or small aircraft) insurance that repatriates you back to your home country.
Besides even if 0.1% goes disastrously wrong financially then that's still a lot of people.
In Australia, the number one reason for personal bankruptcy prior to the Hawke Labor government introducing Medicare in the 1980s was unexpected medical expenses [1].
insurance is the USA is largely tied to having a job. You can buy your own insurance but it's terrible in comparison to better employment-based health insurance and the reason for that is exactly why we need a public safety net.
Company insurance plans a) form a group and b) have negotiating power with insurance companies. The first part is really important. Being diagnosed with diabetes and then having diabetes-related medical expenses be excluded from personal insurance as a pre-existing condition is Bad. Really Bad.
The only way insurance works is if you consider the total expenses of a sufficiently large group of people. Companies, unions and government organizations are the only way to get this in the US.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-18/bob-hawke-what-did-au...
Getting hit with surprise medical bills is very common among my network.
Personally, I went for a physical and hospital billed me over $600 for it. They apparently performed things that are not covered by my insurance.
No matter how much you insist, hospitals won't tell you how much things would cost or if something is covered or not.
I try to be proactive about my health but surprise bills sometimes scare me out of visiting hospitals/doctors for checkups. Or even if I go, I'm always worried about getting surprise bills weeks later.
Remember, medical bills don’t mean anything on their own and doctors want to get paid.
"$800 is what we think you owe us," isn't even quite the right explanation.
It's more like, "we think you're an $800 sucker who will cough up that number because it appears on this official-looking piece of paper."
And if you call one of them up (any of them: doctor, insurance, hospital, whatever) they're going to either: a) tell you to talk to one of the other two, or b) exactly what they think you need to hear so that they maximize their conversion rate, i.e. so that you send in your real money for their fake bill.
Did you put down your signature on a piece of paper stating to the effect that you owed them $800? Do they have in writing your acknowledgement that you supposedly owe them $800? No? Then why are you acting like it?
Collection is their problem, and right now they're playing a psychological trick on you because on works on people like you.
patio11 has some good comments on collections. I'm not going to dredge them up but anyone sufficiently interested can do so.
It's really unbelievable anyone would ever agree to pay ridiculously high sums someone else just pulled out of thin air post factum. It's unfair, it's absurd, it's breaking people's lives. Why don't you collectively decide to end it once and for all?
It's for this reason that most countries have some kind of mandatory insurance against emergency medical treatment where the person being treated basically has no choice (even if they're conscious) and is thus incapable of forming a valid contract.
You're right that in this scenario it's weird to expect someone to still pay for their treatment, but if you can't force people to be fully insured against such costs you need to force them to pay for costs they couldn't freely consent to.
Or if a UK citizen drives a car with (unknown to them) invalid insurance and destroys the side of a house or whatever.
The NHS charges at 150% of their standard charges for non-EU nationals. For most people this is a moot point since short-term visitors are required to have insurance anyway, and long-term visitors pay a surcharge which covers them for all NHS services.
https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs-services/visiting-or-mo...
I’m glad to learn that people in reality though, do get taken care of when in need. Anything else would be highly unethical, really. Life > debt.
With regards to your hypothetical scenario as a Norwegian citizen: are you sure your Norwegian social security wouldn’t reimburse you in case of emergency treatment in the US? I know for a fact that Austrian social security would be pretty much obliged to (I would guess it’s the same for many other EU countries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an...
If you get really sick, "gotcha".
They price and sell surgery directly to patients and employers. Whatever one’s view of their approach, I learned a lot from the episode.
When the 2008 crash happened, I listened to the episode and learned a ton. He always invites people with deep knowledge of the issues.
Not to mention, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, then Google it. You can go to the absolute best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but you cannot evade a statistic like that. It is way to pervasive. Our healthcare system, along with is quality, are absolutely deplorable.
But the good news is, most people on here are educated and are skilled workers. They can emigrate to other countries. I would recommend the European Union countries in general, but obviously Western Europe and Northern Europe are better. But, anywhere in the European Union really is a step up from American-style care.
I am a European Union citizen. I am Croatian, besides being American. I am leaving the United States soon. I cannot wait to start a new life and adventure. I am tired of living in fear about my healthcare.
>you cannot evade a statistic like that
The best advice I tell people is to make sure you have a patient advocate (family member or friend) with you 24/7 when you are hospitalized aka "in the system". I stayed with a friend for a one week hospitalization and witnessed multiple preventable medical errors that could have resulted in intubation and admission to the ICU (and perhaps death). I had to physically intervene to prevent the administration of a contraindicated drug which my friend had explicitly declined. I had to diagnose and fix faulty bedside telemetry myself. I had to retrain the CNAs on how to accurately collect sublingual temperature readings. The entire experience was quite eye opening. I've never spent time in a hospital in Europe but I would be surprised if the benefit of an advocate was not somewhat universal.
While what you said is absolutely true, there are serious breaks in continuity of care that allow for these things to happen too. Not having a true standardized health record (versus something that is effectively a billing machine) that can be accessed anywhere, by healthcare professionals, and without obstacles is extremely disastrous.
This needs to be studied more.
What I am trying to say is that staying in the hospital 24/7 as an advocate may be a necessary and needed remedy, besides being something that should be necessary in general.
But only works as a remedy in the most basic sense.
I have a background in the sciences and was premed myself, so I am familiar with the medical field (completed premed coursework to attend medical school + know the process for becoming a board certified and practicing physician) and am passionate about healthcare and human centered design (have years of doing great UX work in tech and pharmaceutical companies). Contact info is in bio.
Would love to talk to anyone else interested in this to get something going and working on solving these problems. My dad had a hemorrhagic stroke and I'm bedside every night and passionate about making sure his care team does their job and prolongs his life so we can get out of the hospital and on he road to recovery. I would love to scale this up to patients in hospital beds globally and save lives from avoidable medical care mistakes and oversight!!
The doctors may be phenomenal and unbelievably amazing. But when it comes to general care, I have serious doubts.
This stuff is frightening, if I wasn't here he would surely develop a life threatening infection in his immunocompromised state (he already did a course of antibiotics for something he picked up from the hospital environment.. pseudomonas?)
To them he is just another patient and a number in the system. I've seen them cut corners and get frustrated doing their job (having to change him etc) and talking behind our backs in the hallways when I'm getting on their case to get his BP meds ASAP and notify doctor (high blood pressure >160 systolic is BAD for hemorrhagic stroke patients).
Anyone have any tips or resources for how I'm supposed to be optimizing his recovery and shield him from mistakes of his care team? Thanks, this is really taking a toll on me and I'm trying my best everyday to make sure he gets out of the hospital setting and on the road to recovery. I've been by his side every night switching with another family member for 24/7 coverage for months now.
I am sorry that you are going through this. You are a wonderful son/daughter. I am sure your dad appreciates you in an incredible way.
Obviously artificially intelligence has been overhyped. But what it really is especially capable of doing at this point is preventing human error.
There are lots of various things that could be done. I am not focusing on purely AI as one has to be open-minded in the design process.
I will contact you in the morning.
sorry if I'm slow to reply, my sleep schedule is all over the place but dad is being discharged soon so I promise I'll get back to you soon, added my email to bio.
And even if they do, it typically takes 1-2 years after it’s approved before they’ll pay.
Yes the US system is terrible and expensive, but one reason it’s expensive is because it’s rare for them to say “no”.
> And even if they do, it typically takes 1-2 years after it’s approved before they’ll pay.
This statement is very untrue for Germany. Germany brings medications to market typically very quickly after approval.
This is especially true in the realm of rare diseases (which are common: 6-8% of the general population has one) where access to these medications is often a life or death matter.
There has been research on stuff like this. I would look in to it if I were you before making assumptions. There are also other countries in the EU that do well with this.
In the US, drugs are typically reimbursed the day after approval (though it can take a few weeks for manual approval).
And because the process is so onerous and the GBA fights on price, some drug companies are choosing not to launch in Germany.[1]
[1] http://www.pharmafile.com/news/166284/boehringer-lilly-wont-...
First, these medications are absolutely never reimbursed the day after approval in the United States.
If you get a prescription for a medication the day after approval from your doctor, the insurance company will almost certainly (practically a 99% chance) call the medication "experimental" and "not medically necessary", and deny all coverage of the medication. You will have to appeal the denial, and you will be extremely lucky if you do get approval to take this medicine. To do so, you have to write an extremely detailed letter, very cohesive and without any sort of mistakes that give it any uncertainty. You basically have to tell them that you will either cost more to them than the cost of the drug, if it is not approved by them, or die.
If you are "extremely lucky" your insurance is (almost) guaranteed to send your doctor a prior authorization request. This takes weeks to resolve, if not months. This is basically a request so that a a bureaucrat from an insurance company can "give you permission" to take this medicine. If you are "lucky" it gets approved. There are people who are denied approval just because they have another condition (that is off-label) in addition to the FDA-approved condition that the drug was approved for, just because this was affirmed in a check box in the prior authorization. It is straight up incompetency. Also, doctors reviewing any sort of appeal or prior authorization are practically guaranteed to be practicing medicine in a board-certified field that is completely irrelevant to the condition you have.
They can also deny you the recently approved medicine because they require you to do step-therapy first, and sequestering this medication as not being an option for a very long time. This means that you must try a cheaper and less-effective medicine first, putting you at risk of having your condition worsen in potentially devastating and irreversible ways, before being able to try more effective medicines. So, patients with devastating conditions like multiple sclerosis will often have to go through a series of trials of less effective medications, often with their conditions worsening in an irreversible way, just because their insurance says so. There is no way to legally get around this in the United States as a patient.
To top this off, more than likely, the medication will not be put on the formulary. Pretty much all insurance companies in the US subject their subscribers to a formulary. A formulary means that you cannot take certain medications under any conditions, and the health insurance company will not cover the medication under any conditions whatsoever. It will absolutely be denied, no matter what. There are tons of medications that have legitimate medical uses, that are excluded from insurance plan coverage, even in the case when there is no alternative for it.
Between automatic denials, prior authorizations, step therapy, and formulary exclusions, which are standard practice in the United States, it is guaranteed that one will not get the needed, recently FDA-approved medication, for months at best, but in reality, it could be several years, or even never. They do let people die in life or death situations all the time.
Regarding Germany: By the way, orphan drugs (rare disease drugs) dominate current regulatory approvals, being the vast majority of current drug approvals.
These medications typically cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, if not millions per year, now in the United States. This is not the list price of the medication or the amount that was billed to insurance either. This is the reimbursement rate by insurance, that is paid under contract.
Countries like Germany have no issue paying for them, and they are reimbursed much quickly...
Yes, not all insurance companies in the US approve the day after. But some do (I’ve personally witnessed it). How else would newly launched drugs have sales in the first quarter? People sure as hell aren’t paying cash.
Since it’s before a policy is formally written, it’s often a manual approval based on medical necessity. The issue with PA denials is separate from actual reimbursement, Germany has PA requirements too (as they should, why pay for a new drug if an old drug works just fine). I never said it was easy, I just stayed they are paid for quite quickly.
A drug I recently launch was approved by the EMA last year, it’s still not available in many EU countries because reimbursement hasn’t yet been approved.
And yes, the drugs are expensive, but at least with orphan drugs, they still cost hundreds of thousands in the EU. The price window for orphan drugs is quite narrow between the US and EU.
You mean hospital administration and private equity firms buying hospitals and squeezing them for all they can.
[1] https://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce/physicians_density/...
"My wife and I are both physicians, but neither of us had any clue that this could be the case."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21910193
I am working on finishing my education, as I only have 1 year left of engineering school, in electrical engineering, before I enter the workforce.
I require a blood product in order to survive. If I ONLY had Medicare (I don't--I also have employer-based insurance through a family member), I can expect to pay around $50,000/year for my care, due to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. I can definitely expect to have to pay $50,000/year soon if the Affordable Care Act is abolished. Fortunately, I am a European Union citizen, but it would be tremendously sad to have to leave the United States, my homeland, over this.
I really cannot go on a Medicare Advantage plan, which might resolve this issue, as I have a very rare condition that only a few doctors in my area are qualified to treat. Most Medicare Advantage plans are HMOs too. You also cannot switch back to traditional Medicare ever, once you get a Medicare Advantage plan. I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas by population too. It puts me in a strange place where I can almost be guaranteed not to get the care I need. My care is unbelievably complex.
It is very common to be admitted to the hospital by Medicare under observational status. I am surprised that the person writing this article was unaware of this, but almost everybody outside the healthcare field is unaware of it. There are also some really, really strange rules with respect to emergency room visits and being admitted under observational status by Medicare. It also takes a lot of time to look them up and understand them.
The Medicare Part B premium is typically $135/month for most Americans. This covers 80% of your costs for outpatient care, doctors visits, medical supplies, etc., under traditional Medicare (not a Medicare Advantage plan). To cover for the remaining 20% (which you should get coverage for--you are foolish not to) you need to get a Medigap plan. Those can be expensive.
I know this is unbelievably complex, and is a huge waste of time to have to go and understand, to prevent yourself from getting in trouble, if you have Medicare. It is ridiculous.
However, the author was being penny-wise and dollar foolish. It is very, very common for people to explicitly elect to have Medicare Parts A and B if they have traditional Medicare. Saving $135/month over something that could get you in trouble is not smart in the American healthcare system.
Yes, his situation should have never happened, in a decent healthcare system. It is sad. But he did make some pretty big mistakes, especially considering he is a doctor. But, he did not deserve this.
You can change plans during the annual enrollment period, from October 15 through December 7. You can enroll in or switch advantage plans or just go back to plain Medicare.
If you're on plain Medicare, you can also switch to a 5-star advantage plan between December 8 and November 30.
https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/when-can-i-joi...
If I were to switch from a Medicare Advantage Plan back to Traditional Medicare, I could never get a Medigap (or supplemental plan) which covers the 20% that Medicare Part B does not cover. This is due to the fact that I have a pre-existing condition. Actually, I probably have 50+ pre-existing conditions from a medical insurance underwriter standpoint, but that is beside the point.
See: https://www.kff.org/medicare/press-release/in-all-but-four-s...
> Depending on their state, Medicare beneficiaries who miss these windows of opportunity may unwittingly forgo the chance to purchase a Medigap policy later in life if their needs or priorities change, OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO SWITCH TO TRADITIONAL MEDICARE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF BEING IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN.
This is a huge deal. I have type 1 diabetes plus 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system. My insulin pump supplies are covered under Part B. A couple of my hospitalizations were covered under Part B under an "observational status". I used to receive infusions of a blood product in the hospital every 2 weeks that cost my insurance about $10,000 each time, under contract. I also need a couple of different infusions, although far less frequently, to stay alive.
So for me, unless I totally uproot my life and move to one of those 4 states that does not allow the pre-existing condition clause to preclude me from Medigap coverage, I am stuck on a Medicare Advantage plan. I am screwed. These plans only become more hardcore and strict.
I cannot be on an HMO, which many Medicare Advantage plans are. I have a very rare disease that maybe a few doctors can treat, even though I live in a huge, very populous city. I also need the doctors I currently have, which work like a team. I cannot afford the several prior authorizations and the delays that will happen from switching insurance.
I cannot afford to make a mistake. Switching to a Medicare Advantage Plan can be extremely problematic for somebody like me, due to logistical issues. They could cost me my life too, and that is no exaggeration.
I may have to switch to a Medicare Advantage Plan, as costs are capped and I have an exorbitantly expensive medication that I must take to survive. Under Traditional Medicare, under Medicare Part D, I am subjected to catastrophic coverage levels. I can expect to pay $50,000/year for my healthcare, if I lose employer based coverage through a family member via Affordable Care Act partial or full overturn.
In the case that I am forced to switch to a Medicare Advantage Plan, there is no going back to Traditional Medicare, due to pre-exisiting condition clauses in Medigap plans. That is extremely problemsome as it limits my access to doctors and other care, as I have a very rare disease.
Fortunately, I am a European Union citizen, so I can just leave. But, it makes me profoundly sad. What I mean is that I no longer feel welcome in my own country, my homeland. I have been in remission for a year now and I am close to completing my degree so I can work. I really want to work! But the United States makes it extremely hard for me. There are just way too many things tied to working, especially health insurance. It is really sad. My family is here, but I know I would be better off in Europe. Right now, I have been focused on language learning non-stop. Obviously you learn one language at a time. I am currently working on Croatian. All I can do is try to move on.
The only thing that's a pain about it is Aetna conforms to Medicare's policies on covered care, so if you want something and Medicare won't authorize it, you have to go to a provider who does not accept Medicare to get it. You can also get coverage from a provider who accepts Medicare when the treatment isn't covered by Medicare by switching from Medicare to a 5-star advantage plan, since Aetna would not longer be able to fall back on Medicare not authorizing it, but then you lose the medi-gap aspect, although that's not too bad because Aetna has OK out of pocket maximums.
It seems that he only had Medicare Part A, which is not alone really health insurance it is strictly for hospitalizations and has no premium. I think of it more like catastrophic insurance.
Medicare Part B is actually health insurance and requires a premium. He casually mentions that he didn’t have Part B but unclear why.
The 20% coinsurance he paid is what you’d pay under Part B, and unclear what other insurance he has, but for a high earner you should always buy Medigap which reduces the 20% since like in this example can still be thousands of dollars.
> I wasn’t enrolled in Part B, but did have Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental insurance, which required me to pay 20% of the allowable hospital and surgical charges.
Medicare Advantage is just A+B from a private insurance company.
He really should have known that Medicare is relegating certain hospitalizations to Part B. This is very common and not new news. However, the rules involved with it, from the ER to the actual floor, are really strange and take a lot of time to understand.
Yeah, you have to know and understand a ton of ridiculous rules prior to going on to Medicare. It is an unbelievable waste of time. Then, once you are on Medicare, you have to continue to keep a look-out of what is going on, including investigating certain rules, as things frequently change.
He has my sympathies as this sort of situation should never exist in a developed, civilized country, like the United States. But, he made a series of mistakes, passively mostly, which got him in to this situation.
Some how nearly everyone in France manages to deal with buying top-up insurance for the 20-30% of medical costs the national health insurance doesn’t cover. This isn’t a uniquely American thing.
https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/lifet...
https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/what-marketplace-plans-c...
If the plan qualifies for meeting the mandate, there shouldn't be maximums on essentials.
No, they are not. 401k is a protected asset, and is basically off limits to creditors. Similarly, it depends on the state, but most states provide for homestead protection from creditors. In some states, like Texas, the homestead protection amount is unlimited.
For instance, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/ “ However, the magnitude of the bankruptcy effect is much smaller than previously thought: we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above.”
I am an American in her 30s, on disability, who has Medicare. I am looking to return to the workforce, after I complete my final year of engineering school, in electrical engineering.
I require a blood product that costs $300,000/year in order to survive. I have 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system, which are in pharmaceutical remission, thanks to this medicine. It is the only thing that has worked, and we have tried about 10 treatments, plus combinations of them. It is my only option.
In addition to having Medicare, I also have employer-based insurance through a family member. For reasons which I will not discuss, it is extremely likely that I will lose this coverage if the Affordable Care Act is partly or completely repealed.
I can expect to pay at least $50,000/year for this via Medicare coverage, if it is my only insurance, as I will be subjected to Part D catastrophic coverage levels. Obviously, I cannot afford to. One would be lucky to be able to afford this, even if they saved and were living on a huge pile of money, which is unlikely even working as an engineer.
Living in the US is just not worth it. You would be lucky not to need an exorbitantly expensive medication at some point in your life. Cancer meds are unbelievably expensive too. Almost half of cancer patients exhaust their lifetime savings within 2 years of diagnosis. 62% are in debt from it.
Besides stuff like that, in the US the third leading cause of death is preventable medical errors (if you do not believe me, Google it), which is on par with third world countries. You can go to the best institutions and get the best possible medical care, but I can assure you that you cannot evade that statistic, with it being #3 as the cause of death.
I want to work in the US but with my healthcare being so tied to my insurance, it really does not work for me.
This country is no place to live, if you want to survive your health problems. The best place to go, in general, if you are concerned about healthcare are the European Union countries. They do not discriminate on the basis of your health status, but you will have to work and earn your citizenship.
You can also get citizenship by descent. I naturalized as Croatian (also as an European Union citizen), as I cannot afford to risk my health here any more. My situation is more precarious than one would think.
Your 401k and retirement accounts ( pensions, IRAs, trust funds, etc ) are legally protected from bankruptcy or legal judgments. In some states ( like florida ), even your home is protected from bankruptcy or legal judgments. Otherwise OJ Simpson who be homeless begging on the street rather than playing golf every other day.
Medical issues can be a source of financial distress for sure, but your statement about 401k is simply not accurate.
Isn't there some precandent in law somewhere saying that one parting cant change an agreement after the fact or they would be acting in bad faith? Are hospitals acting in bad faith?
Of course, it is being fought because Trump is behind it.
Politics is the relinquishing of critical thinking in favor of the interests of political parties. It is a disgusting, corrupt ecosystem populated by equally disgusting and corrupt people.
The only way someone like Trump comes into the scene is because things have become so putrid in politics that people decide their only option is to send someone into the White House who is perfectly comfortable throwing feces around.
That's almost poetic. And quite accurate in my particular case.
Go back as far as you can find video of promises made by Presidential, Senate and House candidates of any political party.
Write down the problems they list and solutions they promise.
Here we are, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years later with the same problems, the same promises and the same incompetence and lack of action.
Election after election, campaign after campaign, we are promised the world and, in exchange for our votes, receive absolutely nothing.
Through that time every single politician becomes a multi-millionaire at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent and help.
Don’t blame a guy who chose to step into a pit of vipers covered in fecal matter for what, in reality, is a monumental failure of our political system and the elites who run it.
The fact that we don’t have a sensible healthcare system is not Trump’s doing. It is the result of 50 or more years of people voting for charlatans and scam artists. It’s embarrassing, it’s a disgrace.
Yes, Trump is uniquely capable of inducing projectile vomiting. However, the real obscenity is what the political class has done to this country during the last several decades.
Imagine being the guy actually trying to fix that mess. Do you really think decades of corruption, partisanship and incompetence can be fixed in a couple of years? And, do you think fixing this putrid mess is going to be, say, dignified and clean in any way?
No, the way you clean a putrid mess is you open the doors and windows and you get to work. It’s going to be horrible, disgusting, smelly and vomit-inducing. Eventually, if you persevere, things improve and you can go from throwing feces at each other to pretending we are civilized and return to decorum.
I certainly don’t agree with all of his views and some of his social manner makes me want to vomit, but I am glad we have someone at the helm who is letting all the stench out for all to see and continues to fight them hard despite having been covered in shit for three years. Few people could endure such a thing. This is a remarkable time to witness.
The real obscenity is what our politicians have done to us for decades. Anything Trump may have said or done pales by comparison. I wish people could stop, think and understand this fact.
If these things were actually good we would not STILL have every single politician talking about having to fix healthcare.
Look, I get that you hate Trump. There's a lot of that going around. No problem. The issue is not to be blinded by hatred and to try to be objective about reality. In my decades in business I've had to do business and work with lots of people I did not agree with and, yes, in some cases, didn't like very much. Life isn't a nice linear ride into utopia. It's a twisty, complex and sometimes unpalatable path through less than ideal choices and outcomes.
Trump, in this sense, isn't any different from anyone who preceded him, from Obama's lies about the ACA (I am still looking for my $2,500 a year savings...in reality our insurance costs QUADRUPLED due to ACA, coverage got worse, we could not keep our prior insurance and lost doctors) to Bush's stupid wars. This is life. We don't have to love all of it. All we can do is try to progressively make things better.
BTW, it is disingenuous to say that Trump has not done anything in three years. He has actually likely done a lot more than prior Presidents. If we want to focus on healthcare alone, here's a short article listing a few non-trivial important achievements:
https://nypost.com/2019/09/21/five-smart-ways-trump-has-impr...
I hope you'll read it because it is obvious your hatred for Trump has caused you to not be well informed on these points.
As I said in a prior comment, he takes me to the edge of projectile vomiting every time he opens his mouth. However, my aforementioned business experience has taught me to focus on results rather than style. The results he has delivered in three years --while getting dumped-on and attacked from every angle in way and at a scale never before seen in US history-- are nothing less than incredible. I struggle to comprehend how it is that this man is able to do so much while being under attack 24/7 by half the government and nearly all of the media.
Here's another list:
https://www.promiseskept.com/achievement/overview/healthcare...
> Trump hasn't done shit
I wonder how you might support this statement? It is patently false. I am a Classical Liberal voter. I do not align with either one of the two main parties. All I care about are results, not style. Drama is of no importance at all. Results don't lie.
If you can ignore your hatred long enough to read through this larger list, perhaps you can comment on how this is, to paraphrase your comment, "not doing shit":
https://www.promiseskept.com/
Most of my friends are Democrats and some even call themselves "as Left as you can be". I've had many in-person conversations with them over the last few months. Once emotion is removed from the dialog every single one of them is amazed by how much this man has achieved. My own parents are Democrats. They are voting for Trump in 2020. Why? Because of what what he has achieved while being the target of the largest political attack in the history of this nation.
People who can set ideology aside are recognizing what's going on here and starting to understand who --despite the lack of style and decorum-- is actually working for them.
What we are watching is a Democratic party living in abject fear of having become so incompetent and irrelevant that there's a real concern they will not win elections for some time to come if they allow Trump to win a second term and, perhaps, achieve s...
https://www.promiseskept.com/
Sorry, but you are wrong on healthcare. Please take a look at this sub-list and tell me how this equates with achieving exactly zero. I want to understand how one goes from a list of undeniable achievements in healthcare to concluding something like "He certainly has achieved exactly zero".
https://www.promiseskept.com/achievement/overview/healthcare...
This article goes into a little depth on some of what they have achieved and the significance of the various achievements:
https://nypost.com/2019/09/21/five-smart-ways-trump-has-impr...
Again, echoing your intent, I am having trouble understanding how, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, people can believe he has achieved nothing on healthcare.
Look, we all agree that healthcare in the US is a disaster. I hope we all agree that Trump had nothing to do with that. This is the result of lies, political games and incompetence going back 50 years or more. Let's be careful not to attribute the disaster our political class has handed down decade-after-decade to a man who --as all evidence indicates-- is actively trying to fix it.
The reason these things are not addressed after decades of promises is that politicians work for themselves, not for us. It should cause everyone pause that every single election in modern history puts exactly the same issues on the table as the most pressing issues of the time. The incompetence and lack of results is, at the very least, embarrassing and at some level criminal. Anyone delivering these kinds of results in the private sector would be relegated to using a hammer to turn big rocks into little rocks.
Trump is a nasty SOB, but if you leave emotion out of the equation and look through the list of what his administration has achieved in three years it is very hard to argue with the results. As I said before, this is all I care about. The theatrics will be meaningless in ten years. However, the results will have long-lasting effects way past his stay in the White House. That's the part that matters, nothing else.
BTW, this isn't a discussion about who I might vote for, please don't get defensive. This is a good conversation so far, no need to go there.
Let me add something about healthcare. I'd like to suggest you are focusing on the wrong thing (as are millions others).
The US healthcare problem is NOT an issue of insurance. Not even close. That's the biggest fallacy and lie told by politicians for decades now.
Put in very simple terms: You cannot fix the US healthcare system with insurance. Period. It is NOT an insurance problem.
I don't care if we pass Medicare for All, None or the Pink Unicon Plan. Insurance is not the problem.
What's the problem?
Costs. Well, it's layers of issues really. In no particular order at all:
The cost of medical education is ridiculous. The government needs to get out of the student loan game and allow the free market to drive education costs down. Today a doctor graduates with $300K or more in student debt. This means, in no uncertain terms, that this person cannot work for a salary lower than what's require in order to have a hope of paying back that loan and, on top of that, having a life, raising a family, owning a home, etc.
BTW, my wife is a physician, so I have first-hand data on some of the internals of the business side of medicine.
The next problem --and this affects everyone, not just doctors-- is that our education system loads-up degrees with a bunch of unnecessary pork clearly designed to add another year, if not more, to the process of obtaining a degree. In other countries, if you study, say, electrical engineering, you are treated to science and engineering courses, you don't have to burn months taking myriad unnecessary general education, sociology or other non-engineering courses.
When a university is charging you $50K a year to keep you within their walls it is quite profitable to require you to take a bunch of other stuff with the excuse of these things being degree requirements. This adds at least $50K, if not more, to the cost of getting a degree.
Moving on from there, the cost of malpractice insurance is ridiculous. Of course, there's variance from specialty to specialty. The range is from $5K to $50K per year and it also depends on where the physician might be practicing (which State).
These costs are an important element of the equation that ultimately determines how much we have to pay to have a dozen people attend to us during a surgery or half a dozen people involved in emergency care, etc.
Then there's tort reform. Yes, things have been getting better, with some States doing better than others. However, the consequences of our litigious society is that doctors are forced to cover their behind by sometimes ordering all kinds of unnecessary tests and medicine. This costs money and that cost is passed on to the patient one way or the other.
Now you start looking at medicine at the hospital level and things get worse. The hospital employs a bunch of people with huge student loans and varying degrees of malpractice insurance and office expenses to cover. The hospital itself has to cover itself through expensive insurance. And then there's the regulatory burden of actually running a hospital. Costs pile-up and, once again, they are passed on to the patient.
Then we move on to drug companies. The cost of developing drugs and obtaining regulatory approval is massive. Some drugs cost in the region of $5 billion. The FDA mandates testing that costs in the range of $300 million.
Drug companies have non-trivial costs associated with dealing with the regulatory burden. In addition to this they have to worry about lawsuits as well, which means they have expensive insurance, people to manage this (entire legal teams) and the cost of occasional settlements reached in litigation. Once again, costs pile-up and patients end-up paying for them.
Medical device manu...
OK, here, I'll post the list here. This list is not exhaustive. You can google each and every one of these and find further details. This is far, very far, massively far, from your idea that Trump has not achieved anything in healthcare. The exact opposite is actually true, what this administration has been able to achieve in this domain while being under absolutely brutal attack 24/7 on the part of the Democrats and almost the entire media is, well, nothing less than remarkable. He still has at least a year to go, some think he has five. I can only imagine what he would have been able to accomplish under more favorable circumstances.
This political war has cost this country dearly.
He has lists like this one in almost every domain affected by Federal policy. It's simply amazing. People don't know about it because the media are so incredibly biased and one-sided that they hide it all, they don't talk about it, they only focus on the hatred. And so it isn't a surprise that someone can actually believe that he has done nothing, despite all the evidence and documentation that shows otherwise. I mean, you can literally go dig-up the executive orders and read them. This is real.
I hope you re-evaluate your belief system, because you are 100% wrong on this. You don't have to believe me, go dig-up the executive orders and read them. Everything below can be corroborated. No lies. You can still, as I, dislike his public persona, yet you can and should be honest enough to accept the fact that the results he is delivering are likely without parallel in modern US history. It's amazing.
- The Department of Agriculture provided more than $1 billion in FY2017 to be used to improve access to health care services for 2.5 million people in rural communities.
- The Trump administration expanded access to Association Health Plans (AHPs) allowing small business to pool risk across states.
- The Trump Administration allows for Short-Term Limited Duration plans to be extended up to 12 months.
- President Trump signed a six-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to fund healthcare for 9 million. Keeping CHIP is expected to save the Federal government about $6 billion dollars.
- President Trump has mobilized his entire administration to address drug addiction and opioid abuse by declaring the opioid crisis a nationwide public health emergency
- Trump created a bipartisan opioid commission that issued 56 recommendations to help defeat the opioid crisis
- In October 2017, President Trump directed The Department of Health and Human Services to declare the opioid crisis a public health emergency, allowing grant money to be used to combat abuse
- President Trump signed the International Narcotics Trafficking Emergency Response by Detecting Incoming Contraband with Technology (INTERDICT Act) that would give customs agents $9 million for screening tools on the border
- In FY2017, HHS invested nearly $900 million in opioid-specific funding
- Trump successfully pressured China to close dangerous loopholes that allowed Chines fentanyl manufacturers to legally ship the compound worldwide, much of which ended up in the U.S.
- Under President Trump, The FDA has approved the largest number of generic drugs in history.
- Generics increase competition in the marketplace and lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans.
- In December 2018, year-end drug prices fell for the first time in nearly 50 years.
- The Trump Administration issued guidance expanding options for individuals with chronic conditions. High deductible plans can now cover products such as insulin, inhalers and statins pre-deductible
- President Trump signed an executive order to modernize flu vaccines and help protect more Americans by promoting new technologies to improve vaccine manufacturing and effectiveness.
- Took...
Actually, politicians are far more likely to cause damage than to fix things. Once again, the fact that exactly the same issues are put on the table in every single election in modern memory is evidence of that. They run the country. If they keep saying the same things are broken either they are incompetent, don't care or are only looking after themselves and their respective parties. In the meantime we sit in the middle and suffer the consequences.
So, yeah, I agree with you, Trump isn't responsible for the entirety of the economy improving and neither was Obama. A little, maybe, but not the bulk of it. I hate it when politicians take credit for what they did not do.
The vast majority of the people generally get the govt that they deserve, don't they? Not disagreeing with anything that you said. But I would be surprised if in a typical democracy people +elected smart, analytical upright people versus scam artists. One sees similar dynamics play out even in small groups so how are large groups like nations supposed to be immune?
+=Of course it is another subject if the elections are indeed 'fair' or rigged.
I agree.
Robomartin, mind contacting me? Email is on my profile. ( I could not see any contact information on your profile).
Let's give credit where credit is due on this: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.97459...
i am not surprised to learn that seniors are also exposed to some goofy backdoor likely engineered by some clever lobbyists ages ago.
from where i sit the risk of existential financial danger of being inside the US is probably not worth it for the vast majority of those no longer earning a normalish W2 income. what's the point staying in the US for "retirement" when you can get clobbered by some technicality?
some people may figuratively and literally live to fight another day but you'll probably do battle with this monster until you die warding off literal mercenaries trying to get you to pay the bill... and whatever assets you have tried to build up over the years as well.
given that a large percentage of the US economy is based on this behavior (and not really getting any smaller; it's big source of jobs - check job growth reports), it's fairly unreasonable to think it will get better before it gets worse. i am not optimistic that even if Sanders were elected he could fix this. there are too many grubby hands in the money pot, and it is too easy to sell the people on the """cost""" because second order effects (lost productivity, mental health issues, crime, ability to change jobs/situations without fear of death or permanent ruin, deleterious effects on youth without access etc.) are completely ignored. big numbers on federal budgets are too easy for those of the Free Market mindset to fixate upon.
i would humbly submit that if you are worried at all about this, there are lots of opportunities to take a social security income and live out a respectable life and/or death in countries where you are not treated like a financial bloodbag to be reaped and tossed aside. a lot of these places would be happy to have your dollars and you'd also reduce your contributions to this system.
I urge you to, as a dual national of both the United States and the European Union (Croatia). I am also on Medicare, as I am disabled.
One would be foolish to underestimate this comment and the overall situation it describes. It is unwinnable.
You can very easily end up paying a fortune every single year during your lifetime ($20,000/year-$100,000/year) for medications that are covered under Medicare Part D, due to a clause called Medicare Part D catastrophic coverage levels, just so you can stay alive. There are people in the top 1% that cannot afford these sorts of costs during retirement.
To top it off, the third leading cause of death in the United States is preventable medical errors. If you do not believe me, Google it. You can go to the very best institutions, hospitals, and doctors, but nobody can evade a statistic like that. The problem is just way to invasive and ingrained in to how we give healthcare in the United States.
If you want to stay alive long-term, then the best thing to do is to emigrate, particularly to a European Union country. They never discriminate on the basis of health status (including the cost of your healthcare or care), but you do have to be able to work to stay on a visa to eventually acquire citizenship. Obviously western or northern Europe is more desirable, but anywhere in the European Union is a step up in quality from the chaos of our system.