Coronavirus - are we all doomed?

The newly weds who bought my old house from me both had health insurance through their work. He was a NYC cop, she worked for a supermarket chain in management. They never switched her insurance over to his because they had to save money to pay their $3000+ a month mortgage. She wound up getting sick and found out just how lousy her employer based insurance was. It had a $1000 a year cap including prescriptions. Turned out her medication was a $1000 a pill, which she had to take weekly. Since it was pre-Affordable care act, his insurance wouldn't cover her pre-existing illness when they did switch her over. Needless to say they didn't last long in the house.

I wonder who or in what circumstances the whole "pre-existing condition" thing was a bigger deal for.
I'm not denying it existed and was a problem for people, I'm just wondering who.

I had various employer-sponsored insurances through the years that did not have any exclusions for preexisting conditions assuming it was group coverage, before Obamacare mandated it.

It must have been something that was common on the really crappy plans, though, as I do realize it was a problem for a number of people.

Well, guess what though - a lot of liberal policies are just shifting costs around. Constantly making you think one thing is paid for, but all it does is take money from somewhere else. As any accountant knows!
Obamacare didn't magically make insurers continue profiting the same while also requiring them to include preexisting conditions.
They just make up for it in rates and tax money (subsidies) from the rest of us.
So basically the exact same overall effect as if Obamacare regulations never went into effect, before which time you could also spend more to get a better plan that didn't have the exclusion.
 
I would think the NYC police union would have top-tier health insurance. Usually, union-style healthcare plans include spouses and underage children. It seems like the secondary insurance would cover what the primary didn't.
 
What I've concluded about this ongoing discussion in America about the insane costs of healthcare is this:

- The basic problem isn't Insurance. It's the inclusion of a lot of ridiculous, unnecessary stuff.

After going to doctors a few times in Mexico, and after raising children and pondering the set-up of the doctor, the video games in the lobby, the elaborate money spent on Patient Portals, text messaging systems, fancy check in systems, and almost limitless number of layers of contractors in between contractors in between contractors, and just too many expectations on the part of the American consumer--supported by too many regulations from the government - have made it insanely expensive.

If we could just get back to the basics! Give me an office with a couple skilled doctors and a receptionist, that's it. I don't need my kids to play the WII in the lobby, I don't need you to send me 12 letters in the mail every time I change my portal password-heck, I don't need 3-factor secure authentication when I log into my portal, I don't even need a portal or any software, I don't need a a link sent to my phone to inform me that my doctor has sent my rx to the pharmacy (he already said he would, that will do it thank you), and after my surgery I don't need you to hire one person whose sole job is to lift me out of bed, another whose sole job is to wheel me down the hall, another whose sole job is to print my discharge instructions, another whose sole job is to explain them, another whose sole job is to pick up my shoes and put them in a bag -

the whole thing has gotten so ridiculously complicated and you can thank Democrat philosophies on REGULATION for most of that.
we are regulating ourselves out of existence - and the solution, I promise you, someone is going to suggest even more regulation to get out of the regulation hole.

drop all of that crap and give me a doctor sitting on a stool and 15 minutes of advice - and I guarantee you most of the cost would just disappear like a vapor.
 
I would think the NYC police union would have top-tier health insurance. Usually, union-style healthcare plans include spouses and underage children. It seems like the secondary insurance would cover what the primary didn't.

Agreed.

I've honestly always been pretty happy with my insurance, long before obamacare, and I worked for quite a laundry list of industries.
My wife, even part time jobs at schools had the best insurance you could have.

regardless of what they said, I think the main reason for obamacare was people who weren't working, or were working very little, not qualifying for benefits.
 
Both my wife and I worked for school districts and had top notch insurance until we turned 65 then went on Medicare.
 
Insurance and the health care system started changing for the worse in the early 70's with the advent of HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations). Prior to that time, much of the insurance industry was not-for-profit and every town of any size had a charity hospital run by the Catholic Church or some other religious or charitable foundation. People paid their basic expenses such as doctor's visits and minor procedures like mole removals, and broken arms, etc. out of pocket. That means that they cared what the providers charged and if they thought it was too much, they try to find someone else for non-emergencies.

I grew up poor but that didn't stop my parents from taking me or my siblings for medical care and somehow, they managed to pay for it. I needed some special surgery when I was 7 and it was performed by St Francis hospital in Hartford at a very low cost. We were poor, not destitute so it wasn't free. Nuns were the nurses and I don't remember being frightened by being away from home for a few days.

Like many ideas that sound good on paper but end up having bad side effects, we have HMO's The idea was that the plan would cover all "normal" care plus offer wellness care for "free" and other costs would have a co-pay that usually was less than 20%. Prior to this time, insurance was divided into short term and long term and they were separate policies. People paid for "normal" doctor visits and most prescriptions out of pocket. short term care policies covered things like broken legs, short hospitalizations for pneumonia, etc. Long term care was for more serious illnesses such as cancer or heart attacks. So, HMO's consolidated all insurance under one roof but they restricted you to a group of doctors and other providers who had negotiated with the HMO for specific rates for services. As long as you had an "in plan" option, the cost was covered. If you were out of plan, ie. two states away visiting grandma, you could be out of luck although there was certain emergency coverage for accidents. Ultimately what happened was that people stopped paying attention to what their doctor charged for a visit. As long as it was covered or the co-pay was small enough, no one cared. Once the scale tipped and very few people were paying out of pocket for medical care, the prices started creeping up and now we get to the problem. The insurance companies had no reason to push to keep rates down. When their costs rose, they raised their premiums and we had to pay them. That turned out to be a boon for the insurance industry because, even if they left their profit margin the same, 10% of $100 for an office visit = $10 but 10 % of $50 was only $5. So their profits rose in direct proportion to the raise in the cost to provide services. So, from their perspective, rising provider costs was actually a good thing.

Today, no one has a clue what their doctor charges for a 10 minute office visit but worse than that is they don't care and they don't understand why they even should care.

The Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), like all legislation with well-meaning names did nothing to make health care more affordable for the majority of Americans. It did provide free or low cost coverage for some but no where near the numbers promised and for the bulk of Americans, their cost of health care has been rising dramatically ever since. In the two years I lived under Obamacare before I was eligible for Medicare, my costs for insurance went from $600 per month to $1200. That doesn't seem very affordable to me.

One thing that the bill promised but never delivered was transparency. Why should the public not know up front what their doctor charged for specific services so they could easily shop around for a doctor that they could afford? Why should insurers not know what rates other insurance companies negotiated with my doctor. For a visit to my doctor, he might be paid $75, $90, $100, or $150 (for the uninsured) Medicaid would pay $75, Medicare would pay $90, most insurance companies would negotiate something around $100 and the poor sucker who didn't have insurance would be charged $150 and sued if he didn't pay his bill.

Hospitals are even worse. I had an accident a few years ago that involved an ambulance trip to the emergency room, stitches, and a variety of x-rays and MRI's to determine if I had any brain or back damage. I was conscious when I arrived at the hospital so the first question was "do you have insurance". The answer was yes so they called in a plastic surgeon to sew up my face rather than letting the hack on duty do it. As I was reviewing the bill the following month - my insurance at the time provided a complete statement of who billed what and how much they paid for it and I was aghast. The hospital billed $5,000 each for the two MRI's they took of my head and neck but the insurance company (which happened to be Medicaid) paid ~ $400 each. And on top of the charge for the use of the MRI machine, each MRI had to be read by some doctor in India and they charged ~ $1500 each for that so it was $13,000!!!! just for the MRI's. I'd had an MRI for my knee the year before and it was done at the local "imaging" center. They charged ~ $600 including the reading and Medicaid paid ~ $500 at that time. So, the total bill approached $35,000 for the ambulance, tests, stitches, and the use of the emergency room. Medicare paid < $4,000. I was so incensed, I actually called the hospital billing department and told them I needed to rent the machines not buy them.

One of the big pushes for Obamacare was the amount of money hospitals were "loosing" due to the uninsured using emergency rooms for services that they shouldn't be used for. So, using the grotesquely overpriced rack rate for services rather than what they actually got paid most of the time, they convinced a very gullible Congress that Obamacare would fix the problem. Which of course it didn't because Congress never got a grip on the actual problem.

It is still pretty tough to get a price for something before you commit to it and due to the vast differences in rates around the country, some insurances are offering incentives to their members if they agree to have certain covered but not emergency procedures done in a low cost area rather than in their local town.
 
It is definitely true that when insurance is paying, 1) customers don't know or care the price and that's harmful to the system.

We need a huge team of people who understand every facet of why hospitals and facilities, especially, are charging so much
I personally think it should be REQUIRED that those people, the people who attempt to solve this problem, have experience in multiple other countries to see how they are doing it. I think regulation and litigation will come up as major factors.

Just like troubleshooting code. Start with the end result and work backwards, slowly, asking questions along each step.

"Why are you charging $5,000 for the MRI machine?"
- Well, we have to hire a special MRI tech for $70,000/year who does nothing but run the machine once every 3 hours and stands there on their phone the rest of the time
"Why would you do that? Why not train the nurse to use it?
- Because the nurse is doing nothing but meds admin and the MRI tech is needed because if we make one mistake with the machine, a single lawsuit shuts down the whole hospital.
"What do you mean?"
- and so on and so forth.

Yes hospitals and corporations are greedy, but I believe at the end of the day there are reasons why they charge so much and I believe it comes down to regulation and litigation in large part.
You will find in other countries that both of those aspects are a tiny fraction of what they are in the USA.
In the long run it leads to hospitals having to hire people at a ridiculous level of specialization and niche tasks, which is extremely expensive.
 
Interesting video on the subject of "healthcare"...
I can only speak to my own experiences regarding health insurance. When I was diagnosed with cancer 6 years ago I was able to get MRI's without delays locally. Once the diagnoses was made I rejected my primary doctors suggestion and made appointment with UCLA cancer center. Another MRI was done along with other scans. They scheduled me immediately for the DaVinci robotic surgery. UCLA invented this technology. My surgeon has performed thousands of these surgeries.
My surgery was covered by insurance but even if it wasn't I'd rather be bankrupt than dead waiting for services. People are responsible for decisions they make regarding work insurance and a whole host of other things, sometimes we make poor decisions like paying more for cable TV than health insurance.
 
Wow ... thanks for telling the story, AB. Really glad you were able to get that done.
I agree, insurance (of all types) is one of those things ... Painful but necessary. And like you said, there IS some mercy for the neglectful, we have Chapter 7.

My wife, who is Mexican, is usually on the side of the conversation encouraging me to get less because, of course, (I'm thinking of CAR insurance here) is INSANELY expensive with 2 young adult drivers. I resist, telling her, I know it hurts bad - but insurance is one of those painful decisions that simply has to be made. Their economy just doesn't have a big emphasis on insurance, or credit. Until recently maybe.

Of course, I could say 1000 positive things about her culture's influence on me too, though. She's the one pushing me towards a healthier social connections with people. And it shows. Her family/group had barely even heard of "depression" and "anxiety" until they met my people. It pays.
 
It seems to me, as a foreigner that the American prescription service and the hospital system seem to be excessively complicated by insurance companies and needs to be simplified somewhat. It would appear that you need a masters degree to understand it. I've heard that the first question any American doctor asks is 'are you insured?' If no, then you don't get treatment other than a basic check to make sure you're not dying, then you're chucked out on the street.

In the UK, hospital and medical treatment is free, you pay a percentage of your salary or wages to pay for it. In Scotland all residents get free prescription drugs, in England you pay a flat rate for each item prescribed (unless you are exempt) then when you reach retirement age, all prescriptions are free. Dental care is not free.
Col
 
Yes, healthcare billing situation in the USA needs the same thing the tax laws need - drastic simplification.
But to simplify it, the complicating factors need to be agreed-upon and partially removed. Regulation, Litigation. The problem is people don't agree on that. We have one party (Democrats) who just want to increase taxes and throw Money at all problems. Money on top of more money. The other party generally used to stand for more fiscal common sense, but these days they aren't doing much of anything because the last decade has been just standing up to push back against radicalism to the point where there is no time left to do anything else.

We could easily pay for the things we needed to if we just enforced the tax code and simplified it.
Everyone pays 10%, or something - but it would have to be EVERYONE. Not just the rich, as that just discourages everyone from being rich and is morally unfair.
 
Why not? Everything else is covered.

By the way "free" is a misnomer everyone pays in one form or another.
1) God knows, it probably dates back to Roman times, and someone has to pay for the dentists' Mercedes-Benz. Although if you are an NHS patient, your charged is capped as opposed to a private patient.

2) you're right of course, but it's the way the British describe it.
Col
 
I was pondering all this and I suddenly realized something about my own opinions that somewhat surprised me.

If - IF - I could just push a button and magically make "free" healthcare be one of FEW things that our government actually provided for us, "few things" meaning the list of junk the government churns out to people would be cut by about 50% or more - meaning we would go back to the 1960's where a man grew up knowing he was responsible for himself by working and earning paychecks like normal life has been for 1000's of years - AND if the tax code was made fair, meaning, every single person and business paid a little bit in taxes - meaning we would eliminate the loopholes for those who can afford to hire accountants/lawyers, but we would equally eliminate the loopholes by which half the country is considered "too poor" to pay taxes, but rather, everyone would pay 10-15%........ Then, and in that case, I, even as a conservative Republican, would be perfectly happy to say "Ok. Let's provide free healthcare and take it from our taxes. Boom.

I honestly believe a lot of conservatives, even the ones who were staunchly opposed to Obamacare for many good reasons, might agree with me.

If only.

The problem is we can't seem to cut out the 50% or more of the government spending that's just purely ridiculous.

IF only we could, we might find we all here in America COULD in fact, agree on providing free healthcare.

Every politician who sponsors a law is full of questions like "how can you be against THIS?" but of course the question really isn't that simple.
It's never just "this". It's "all that plus now this".

Dear citizens of the United States, who would rather have free, imperfect but reasonably ok, healthcare, instead of these:

  • Taxpayers are rolling the dice on a high-stakes study that aims to untangle the psychology of gambling addiction – by building a casino for pigeons. The National Institute of Health has sent nearly half a million dollars to uber-liberal Reed College in Portland, Ore., where researchers are taking three years to create a “self-contained miniature economy” for the school’s flock of birds. The pigeons receive currency-like tokens that they can “earn, accumulate, spend, or gamble” on slot machines, Dr. Timothy Hackenberg explained in the project’s abstract. But even he admits the “practical applications” of his work are few.
  • Transgendered Monkeys, Cost: $477,121
    A Florida lab is dosing male rhesus macaques with feminizing hormones – intent on turning them trans. The experiment, funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, aims to figure out why male-to-female transgender humans suffer high levels of HIV infection. “HIV/AIDS thrives in the margins of society,” reads the uber-woke project description. “No population is more affected by these social injustices than transgender persons.” The scientists suspect estradiol, the hormone commonly given to transgender women, may weaken the immune system
  • “Zombie” Russian Cats Cost: $549,331
    Grisly experiments in a Russian lab turned cute kitties into electrically-controlled zombies – with the help of the US government. Researchers at the Pavlov Institute of Physiology in St. Petersburg, Russia were paid by the US National Institutes of Health to “decerebrate” 18 healthy cats, severing their brain stems to prevent movement while keeping them alive. The ghoulish scientists then used electrical charges to make the cats walk on treadmills, transforming them into the walking kitty dead.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom