Insurers Are Using Cancer Patients as Leverage (wsj.com) 221
Major health insurers are threatening to drop renowned cancer centers from their networks during contract negotiations, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's president and CEO Selwyn M. Vickers and chairman Scott M. Stuart wrote in a story published by WSJ. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center reported that both Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and UnitedHealthcare prepared to terminate network agreements while patients underwent active cancer treatment. FTI Consulting found that 45% of 133 provider-payer disputes in 2024 failed to reach timely agreements. The disruptions have affected tens of thousands of patients.
Research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that care disruptions lead to more advanced-stage diagnoses and worse outcomes. Similar contract disputes involved Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins University and University of North Carolina Health. New York lawmakers introduced legislation this year requiring insurers to maintain coverage for cancer patients during negotiations and until treatment concludes. Memorial Sloan Kettering's leadership described the practice as using patients as bargaining chips despite record insurer profits.
Research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that care disruptions lead to more advanced-stage diagnoses and worse outcomes. Similar contract disputes involved Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins University and University of North Carolina Health. New York lawmakers introduced legislation this year requiring insurers to maintain coverage for cancer patients during negotiations and until treatment concludes. Memorial Sloan Kettering's leadership described the practice as using patients as bargaining chips despite record insurer profits.
What... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bullshit healthcare system we have here in the US. Heaven forbid we use someone else's good ideas that we can see working in real life to fix it though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What... (Score:5, Insightful)
capitalist health care. cuba looks like 2000+ years more advanced
A major part of the reason for this is the American politics, where basically only lobbyists matter, not the people.
Re:What... (Score:5, Funny)
someone else's good ideas
You can say damn, shit, and fuck all you want, but whatever you do don't say "socialism" or Americans will come for you.
Re:What... (Score:4, Interesting)
You're correct which is ridiculous because it's not like we don't have very popular socialist institutions and programs in this country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't want old people out in the streets begging, but you are staunchly against that which prevents them from begging and don't have any alternative.
He does not want them out in the streets begging not because he cares but because they are an eyesore. If they would just die once their working lives are over there would ne no need for social security.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Accusations are confessions my friend.
True I am motivated by not wanting to see people begging in the street.
I live close to the homeless shelters in my city and it is pretty sad at times; annoying at other times when they steal my Amazon packages.
I volunteer at a center that helps get people off the street, not probably because I directly cared about the people; but more so that I did not want to see them begging.
Now it is hard not to care once you learn their names and hear their simple requests.
But i
Re: (Score:3)
I volunteer at a center that helps get people off the street
In that case I definitely apologize for my stereotyping, but you still should propose a workable and effective alternative to SS if you think it can be done better. Any social safety net is going to be considered socialist in the US though, so I rather suspect any conceivable alternatives will simply be even worse.
But I can imagine getting to my old age and whether through bad choices myself or bad luck or a bit of both not having the means to provide for myself. That fear drives me today to save and build a support network.
Sadly many working people live paycheck to paycheck their entire lives, and when it comes time to decide between food or rent and retirement savings the former will always be more pressing. I ha
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to talk alternatives!
Foremost I would hope that old people saved some money and can provide for themselves.
But I understand we cannot 100% count on that, and even if every old person had tried to be responsible things can go sideways.
So next I would hope for traditional "safety nets" of family and community to kick in.
Where old people would have had children and contributed to society and their children would be responsible and take care of them, or their community would have the means to provi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense, a lot of people do not have a dime to spare for savings.
However they are still being robbed of their social security contributions nonetheless.
So instead of them being forced to contribute to social security, I would rather they have the option to buy into a lottery/saving system I proposed or simply spend the few extra dollars today that is being stolen from them for social security. I could imagine that the few extra dollars could go a long way for them to lift themselves up and make mor
Re: (Score:3)
So yeah, I think we need something to help those not able to save even if they wanted to, and push those in the right direction that could save but choose to spend today without worrying about tomorrow.
That's called Social Security which is a form of forced savings.
Ideally I would love for everyone to have a minimal level of healthcare, if not everyone have access to the maximum level available.. I am not convinced a system that forces others to pay in to it is ever going to accomplish that.
Then you don't actually want it you just want to say it. The entire concept of insurance is to create a large enough risk pool to cover incidents.
I do not care for people being forced to do something, even if it is in their best interest.
We call those "laws". What if I *really want* to rob you, the law basically "forces" me not to. We call this system "society" and "civilization"
Give people back their taxes to contribute to private alternatives.
Again, we've tried this. For retirement it was pensions (which were killed off in the last 50 years) and 401K which has been pretty much an abject failure.
Re: As long as you are not the last one out... (Score:3)
"So next I would hope for traditional "safety nets" of family and community to kick in."
Why do you want the least efficient option? You hate things that make sense?
Re: As long as you are not the last one out... (Score:3)
"But I find it laughable to argue the federal government or any government is efficient."
Well, you're wrong. Medicare is more efficient than insurance companies, since it's not trying to make a profit for shareholders happy to profit from suffering.
Re: (Score:3)
eventually a gun would be pointed at me and my money taken away by force.
Oh, horseshit, your paychecks would just be garnished and possibly your bank account frozen until the funds withdrawn, but there won't be any storm troopers knocking down your door. But I suspect you know that and just want to pretend to be a hero.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is perfectly sound, what we have is just poorly structured and neither political party has done anything about it.
There's also a hell of a lot more in that link then just social security.
Re: (Score:2)
Busted I did not read your Wikipedia link at all and for some reason decided you were pointing at Social Security.
Sorry about that.
My primary issue with government social programs is being forced to pay into them.
Second I keep hearing, from people who supported and then looked into them, that while well meaning they often hurt more than they help.
Healthcare being one of those examples.
Of course I can cherry pick instances where the UK or Canadian healthcare systems seem to fail.
From first hand experience of
Re: (Score:3)
Primarily because the generally population is not responsible enough to save on their own for retirement
You're under the delusion this would work under a falling population.
The total quantity of money flowing in the economy is a representation of the total amount of goods and services in existence. Your savings, as an absolute number, is meaningless. What matters is what percentage the total quantity of money, which is to say, of all goods and services, your savings represents.
If the total number goes up faster than your savings number goes up, all those savings of yours will represent a lower percentage of a
Re: (Score:3)
Social Security is only in financial trouble because the politicians are bribed and don't raise taxes on rich people who get a real bargain with their SS tax capped at a ridiculously low income level. They get a real bonus far beyond their contributions.
Everyone else gets a fair return on their contributions to the fund.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the math still does not work out.
Increasing taxes has a limit, eventually the Ponzi Scheme still fails.
But my primary issue is being forced to enter into the Ponzi Scheme in the first place.
I could see a scenario where the sun swallows the earth before social security fully costs everyone 100% of their paychecks.
Re: (Score:2)
SHUT UP, fucking stupid MAGAt. WTF are you doing here?
How many years do people live after they retire? I retired at 70, after working for a living since I was 18. Then there's my late wife, who worked for 25 years before she died at 43.
If you can't figure that one out, you're too stupid to own a computer. Ponzi scheme my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not about comparing years worked to years retired — Social Security isn’t structured that way. What matters is how much you pay in versus how much you get out. On average, a worker who lives to the average life expectancy usually does receive back at least what they paid in (sometimes more, especially lower-income workers, because of the benefit formula). But that’s only possible because the system isn’t saving or investing your contributions — it relies on current w
Re: (Score:2)
but whatever you do don't say "socialism" or Americans will come for you.
Practically speaking, it's not a useful word because it has so many meanings, that if you want to be clear you have to explain which of the meanings you intended.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very useful word for killing a discussion quickly without having to do pesky things like "debate on merits".
Careful what you wish for (Score:3)
Here in the UK healthcare is free at the point of use (obviously we pay in taxes and national insurance) but its far from being the best system in europe never mind the world and it costs us something like 10-15% of GDP to run each year depending on which year you look at.
Re:Careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
Our healthcare system is over twice as expensive as yours per capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . You're getting one hell of a deal relative to us.
Also, from what I understand a lot of your current healthcare problems have more to do with a decade of the Tories radically underfunding you NHS relative to every other country with similar systems.
Re:Careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
Our healthcare system is over twice as expensive as yours per capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . You're getting one hell of a deal relative to us.
Your healthcare is twice as expensive because sick people are seen as a potential source of profit for shareholders first and foremost, and people who are no longer profitable should basically die.
Re: (Score:2)
sick people are always profitable, which is why we try to keep them sick.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware.
Re: (Score:3)
You're being ridiculous, we're grouped with other first world countries because we're similar to each other economically. Things don't have to be absolutely identical to compare them and what would be the point of comparing items that are identical anyways? We compare similar items to gain further understanding in all sorts of facets of our every day life never mind such things are regularly done to gain incites in literally every scientific field that exists. The phrase "apples to apples comparison" exists
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US medical system is designed to ensure profit insurance companies, hospital corporations, pharma.
Any benefit to health is merely a secondary side effect.
Re:What... (Score:4, Informative)
Because the capitalists control the government.
I personally believe that all health care should be non-profit.
Profit seeking corporations just leech off of the health care system. They add expense and barriers.
Europe healthcare is much better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the list of comments will likely break down into only binary options. Either full on free market healthcare is the only way to go, or full on Swedish/socialist government healthcare is the way to go. If we can move past the "isms" there are plenty of ways to develop a system which is better than the existing options.
I will also add that being in this space, there are very few honest brokers. Health insurers (Anthem, BCBS, UHC) are easily identifiable as terrible. But these hospital chains, includi
Re: (Score:3)
What a bullshit healthcare system we have here in the US. Heaven forbid we use someone else's good ideas that we can see working in real life to fix it though.
Indeed it is messed up. The US system is sometimes called health insurance. That implies that rare, expensive treatments are being subsidized by the masses. That's a good thing, as I'm not so much concerned about mundane health expenses but rather about the rare, expensive treatments that would bankrupt my family and completely change our lives regardless of the medical outcome.
Now the so-called insurance companies are getting greedy and want to eliminate the entire basis for the existence of health insu
So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are going to threaten all of us with violence, how is it wrong for us to respond in kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I definitely agree that murder is always wrong most most folks get their health insurance through work. "Vote with your feet" isn't really an option most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is almost always the wrong answer.
Who said murder? This sounds like it is self defense. Kill or be killed in a literal sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Today they wear masks and gear from Amazon and snatch people into unmarked vans. The supreme court ruled that arresting someone on the basis of language or skin color is perfectly acceptable. https://www.cleveland.com/nati... [cleveland.com]
Are you still not going to admit that we've reached the Papers please! stage?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you posted an opinion piece by one specific right wing justice and one that doesn't mention democrats encouraged anything. Yes you can help us google something. Help us google your original point. So far even you are failing at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Murder is almost always the wrong answer. Not only because it is wrong, but because it is usually ineffective in changing things.
Except that in this case, immediately after the murder, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield dropped a controversial proposal to limit coverage of anesthesia. So it was effective in changing that at least.
United Health Care should be particularly vulnerable, since they owe much of their preeminence to being a partner with AARP. An organization of retired (older) people seems unlikely to be happy with an insurer who is trying to cut cancer care.
You think there is an organization of older people in the USA who are happy about any insurer? I doubt even UHC employees are happy with their health insurance.
The UHC-AARP deal was a deal between executives. It's not like they put it up to a vote with the members.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Things won't change until congress has the same healthcare quality as a minimum wage employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Things won't change until congress has the same healthcare quality as a minimum wage employee.
How do you convince those folks to vote themselves out of Cadillac plans just for being elected? I agree that it's the only way things will change, but it's not like the people have any say whatsoever in that decision. We elect these assholes to represent us, and they use the position to further their own interests, while being paid handsomely to tell us that it's impossible to further our interests because that would impact profits for those who literally provide zero god damned service. It's sickening, an
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans and yes that means voting for Democrats as much as it hurts some people to consider.
One party gave us the ACA (which would have had a public option if not for Joe Lieberman who after killing that caucused with the Republicans) the other fought it tooth and nail and things a Health-Savings-Account is all the plan anyone needs.
One party is open to a public option for the ACA, the other still wants to dismantle it and replace it for nothing.
One party wants to at least keep the skeleton of our system afloat for people and the other is fine with premiums skyrocketing and have no plan to handle that.
One party has 15 co-sponsors for Medicare-For-All and whichever you feel about that plan you do have 30% of their Senate electorate open to the idea compared to 0%
There are times to simplify things to "everybody sucks" but on healthcare it's pretty cut and dry the gap between them.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans
Don't even have to do that. Vote correctly in the primaries and the R team will quickly change their tone. Remember Obama basically copied Romney-care.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an issue I always bring up, primary voter participation for both parties is pretty much always under 30% for some states under 15%. We kvetch about a lack of choices but fail to show up when there are choices.
Nearly 4-In-5 Registered Voters Failed To Cast a Ballot in 2024 Primaries, While Highest Turnout Seen in Vote at Home States [voteathome.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and that's how we get Trump who basically gets the nomination with like 42% of 20% of voters. Not a big amount!
There's a world where Republicans grow a spine, Nikki Haley is the candidate and she probably wins with like 55% of the vote in the general.
Re: (Score:2)
If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans and yes that means voting for Democrats as much as it hurts some people to consider.
One party gave us the ACA (which would have had a public option if not for Joe Lieberman who after killing that caucused with the Republicans) the other fought it tooth and nail and things a Health-Savings-Account is all the plan anyone needs.
One party is open to a public option for the ACA, the other still wants to dismantle it and replace it for nothing.
One party wants to at least keep the skeleton of our system afloat for people and the other is fine with premiums skyrocketing and have no plan to handle that.
One party has 15 co-sponsors for Medicare-For-All and whichever you feel about that plan you do have 30% of their Senate electorate open to the idea compared to 0%
There are times to simplify things to "everybody sucks" but on healthcare it's pretty cut and dry the gap between them.
This is just one of the reasons I've voted Democrat in every election without a viable third party candidate available for every vote since I've come of age. I do think Democrats are a lesser of two evils, BUT THEY ARE THE LESSER of the evils. And when your choices are "Lesser evil," vs, "Wants to destroy your very existence," I would think the choice should be obvious, but I live in one of the reddest states in the nation. I don't really get it.
Re: (Score:2)
For third parties there is also a gap in opinions between the parties, Democrats are far more open to the idea of electoral reform both in terms of voting systems like switching to a ranked choice or approval system which would open up third parties as well as just accepting the concept of proportional representation.
I doubt almost any Republicans today would consider the idea of expanding the House to catch up with population growth and shifting demographics since 1929
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember: Socialized Medicine is so horrible we only reserve it for Congress and our Veterans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess outcomes must vary because my step-father is a vet and the VA has done wonderful for him. Numerous cancer treatments, entire heart transplant, cover all the meds he needs. Maybe because he was determined to have suffered agent orange during Vietnam in which he was drafted to participate. Honestly, given what I've seen, I would be quite happy with his medical plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Same anecdote here. My grandfather insisted on going to his VA doctors, he made sure they did his hip replacement (which he got at like 81 and was walking until he was 94)
My father who is a Vietnam vet didn't go to the VA for most of his life since he had a union insurance plan but after retirement he started going and they helped him out quite a bit. They actually sat him in front of a counselor and said "oh yeah you totally have some PTSD still" and he's gotten help there.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what your experience was but the local VA by me was absolutely fantastic during the last year of my dad's life a few years ago now. Literally the only negative was that one or two things they ordered for him took forever to show up, otherwise I have zero complaints and a lot of praise for them.
I have heard some VA operations around the country don't do as well though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's good for a safety net, but it's unsustainable if the wealthy leave the system to seek private care.
I don't understand. If our medical system was transitioned to taxpayer funded what difference does it make if the wealthy decide to go outside of the system and pay for "enhanced care" out of their own pockets? They're still footing the bill for "their share" of the country's healthcare costs via taxes, they just aren't using the services.
That doesn't help or work (Score:2)
You can't punish The wealthy by taking away their salary because they already have so much money. You have to actually take the money away which nobody wants to do because as soon as you suggest that everyone becomes convinced that the next step is to take their houses away.
Ethically maybe, practically no (Score:2, Interesting)
As a practical manner, assassination usually does not lead to the outcomes the killer seeks. People in general don't like targeted violence, most individuals are not essential, etc.
As a secondary matter, Luigi is smart, sexy, and clearly dedicated to his beliefs; if his impulse control worked a little better, he probably could have learned to be extremely persuasive. That's how y
Re: (Score:3)
he probably could have learned to be extremely persuasive. That's how you change things - by making other people want to change them, too.
How'd that work out for Charlie Kirk?
T
Re:Ethically maybe, practically no (Score:4, Insightful)
His death motivated his followers to a massive rampage of hurting certain others, which was one of his goals. Particularly getting professors fired - that was one of his favorite things.
Martyrdom is powerful.
Re:Ethically maybe, practically no (Score:4, Insightful)
See my signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Charlie Kirk was just walking his talk, clearly he offered up his own life so we could all have guns. He's like Gun Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Charlie Kirk was never trying for enlightened political discourse, he was out "owning the libs" for social media spots. This historic revisionism happening around him is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
People in general don't like targeted violence,
As opposed to the untargeted kind?
I don't condone violence in general, but sometimes I understand its motivations. But I'm still trying to figure out what ANTIFA had against Starbucks storefront windows during the George Floyd protests. The association completely escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I think Starbucks is just a highly salient symbol of globalized capitalism, and angry people like to break things. Not sure it is much more complicated than that.
In my view, flashy and messy disorder, but cheaper than cop riots and you end up with a lot fewer people hurt.
Violence only helps them (Score:2)
Violence requires a command structure to be effective and the left wing sucks at command structures for pretty obvious reasons.
Violence looks cool in the movies but it's basically useless. So unfortunately we need to use boring ass electoral politics to solve problems instead of 80s action movie coolness...
Re: (Score:3)
If they are going to threaten all of us with violence, how is it wrong for us to respond in kind?
Redefining everything as violence is how we get dead Charlie Kirks, and soon civil war. Keep playing that game.
American Healthcare: Profit first, care last. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a mentally sick nation. We allow the insurance industry, absolute parasites of the highest possible order, to dictate care for patients suffering the most traumatizing moments of their existence, all to make sure that profits aren't affected. I've tried having rational conversations with people about it, wondering why anyone thinks profit should come before health and providing decent care for people that need it, and every time I'm met with an obstinate regurgitation of Republican talking points about how important it is for people to take responsibility for themselves, and how *EVERYTHING* needs to boil down to profits and always must feed greed first. I'm tired, man. I'm tired of greed being our primary driver, and the number one sticking point of every conversation involving the possibility of change.
"BUT PROFITS" is not a rational response to every question. At some point, we have to start treating people as if they matter as well, or the continual indifference is only going to lead to further violence. This shit is unacceptable.
Recommended reading: Small is Beautiful, by E.F.Schumacher. The subtitle is "Economics as if People Mattered." Maybe we can start passing out copies to elected officials?
Re: (Score:2)
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2024-annual-health-industry-commentary.pdf
The core issue is that modern medicine has progressed to the point where most sick people can
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to get me downmodded immediately, and I don't have a ton of love for the US medical industry. But, given the state of modern medicine, they kind of have a point. First off, the US medical insurance industry makes about 1% profit. That's hardly rich-man stuff.
I've known people that work in the insurance industry. That 1% profit is *AFTER* company sponsored trips to exotic locations three to five times a year for not just executives, but also top sales people, which is a hell of a lot of people. One of the guys, the one who married my mom for her second round, took her to Rome, Machu Pichu, and the Far East in the same year, all paid for by the company, staying in the most luxurious hotels you could imagine. I was happy for mom, but it sort of exemplified exactly
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but these issues are systemic to the nature of our system.
The US has very low rates in terms of preventative care as well as we have a huge shortage of Primary Care Physicians and there are no real mechanisms currently to affect that.
Universal systems have a method to deal with the fact that 80% of peoples health costs happen in the last 20% of their life and yes while it is something of a cold calculation at some point a determination has to be made the practice of Wellbeing Adjusted Life Years is pre
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vs in the US where you wait an unknown amount of time trying to get "pre-approval" for your insurance to partially pay for it, but if they say no (because for some reason they get to decide what you need, not your doctors) then you just don't get it. Then you die while trying to come up with the money to pay for the MRI up front, or while trying to fight for them to let you pay for it upfront. And you don't leave any money behi
Re:American Healthcare: Profit first, care last. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except... The only way it continues to exist is if it generates a profit. It's there's no profit, it stops happening.
Well, there's the degree of profit which ensures covering operating costs, paying the people who deliver the service a good wage, provides a buffer against hard times, and makes the organization reliable and resilient. Then there's the obscene, greed-ridden kind of profit wherein the majority of its beneficiaries are literal parasites. And I meant that "literal" - the add NOTHING except friction and waste, and the differ little from organized extortionists. The healthcare industry in the United States is like that - it's a legalized extortion racket.
As for socialism, it always fails. Always. People hold up Canada and England's public health service, but omit that you can wait a year or more for a simple MRI, and die in the queue.
Yes, that can happen - I'm Canadian so I'm familiar with what you're talking about. Our system isn't perfect, but I'll take it over America's any day of the week. How many people in the US lose their homes and life savings over health costs, and end up dying anyway, leaving their families with nothing but debt and hardship? From what I've heard from Americans, the number is pretty huge. And the thing is, we can improve our system. Yours has a huge amount of parasitism baked into its design, and unless you tear it down and start from scratch, it is and always wille be utterly fucked up.
We need safety nets in society. Some of these are socialistic in nature, unemployment, medicare, etc... Some are regulatory, like making it illegal to hold cancer patients hostage to contract negotiations. Violence only leads to more violence.
On that much we agree. I would add that losing one's home and having to declare bankruptcy over healthcare bills is simply not acceptable in any civilized society.
Re: (Score:3)
On that much we agree. I would add that losing one's home and having to declare bankruptcy over healthcare bills is simply not acceptable in any civilized society.
I live in a state with a "homestead" protection. It's kind of an odd provision. I can declare bankruptcy and keep my homestead. I'd lose other property, but not my primary residence. The only way I lose my house is to not pay the mortgage or my federal income & state property taxes.
As for safety nets... I think it's long past time we couple unemployment and COBRA coverage in some fashion. This would roughly double the amount needed to provide unemployment benefits, but provide a much needed safety
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the doctors I've spoken with about it, they're sick of dealing with American insurance companies too, because they not only take the bulk of the profits, but they prevent doctors from doing what they can to actually help their patients. Our insurance companies, if they continue to exist, need HARSH regulation. This free-for-all shit is literally killing us.
And you can shit on socialized medicine all you want, but your made up stories about shit that doesn't actually happen, or happens at the same rate
Re: (Score:2)
People hold up Canada and England's public health service, but omit that you can wait a year or more for a simple MRI, and die in the queue.
You can, but our average life expectancy is still better than Americans. All those people with no health insurance at all drag your average down. Bet they would love to wait in a queue.
Re: (Score:3)
Except... The only way it continues to exist is if it generates a profit. It's there's no profit, it stops happening.
This is a tired argument and it needs to die. Public services are not meant to be profitable, they are meant to be a good investment of public money for the public good.
Exhibit A: schools
Exhibit B: the US military costs 880 billions, there's no profit, should it stop happening?
Exhibit C: all public expenses, it's not that complicated ffs, public services are not meant to be profitable. Even if you're a libertarian you need some level of public budget that you fund somehow, otherwise you won't be able to "le
Re: (Score:3)
There is one healthcare hospital system in Wisconsin that someone I know told me about (their wife -was- a nurse for them - she and other nurses quit after being told) that told their employees "Profitability comes before patient care." How horrible is that?
Probably not the only one. I was in the hospital with my mom. She was having back surgery that day. And the whole place was all worked up, you could just feel the tension in the air. During a down moment, I asked one of the nurses what was going on. She said the owners were coming through today to assess staffers and review performance. I asked what that meant in a situation like theirs and she said essentially that it boiled down to if they saw staff spending too much time on any one patient, they'd get de
The headline and the thought... (Score:2)
The headline and the thought of using cancer patients as leverage, reminds me of this South Park clip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
--JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
It kinda sucks that I ended up laughing at something that's both so sad, and so true to the spirit of for-profit healthcare.
Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
The market of health insurance is to pay as little as possible and collect as much money as possible. It is not to provide health care. This is working as intended and should be celebrated as captialism in action. As a share holder I'd expect the company to improve profit margins by strong arming healthcare providers and patients. Anything less would reduce shareholder value.
Health care (Score:2)
The US does not have a health care system at all. It has a health insurance system that refuses or cancels rather than pay out.
Medicare for all.
Broken but not the way people think (Score:3)
The USA is 4% of the worlds population but they pay for 75% of the cost of comercializing healthcare drugs and treatments. So in many ways the rest of the world is freeloaders off the American system.
The insurance companies aren't making huge profits, the hospitals and other providers are. My co-pay for a blood test was the same as what I would have paid without insurance at a private provider in Canada. My co-pay for an utlra sound was 50% more than what I would have paid without insurance at a private clinic in Canada. The difference being in Canada it would have been 2+ months to see my doctor, get the referal and then get the test. In the USA it was done in less than an hour. Also in Canada, if I got the treatment provided by Canadian healthcare, I would have spent more on the parking than my USA co pay because my appointment would have taken over 12 hours. (I once had a 7am appointment and wasn't seen till 7:45pm)
I can read my Canadian bill. My USA bills are convoluted and there is always one more entity that wants to be paid. I think the confusion is intentional. It makes it impossible to price shop. Hospitals and other providers are using this to screw individuals. They are definitely doing it to screw the insurance providers. The insurance providers need better ways to push back at the hospitals.
Kaiju (Score:2)
And when you think people cannot get more evil (Score:2)
Something like this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Protected us from the death panels of the public option that the Democrats started to push when the affordable Care act was in negotiations.
Yeah, me too. Death panels should be like everything else in this country: For profits.