Perhaps the people that do care generally don’t vote, while people who already have health insurance can see that their taxes will be spent in a way they don’t want them to be.
I mean, it’s Texas he was trying to get elected from.
Yeah I think you and I are getting at the same idea, here. The people who are actual victims of US healthcare are a very small subset of the people who think they are the victims of US healthcare.
Most of the 25 million people who lack coverage, are victims. (some are just stubborn and straight up don’t want insurance)
Many more people have sad or frustrating stories about interfacing with health insurers. But are the victims? My honest answer is, “I don’t know. Maybe.” Determining whether they are or aren’t depends upon very cold analysis that is practically impossible to do in polite society.
A friend of mine was griping over an $8K hospital bill from having his kid. Is he a victim of US healthcare? In order to find out, we need to know a lot more.
Is that billed to you or the insurance company?
What are your premiums like?
If any services were denied, what was the aggregate impact on your premiums and or refunds
for similar such denials over the entire time horizon you’ve been on this plan?How much do you value the American style participation in your own care rationing?
What are your marginal taxes relative to your premium costs, and what would they be in say, Canada?
17% of US GDP is healthcare spending. Can you think of a way that your or anyone close to you would be impacted if we cut that down to a lower number?
These questions are, frankly, psychotic to ask in a real world interaction. So I don’t ask them. I lean on a mix Gallup and KFF survey results, and common sense.
Would I like to see that 17% number cut down to 11% as the government takes over administration and care rationing, freeing up 6% of GDP to steer towards more productive things? Absolutely. But we couldn’t even eliminate MiniMed plans without people freaking out. Any promising that they can remake 17% of the economy simply by going after greedy fat cats is probably lying.
1 Like
Alternatives exist that are not as expensive, though could be more hazardous.
Well if you can’t be bothered to vote then you don’t actually feel that strongly about anything politically
I like Scott Galloway and I agree with a lot of what he said here. I love the idea of lowering the age eligibility age of Medicare each year. One place I disagree is that food additives and pesticide are why 70% of Americans are obese or overweight.
I also thought CNN guy did a great job here. He is 100% right with regards to the backlash we saw under Obamacare. We called the that socialism. Imagine what we’ll do with the next piece of legislation that goes even further.
I don’t think Americans are ready to vote for that, and they’ve proven me right time and time again. Objective number 1 should be getting more people covered. I want to reduce costs, too. But I think we do that slowly, over time. We do it with GDP growth that outpaces growth in pharma profits, insurance profits, private hospital profits, and yes, provider salaries, over a long period of time.
Not in the USA. The Horatio Alger myth is alive and well.
I’m proud that I made this post jokingly last week, and then Colin Jost made the same joke on SNL over the weekend.
1 Like
Do you guys have suggested reading on health care denials?
Like, from an actuarial perspective?
I’m pretty sure CEO isn’t personally paid by BoD to kill off members, but I also know almost nothing about the process or surrounding details.
What does ACA stand for?
1 Like
In its native language, Obamacare
1 Like
Also the inflation reduction act did anything but…
1 Like
But at least we have move on from death panels.
Sure, but ACA was certainly marketed to the American public as something that would reduce costs. I have a weird specific recollection of Nancy Pelosi proudly touting the CBO score (that was based on mythology such as the uninsured population being no sicker than the insured, IIRC, and every uninsured American, no matter how healthy, signing up).
There’s a reason it’s called the Affordable Care Act.
So to say it’s not about making things cheaper… I mean… I guess it’s an admission that they lied to the American public from the get go. (I know, politicians lying is not unusual.)
1 Like
I mean - Affordable Care Act:
- Subsidies for the poor who can’t afford healthcare
- Less/no subsidies for those who are not poor and more likely can afford healthcare
Sure, the ACA isn’t named the “Significantly More Affordable Care But Every Situation Is Unique Act” but it feels a bit silly to call the name a lie.
3 Likes
Yes fair point, it’s really meant to be affordable for those who were previously uninsured due to financial reasons.
3 Likes
btw - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
5 Likes
It is also more affordable for anyone that was denied coverage previously for preexisting conditions.
But also - it made insurance more affordable/available, not the healthcare itself.
2 Likes
which makes it seem like people want access to pre-paid health care rather than health “insurance.” Which is fine if that’s what you really want. Just don’t call it “insurance.”
(to me, proper use of the term “insurance” refers to what used to be called a “major medical rider” – risk protection from catastrophic health events, as opposed to having everything under the sun paid for. Again, that’s fine if that’s what you’re advocating for. I just personally can’t stand it when people use the word “insurance” to describe something that’s technically not insurance.)
4 Likes
Yes, at the time I was annoyed that PPACA did nothing to address the increasing costs. I never expected the costs to decrease, but was hoping the trend might at least match inflation. I even wrote to then President Obama about the issue, but he ignored me.
2 Likes