42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings • Hacker News Board

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#251

Post by anonuser123456 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #239

anonuser123456 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame capitalism for regulatory capture. The healthcare industry has done a fantastic job at ensuring consumers can only choose the options the industry wants.

Your second sentence does a great job of rebutting your first one ¯\(°_o)/¯

You're mistaking corporatocracy for capitalism. One can believe in the ratchet of the market and trade to elevate the human condition while disbelieving in the merits of governance by private interest.

Capitalism means I should be able to trade freely without restraint, provided I pay the costs. It does not mean I'm free to regulate my competition out of business.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#252

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #164

pascalxus wrote: post #58

Normally, I'm all for invisible hand capitalism for most things, but clearly in the case of medical services it's completely broken. What we need is price ceilings on medical procedures, something reasonable. Perhaps, cap procedures cost in some way, maybe 1k to 4k based on what it is (make it illegal to charge more and hold hospitals financially accountable). There has to be some kind of cost control, either from th…

It's only broken because of regulation. If I could shop across state lines for insurance, prices would drop. I may not even opt to get insurance as I'm very healthy and I've never had medical costs approach even an order of magnitude of my insurance costs. Yet I'm forced to purchase this unneeded service by the government, pushing up demand and prices in an artificially controlled market.

I see this mentioned a lot as a cost cutting measure: buy insurance across state lines. I don't see how purchasing insurance in another state would help. Every medical facility where you live would then be out of network. How do people think this would work, exactly?

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#253

Post by mythrwy » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:30 AM UTC

Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

Maybe the reason people haven't risen up in bloody revolt is a good number of them are also engaged in some sort of rent seeking or useless or parasitic endeavor which pays the bills and which, they tell themselves is needed and noble. After all, nobody wants _their_ gravy train disturbed.

The gears of the currently horrible insurance/healthcare fiasco are mostly normal, honest everyday people trying to get through life. With everyone trying to figure out how to get just a little bit bigger piece of pie. Gears in an out of control machine. And these gears are just doing their jobs and hoping for their bonus and hoping their homes keep appreciating and going home to their kids at night.

It's a horribly broken system in so many ways. But it does seem like the Health/Insurance complex (and maybe higher education) are among the most egregious offenders and are growing more outrageous by the year.

I think there is disagreement on what to burn down. Every level will insist vigorously that they aren't the problem, they are necessary and helping and that the problem is something else. It's not just the rich 1% either, the problem is also many of us at some level. If it weren't these things would be fixed.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#254

Post by paulddraper » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:35 AM UTC

andreygrehov wrote: post #96

J5892 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a $60k car seems like a completely insane concept to me, even with a Silicon Valley tech industry salary. Even $16k (used) was higher than I wanted to pay for my current car.

Respectfully disagree. Recently leased a $60k car and I enjoy every single minute I'm driving it. I'm not paying for a transportation vehicle, I'm paying for joy and pleasure. What else should I spend money on? Burgers and coke?

> What else should I spend money on?

Vacation. Early retirement. House. Airplane. Charity. Cleaning services. Boat.

Or a really nice car.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#255

Post by mythrwy » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #110

api wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially true when there are no obvious and politically viable good alternatives. In the US everyone outside the center-left or center-right seems to be an absolute lunatic of one sort or another, and even if that weren't the case the two party oligopoly system is deeply entrenched and guarantees that alternatives can't succeed. There's nobody who is both sane and electable that isn't part of the mainstream…

I'm glad this is finally being discussed cogently. For the longest time one would be painted as un-patriotic or some other slur-of-the-moment for even suggesting there were vicious-cycles of pathologies in the current incarnation of this system. (And in how human psychology/game theory plays into it) But as you summarized, all incentives are aligned to maintain the status quo. How do we break out of this? Expansion o…

Congress has a heck of time getting anything done right now.

I can't imagine what would happen if it were comprised of 20 times the members with all kinds of minor political parties each with their own narrow agendas.

Personally I'm hoping at some point evidence based governance takes over. Which might mean it's not people doing it.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#256

Post by mythrwy » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

stewbrew wrote: post #31

Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

In the US, it would have been sufficient to vote for a different party. Enjoy the government, the majority of you people voted for.

As opposed to the government the majority of us people voted for previously which did so much better?

These problems apparently go well beyond political moniker and I find it confusing that anyone who has been paying attention feels voting for a different color talking politician is going to fix them.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#257

Post by mmirate » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:51 AM UTC

stewbrew wrote: post #31

Pharmakon wrote: post #4

Sometimes I’m just amazed that people haven’t risen up in bloody revolt yet. Recently my mother had a flare-up up radiation-induced pneumonitis and the PPO insurance she pays $14,000 annually wouldn’t approve a single unit of Advair. It took a week of talking to doctors and insurance drones to figure out that they were pushing her to an alternative that cost them $100 less. If I woke up tomorrow and people were burni…

In the US, it would have been sufficient to vote for a different party. Enjoy the government, the majority of you people voted for.

The other party wants to make revolt impossible by dismantling the 2nd Amendment. So it's a choice as to whether one wants slightly-better politics or much-better metapolitics.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#258

Post by sjg007 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 2:54 AM UTC

kbos87 wrote: post #118

I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see: - Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.…

Depending on the plan there are state insurance regulators you can appeal to who basically have the final say but I agree, the random denials etc... it's like the do it on purpose. There is also an appeal window of like 60 days in most cases so the best thing someone can do to help is help your family member manage and file appeals/paperwork as necessary. You can also find former insurance company employees who act as patient advocates and know who and how to call to get things done. A lot of them work at hospitals but you can find them outside as well. Sometimes your insurance will have a patient advocate. They are actually on your side and will help.

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#259

Post by sizzle » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 3:06 AM UTC

kxyvr wrote: post #209

kbos87 wrote: post #118

I recently watched a family member go through this. A few things that were sobering to see: - Three weeks in she was buried in paperwork. One chemo treatment would turn into 4-5 invoices from different subcontractors at a single hospital, some covered by her insurance, others not covered. Her insurer denied claims arbitrarily and made her go through a bunch of invasive and unnecessary procedures to prove her illness.…

I'm sorry your family member went through this. That's terrible and no one should have to deal with that kind of treatment. I'll echo much of what you said. When I was 21, I was diagnosed and treated for malignant melanoma (skin cancer) that had metastasized to my lymph nodes. The treatment worked and I've been healthy for many years. That said, it changed the way and manner in which I deal with billing and insurance…

This is excellent advise, thank you a million times!

Re: 42 percent of new cancer patients lose their life savings

#260

Post by sjg007 » Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 3:11 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #139

rayiner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurd to say that imposing a limit is somehow misleading for something sold as "insurance." "Actual insurance" almost always has a policy limit. Everything from car insurance to corporate liability insurance has a limit. I can't think of any "actual insurance" besides health insurance that doesn't have a limit. Again, I'm not arguing against having health insurance be unlimited. I'm taking exception to your rhe…

It's also how single-payer healthcare works in the majority of countries that have it. The problem is simple - in most developed countries, health insurance doesn't bankrupt the people it serves. It also doesn't have policy limits for common terminal illnesses. So why does this happen in the US - a country with insanely high costs and relatively mediocre health outcomes? The problem isn't insurance, it's the influenc…

>in reality many insurance companies are actually owned by hospital chains.

Huh? In the US, Kaiser is the only integrated provider of insurance and healthcare that I know of. It actually is a fairly good model. Otherwise Cigna, Bluecross etc.. are strictly insurance companies that have contracts with other providers to provide care to their members.