261–270 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Israel we have public healthcare. I was born at week 32 and spent about 6 weeks in the NICU - everything was free. It's not always great and I do pay for private insurance in case I need something urgent - but everything emergency is absolutely covered. I believe it's this state in most developed places that are not the US?
freedom isn't free! /s
I don't understand how people can be so anti-universal healthcare in the US. When you have an $8k deductible, your insurance is basically a gift to the CEO's yacht fund.
Whether or not a policy with a deductible like that is a gift to the CEO's yacht fund depends on the monthly payments and is, imho, orthogonal to a discussion about universal healthcare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There are countries with private healthcare that works list them?
Switzerland has a system that basically works like a beefed up and less hogtied ACA. It's a very heavily regulated private market that would likely not be considered ideal for America, though some have suggested it as an option.
First, it's not front-and-center; it's small at and the end. But, for those of you who may wish to do more other than comment: > My wife and I are creating a charity to help bring awareness to the issue, to help sick children and their families, and to try improve the system in whatever way we can... we can use all the help with can get. https://sterlingstrong.foundation -- My daughter - at 7 (she's now 12, okay, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, while many american insurers cover expensive gene therapies, European autorhities simply pretend the drugs are unsafe and refuse to cover them. This sort of thing goes both ways
Gene therapy is available on the NHS in the UK. And the American system that is systematically bankrupting sick people for profit is a damn sight less perfect than the European authorities issues. Yes, it goes both ways, but it goes much further one way over the other.
That's fair.
For gene therapy, I was referring to Zolgensma, which was delayed substantially in Europe and forced many to seek treatment in America. The delay was mainly due to cost savings, and the delay was clinically meaningful (since treatment is time sensitive).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The billing system is a complete farce. Here’s a large made up number for the total bill, ok here’s another large number because we like your insurance, and finally here’s what your insurance actually paid. My wife had complications the first time and the total bill was like $35k, insurance paid $9k, and our cost was $0. We actually got our $250 admission back. Nobody pays the made of number from the first bill not e…
“Nobody pays the made of number from the first bill not even the uninsured.” This is maybe true but the actual number you pay is a total gamble depending on whatever the hospital feels like they can discount this month, whatever loopholes the insurance has found for not paying, whatever hoops the insurance or hospital have set up and you have jumped through correctly or not and how much time you have for the next few…
And therefore it's always a gamble of whether one should go in and causes many to not go when they should because "is this really worth we potentially having a thousand plus dollar bill?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are countries with private healthcare that works (And IS better than public healthcare). The problem is specific to USA.
>There are countries with private healthcare that works list them?
I like poking around through here to compare and contrast options: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy.... Some things I notice mainly are that the countries with private health insurance have at least two other things the US lacks:
1. They provide universal health care.
2. They have regulations of the market.
How they go about doing that varies a bit, but I believe these are critical points we miss for all the various reasons we see in this link and in many other discussions on the topic.
I think often in the US when we talk about private-sector, we also implicitly also mean for-profit, whereas many of the other options require them to be private non-profits. I think it's notable they are de-prioritized or outright banned, though I'll admit I don't really know if this is a critical detail or not. So I think to the GP point, perhaps this is a way to change private sector options for the better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have a percentage copay, say 10%, they will tell you to pay $25k because it's 10%, but they might only pay $75k. In this example you clearly paid 25% but they tell you it's only 10%. I think this is coinsurance, not copay. Copay is the $50 (or whatever) flat fee you pay every time you see a specialist. Coinsurance is a percentage of costs that you share with the insurance company, up to some maximum out of p…
Thanks I edited my comment to say it's called coinsurance. But the point is the same, and in my experience it is not always based on the final negotiated amount actually paid to the healthcare provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Nobody pays the made of number from the first bill not even the uninsured.” This is maybe true but the actual number you pay is a total gamble depending on whatever the hospital feels like they can discount this month, whatever loopholes the insurance has found for not paying, whatever hoops the insurance or hospital have set up and you have jumped through correctly or not and how much time you have for the next few…
>It’s a totally insane and arbitrary system. And therefore it's always a gamble of whether one should go in and causes many to not go when they should because "is this really worth we potentially having a thousand plus dollar bill?"
I feel a lot of empathy for OP, but there are some choices I find very difficult to understand. > our child, with life-saving intervention, surgeries, and therapy, could, and should live a happy, healthy, fulfilled life, at least until adulthood Sorry, but I can't grasp why you would condemn a 24 weeks old fetus to a life of a) possibly not suffering and b) only living until you're 20 or so years old, when you have t…
We didn't know about half of my daughter's conditions until after she was born. We lived in Indiana, and had treatment in Illinois, because of whatever laws, we were rushed into deciding whether to continue with the pregnancy, but after I had seen her little face/profile on the CT scan, I knew I had to meet her, and I loved every single moment with my little girl, I'd do it again if I could have more time with her.
But in hindsight, watching her battle through her 8 months, the 9 surgeries, the horrific recoveries, the constant diagnosis', watching her code in front of me and the nurse's chest compressions break her ribs in the process. We tried to make her life as beautiful as we could, but she really suffered, more than I or anyone could imagine, and now I have the imagine of her last breathe imprinted in my head, and watching videos of her in the hospital and hearing the beeps and alarms is super triggering.
My wife and I were lucky that we made it, considering parents of children with disabilities commonly result in divorce. It was one of the most horrific things I/my wife have ever gone through, and we've both lost parents as teens. I know many couples/relationships/children aren't so lucky.
Anyway, I'm going to advocate for: - more testing when abnormalities are found at 20-22 week scan - extend termination limits to allow for further testing to be carried out - advocate for easier access to terminations, support parents on how difficult the process will be, whether they can handle it, resources on when times are difficult, etc - regardless of my daughter's diagnosis/disabilities, she didn't qualify for Medicaid off the bat, she actually passed away without any government assistance, even though she severely disabled. So obviously, advocate for children of disabilities and everything wrong with this post