Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

nsfwcorp.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 127 posts

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#21

Post by 27182818284 »

newbie12 wrote: post #17

The author's father, Bill, around age 76, never paid taxes while living for decades in the UK, but was still treated, and died there. The author assumes he wouldn't have had care in the U.S. That's wrong. Even though he never held a recognized job (and probably was a tax cheat), as a senior citizen he would probably receive Medicare and as a poor person he would also potentially be supported by Medicaid for any short…

>or his family

For the same reason that you don't go to jail just because your brother robs a bank? Hey it is nice when family helps out, but they shouldn't have the legal obligation.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#22

Post by jibbist »

rdouble wrote: post #7
oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

The system does bankrupt people, but it doesn't refuse to treat people. That is why people go bankrupt - the hospital has to treat everyone, then hands them an immense bill.

> it doesn't refuse to treat people.

Implying the NHS refuses to treat people?

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#23

Post by Osmium »

rdouble wrote: post #7
oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

The system does bankrupt people, but it doesn't refuse to treat people. That is why people go bankrupt - the hospital has to treat everyone, then hands them an immense bill.

Isn't that the same thing? Practically speaking, for many people who'd rather be ill than ruin their family with debt.

The thing that gets me is the attitude is that some people don't deserve free(-at-point-of-use) healthcare. For whatever reason; they haven't paid their taxes, or they've made mistakes in life. It seems unspeakably sad to me. Surely a civilised society should help everyone, regardless? It's the humane thing to do. It's as simple as that.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#24

Post by carbocation »

bunderbunder wrote: post #16
rdouble wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system does bankrupt people, but it doesn't refuse to treat people. That is why people go bankrupt - the hospital has to treat everyone, then hands them an immense bill.

Actually, it does refuse to treat people quite regularly. Aside from emergency department, health care providers are generally free to refuse care for patients they believe cannot pay except in the case of a life-threatening emergency. What this means is that in the USA it's common for people to have to allow earlier-stage, less expensive to treat problems develop into serious problems before finally going into the E…

> Actually, it does refuse to treat people quite regularly.

Let's not play with words like that. People in the US get treatment—you even say so later, despite your ominous lead sentence. They just get it later, via the ED, after prevention goes un-performed. That's abominable enough, and that's what we should talk about, not the (false) specter of non-treatment.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#25

Post by droithomme »

oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

I'm one of those people. Allow me to respond.

I have seen people ruined with medical bills.

There are many reasons why the system is dysfunctional, and I'm aware of nearly all of them.

Did you know that a round of cancer treatment in the US can cost over $500,000, and even if you are fully insured with a good policy you can have a 20% copay required, meaning that with insurance you still personally have to pay $100,000 or more? That sort of thing is what is bankrupting people and is why most medical bankruptcies involved people who were fully insured.

That's assuming your insurance policy wasn't subject to "recission", which is legal retroactive cancellation of the policy as soon as you have any condition like cancer that would cost a lot to treat.

We have a for-profit medical industry, and a for-profit insurance industry and both are motivated to increase profits, and reducing care is often a way to do it. Even non-profit hospitals will price gouge. Non-profit status does not mean that the executives working there aren't paid large salaries, it doesn't mean that things are delivered at cost, or with minimal mark up.

The "reform" is mandating people buy insurance from for-profit insurance companies, with no cost controls. Thus we end up with policies that can cost a family $20,000 a year in premiums, while still having large co-pays that can bankrupt you. The parts of the law that would have provided socialized care for the poor were gutted by the Supreme Court review, and by the executive office rule directives interpreting the law.

The answer to the problem is single-payer. The reform system is a further bailout for industry and is already driving up costs and reducing the number of insured.

Your posts presents those of us who support a reasonable working solution of single-payer as a position of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and/or ignorance, because we don't accept a non-working solution that retains and increases out of control costs and profits for industry.

Not supporting a specific, bad solution does not mean one does not see there is a serious problem and reform is necessary.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#26

Post by flexie »

When my wife gave birth in Europe the 11 hour procedure, which apart from the traditional medical stuff, included massage and acupunture for relaxation, involved a handful of nurses, 3 midwives, 2 doctors, an anesthesiologist etc. After the birth our little family stayed in the 300 square foot private room at the hospital for two days. We never saw any papers except the booklets the hospital gave us about having an infant. It was great and it was free.

Two years later my wife's sister gave birth in a top notch Manhattan hospital and my wife was there for support. Man, the stories she tells about how every part of the procedure was initiated with waivers being signed and questions asked about insurance to her sister who was squirming in pain and was several hours into labour. And how the impatient doctors tried to upsell her sister to a C-section... After that her sister shared a tiny room for a night with some other woman and was then sent home. Luckily, most of the 40,000 dollar bill was covered by her insurance.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#27

Post by rdouble »

Osmium wrote: post #23
rdouble wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system does bankrupt people, but it doesn't refuse to treat people. That is why people go bankrupt - the hospital has to treat everyone, then hands them an immense bill.

Isn't that the same thing? Practically speaking, for many people who'd rather be ill than ruin their family with debt. The thing that gets me is the attitude is that some people don't deserve free(-at-point-of-use) healthcare. For whatever reason; they haven't paid their taxes, or they've made mistakes in life. It seems unspeakably sad to me. Surely a civilised society should help everyone, regardless? It's the human…

Most people would rather be bankrupt than be dead.

I agree that a civilized society should help everyone, but don't agree that the USA is a civilized society. There is definitely an attitude that poor people don't "deserve" stuff. That's been an American notion since the first settlers arrived and won't change anytime in the near future.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#28

Post by lostlogin »

hospadam wrote: post #12
kami8845 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your feedback. The next time we will simply post the link with the domain removed.

I'm not sure if you're being snarky or not... but nsfw in the domain is a good reason to give caution while at work, right? There are a lot of terms that, if in a domain name, I would choose not to read at work.

If only NSFW had appeared in the URL of a few things I've clicked at work.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#29

Post by Osmium »

rdouble wrote: post #27
Osmium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the same thing? Practically speaking, for many people who'd rather be ill than ruin their family with debt. The thing that gets me is the attitude is that some people don't deserve free(-at-point-of-use) healthcare. For whatever reason; they haven't paid their taxes, or they've made mistakes in life. It seems unspeakably sad to me. Surely a civilised society should help everyone, regardless? It's the human…

Most people would rather be bankrupt than be dead. I agree that a civilized society should help everyone, but don't agree that the USA is a civilized society. There is definitely an attitude that poor people don't "deserve" stuff. That's been an American notion since the first settlers arrived and won't change anytime in the near future.

> Most people would rather be bankrupt than be dead.

True, but what if it's something less serious? Some people would rather be ill than bankrupt. And then what if it gets worse, and then it's too late? People shouldn't have to make that choice, especially because most people--not being doctors--are going to make bad decisions about when something is serious enough to get checked out.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#30

Post by sultezdukes »

oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

I tried then, and I've tried in the years since, but I simply cannot understand where they're coming from. How anyone can support a healthcare system in this day & age that can, and does, bankrupt or refuse to treat people.. I just can't understand it.

I find it curious and odd that you can't understand another philosophy on the role of government and the individual.

Post reply on HN