101–110 of 369 posts
When I was in my early 20s, I got myself a beefy life insurance policy that covers suicide after some waiting period that has expired many years ago. I know that in case of crippling illness I can always take the easy way out while preserving my assets plus the life insurance payout. My family would be taken care of.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
doesn't matter who is president in 2020, if the senate isn't blue. And right now, it doesn't look like the senate will even hit 50/50.
Unexpected health problems are the only reasons i'd go back to my home country to get treatment. US healthcare is nuts.
In Australia the Leftist government of Gough Whitlam introduced health-coverage-for-all in 1975 with a scheme called Medibank. In 1984 after a couple of governments, Bob Hawke's Leftist government created the Medicare scheme (Medibank became a government provider of private health insurance), which exists to this day. The most interesting stat I ever heard about Medicare was this: prior to Medicare the number one cau…
I'm all for universal coverage too. But reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies well reduce the money they have for r&d dramatically. This will slow down the speed of pharmaceutical development. So I think it needs to be paired with reforms to the FDA to reduce the go to market costs for drugs.
The real fix to this is to nationalize the pharm industry, so that there is no profit motive, and drugs can be produced at the lowest cost possible.
But I don't think that's necessarily moral, compared to something like Medicaid, which requires people to spend down their assets first before the government will pay. The median net worth for someone between 65-74 is $225,000. Why should the government spend tax dollars to protect those savings for people unfortunate enough to get cancer, when there are many people unfortunate enough to never enter the middle class and be in a position to save that kind of money in the first place? Isn't it unfair to spend tax dollars protecting the inheritance of an upper-middle-class kid when that money could be given to a kid that never had a hope of an inheritance?
Put differently, there is a huge moral difference between the government ensuring that everyone can get cancer treatment, and the government intervening to protect the financial and social status of people fortunate enough to have significant assets.
It's such an absurd expense that I wonder if I get diagnosed with cancer, I would just deny treatment, accept death, and hand my assets to loved ones. Not sure if anyone else thinks the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, my family in Canada and UK don't deal with any of this. In the US, it's not even worth your time figuring out how much your treatment will cost, other than whether or not the provider is in network or not. Assume it's the out of pocket maximum for your insurance, because when you go to a provider, you sign a blank check that says you will be responsible for whatever chargers they make up during the course of your…
You can't figure out whether your provider is in or out. Just yesterday I got a bill from someone I've never heard of who turns out to be a "Medication Safety Specialist" who allegedly rendered services to me worth $392. You'd think such a person would just be a functionary of the hospital who in any case bill me $27k every day, but actually they are some kind of mercenary who bill patients directly.
During birth, should one stand outside their wife's delivery room and ask each provider to wait outside while you look up if they are in network or not on your insurance company's app? At least we have apps to do that nowadays.
I’m confused. If you have medical insurance, shouldn’t you only pay up to your deductible? Is this saying people’s life assets don’t cover the deductible? Or, people are uninsured?
From the article: "Their high-deductible insurance policy meant they had to spend $6,000 before their insurance started covering her treatment expenses. They hit their annual out-of-pocket maximum of $10,000 well before the year was over." Even with a lower deductible, many plans have annual and lifetime limits.
The article mentions a variety of causes but I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones are most important. In the example above with a $10k out-of-pocket maximum, how much money did these patients actually end up paying? Is that the main reason for their bankruptcy, or is it their loss of income? Does disability insurance cover things like cancer, and if not, are there similar programs that do?
My plan in a situation that would burn up all of my assets for little guarantee of meaningful gains is to off myself to prevent using up my family's assets. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the future of the rest of my family to milk a couple more years, especially with reduced quality of life. Assuming I'm mentally strong enough to, anyway. Although, nowadays with mandatory out of pocket maximums, if you have insurance,…
I'd give 90% of my income if it meant my friend that "offed herself" could still be alive.
Decisions like that have consequences beyond you...