Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls • Hacker News Board

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#111

Post by shereadsthenews » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #70

porphyrogene wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The publication is NPR so that it is US news goes somewhat without saying. However, this is something that Americans need to understand is exceptional for a nation of its resources.

So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that we…

How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#112

Post by hirundo » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #32

vamos_davai wrote: post #4

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.

I don't think anyone can think about it realistically until they are in that situation. How much is another year of your life worth to you? And to your loved ones for that matter? (assuming we're talking terminal cancer here, which it might not be) I have family that suffered from cancer and spent a good lot of money prolonging their life by about eighteen months. They were not pleasant months, but I don't think for…

My mom fought cancer at great expense and with everyone's support, and just ended up prolonging her suffering. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer a few years later, remembering that experience, he fought pretty much everyone and declined treatment, and died swiftly. If my turn comes and my odds are about as bad as theirs, I may well prefer to follow his example.

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#113

Post by komali2 » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

triplewipeass wrote: post #13

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.

>My family would be taken care of.

And possibly traumatized that you killed yourself so they could have money.

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#114

Post by BucketSort » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #53

57% of Americans cant handle a surprise bill of $500 without going into debt. [1] I don't doubt cancer is probably the most expensive hit that we have a good chance of receiving, but I'd be inclined to point to the lack of "life's assets" being fluid as the first problem to tackle. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-50...

It's amazing that you got down voted so much. Do people not like facing reality or something?

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#115

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #100

smallgovt wrote: post #72

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?

The deductible might be huge, and there's also this magic new thing I've just discovered (or United invented out of nowhere) called "co-insurance" and "maximum out of pocket" which I call "deductible #2." Then when you actually try to use the insurance you pay monthly for (but don't get to use until you reach the deductible #1 and #2?) they may just send the bill to you with a lot of legalese that amounts to "we don'…

All of the terms you listed are easily understandable concepts clearly explained on healthcare.gov or any health insurance company's website, and they've been a thing for decades.

How much clearer can maximum out of pocket be?

Edit: I do think in network and out of network should be easier/faster to figure out though.

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#116

Post by Marsymars » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

shereadsthenews wrote: post #43

I'd like to know where the patient with the $870 MRI bill was seen. My last MRI was billed at over $7500. Before I started treatment for my brain tumor I got divorced for purely financial reasons and gave all my remaining money to my children. USA is so fucked.

We've got private MRI clinics in Canada, and Googling prices for my city gives a number of clinics with prices in the 700 CAD range.

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#117

Post by elliekelly » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

maire wrote: post #57

crimsonalucard wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hoard Monopolized knowledge that can likely be known by a cancer technician. Then they charge a premium for it. The therapy, doctor visits and all that come from them and they charge that much because you're dying and you need access to their monopolized knowledge. Reduce 12 years of training to 4 years and lower the selection criteria of students entering a specialty and I'll show you an economy where doctors a…

Malpractice insurance takes a surprising % of doctor's income. Delivering babies is particularly expensive. It reached the point that the doctor that delivered my babies no longer carries malpractice insurance.

Did he proactively disclose that to you or did it just come up in conversation? Attorneys in many states aren't required to have malpractice insurance but must disclose to clients if their malpractice insurance doesn't meet some minimum standard.

Edit to add that I also suspect the health insurance companies are a big part of driving up the malpractice insurance costs. For example, if there's some sort of error in a routine surgery where the patient is left permanently disabled the patient won't necessarily be the one suing the doctor but the insurance company might go after the doctor's malpractice insurance to "soften the blow" of the additional cost of caring for/insuring the patient.

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#118

Post by news_to_me » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

shereadsthenews wrote: post #111

mbostleman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that we…

How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?

Socialist!! /s

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#119

Post by mtgx » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

rndgermandude wrote: post #76

JamesBarney wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What kind of evidence do you have for this claim?

There is none. People just like to parrot that Big Pharma line because it "sounds like it makes sense, so I guess it does?!"

Big Pharma already abuses the patent system so much, like inventing something and then when the 20 year monopoly has passed they create a new patent that says "this same drug can be used for Y purpose, too" - and bam, another 20 year monopoly on the exact same or very slightly tweaked recipe.

Tens of thousands are already dying every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. If the argument is that "if we reduce the Big Pharma profits then it would be even worse!", I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. If drugs were cheaper, a large portion of those people could be saved (yes, I realize there are problems with the healthcare system, too, but those would also be fixed by Medicare for all).

Re: Cancer Complications: Confusing Bills, Maddening Errors And Endless Phone Calls

#120

Post by Joe-Z » Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #70

porphyrogene wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The publication is NPR so that it is US news goes somewhat without saying. However, this is something that Americans need to understand is exceptional for a nation of its resources.

So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that we…

>What do the rules look like for this in other nations?

In Austria we pay a "Sozialversicherungsbeitrag"/social security with each month's pay. Your employer also chips in part of it. I don't even know how much it is percent-wise.

It is really not that hard. You just go the doctor / hospital when you NEED it. Because that's the important thing: health care is a need, nobody likes being sick or injured and having a system where people end up bankrupt to pay for their medical bills ist just stupid.

No matter the philosophical arguments against taxes and state-power, it's cruel and stupid and it's astonishing that a country that considers itself "the greatest nation" is actually run like this in the 21st century.