91–100 of 228 posts
Who is trying to make level 5 AI doctors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Number three recommendation: pay up for/seek out a cadillac insurance plan from a high quality insurer like Aetna or United with a low deductible (not high) and low copays. Why? Makes the patient experience much better on the back end with much less paperwork if you do engage the system. Why would the size of the deductible/copay affect the amount of paperwork? My naive assumption would be that the amount of paperwo…
A high deductible plan can save you money on the front end, but if you start using that plan you should prepare for rain - a deluge of bills from providers who have no idea what the insurance owes and what you owe. And God-forbid you use a narrow network plan like an EPO because it's hard to figure out ahead of time what services are covered by the network and what's not. I went to see a doc who was in-network and on…
Most providers do communicate with the payor and have a decent idea of what you owe, so I was being a bit snarky there. If they know you have a zero copay, you make no payment on site with no follow up bill afterwards.
I have a question, which you may not know the answer to, but I'm just asking it to everybody these days. Let's say hypothetically that all the medical providers suddenly all decide to stop being evil. They increase staffing to safe ratios. They even have extra staff so people can take vacations and have days off without it being a problem. They give everyone very good compensation and the big time administrators stop…
Spoken like someone who's never lived NOT under capitalism. It amazes me how young people today say things like this, as if they are self evident. I used to think that I'd not wish that life on anyone, but really y'all could use some, to see the contrast.
I have a question, which you may not know the answer to, but I'm just asking it to everybody these days. Let's say hypothetically that all the medical providers suddenly all decide to stop being evil. They increase staffing to safe ratios. They even have extra staff so people can take vacations and have days off without it being a problem. They give everyone very good compensation and the big time administrators stop…
The deeper problem is the demographic pyramid. We have lots of old people and the younger generation is smaller. Of course there's not enough caretakers, which is why the US systematically imports them from other countries, leaving those countries with the same problems. Ultimately, there is no escaping the market. No amount of public-funding, socialism, or outright communism can escape the simple facts of supply and…
Given Gen-X is both the smallest and next cohort to start retiring, I'm guessing medicare, SSI, etc. will have a few years to 'catch-up' before the Millenials start retiring.
My dad has serious kidney stone problems and does not have to deal with the dystopian shit you're talking about.
KP was famously overcrowded during COVID, but the dysfunction you describe is simply not on that level throughout the whole country.
Really, we could bandaid a lot of these harms by making it easier to get access pain killers. I think the opioid crisis was worth allowing legitimate people to get access to strong pain killers quickly on negative utilitarian grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I ask why? Even right wing think tanks agree that medicare for all would save 2 billion a year in healthcare costs at least https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/484301-22...
It is simple, calculating, and heartless. When there is a fixed amount of X available, a fair division of X across Y people gives everyone X / Y. When you need more than X / Y, you are screwed (ask anyone in england who's needed cataract surgery on their second eye and was told that QoL improvement was not there, like it was for the first, so GTFO) Since I can afford to buy a lot more than X / Y of healthcare for me…
I completely agree that the current system is excellent for those who can afford it, and queuing-based-on-worth certainly appeals to those with worth.
In the US this worth translates into money, which translates into lobbying. You are not marching in the streets because you don't need to. Your money speaks for you.
I say this not to patronise you, since you clearly understand this is the case. I say it merely to point out that this system works for the few, not the many. And yes it works well for the few.
Regarding your cateract example, if the queue is need based, and you have two patients, then one with 2 cateracts is ahead of someone with 1. That's another system, a system I agree which would be most distressing to someone with 1 careact and lots of spare cash.
I get that any system other than the current one will make you worse off. Equally I hope you see that any system at all will be a massive step forward for huge numbers of people.
Sure, I get it. I prefer systems that favor me. The seething masses aren't "real" to me. I don't know them like I know me and the people I care about. I care about my medical needs now, not some hypothetical "other person". Like you, I can pay for my medical, and I appreciate that I can.
But I also wonder if this is the best way. It works for me, but maybe there's something better for us all.
This seems like a good spot to repost a few passages from Limits to Medicine, Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health by Ivan Illich, 1974: "A world of optimal and widespread health is obviously a world of minimal and only occasional medical intervention. Healthy people are those who live in healthy homes, on a healthy diet, in an environment equally fit for birth, growth, work, healing, and dying; they are sust…
The alternative you ask for then, is for people to merely die and suffer in pain while doing so. In the past, that's what we did, because there just was no option for such people. I looked up Ivan Illich, and this essay critiques modern medicine as creating "lifelong patients." That indeed is what has happened, but the alternative is for people to just die. The reality really is I don't really believe anyone ever too…
But we won't do that because it'll make some very rich people upset and it'll reduce individual liberty. We value individual liberty over a healthy population.
I’ve been working in the health tech space for awhile now and it’s sad how you’re not alone in noticing this. It’s the dirty secret of the entire industry, and there’s too many things disincentivizing any fixes. The more I witness this the more I realize that having a single payer is necessary to actually break up enough of the monopoly to get some traction on this problem. Until then there are too many middle men an…
> The more I witness this the more I realize that having a single payer is necessary to actually break up enough of the monopoly to get some traction on this problem. Until then there are too many middle men and bureaucrats blocking this change. By "single payer" do you mean the European model of "socialized" healthcare? That may be necessary (I don't know) but it's clearly not enough. I'm in France, and I hear the e…
Second, if an employee isn't covered by employer healthcare, the employer side of FICA should be increased to provide for employee coverage. That way if someone is working 40 hours a week, but for multiple part-time employers, they still get the same medical coverage as a full-time employee.
Third, when I go in for a procedure, I want all bills to go to the insurance provider, they pay everything. Then the insurance sends me a bill for my co-pay. Make that a law. That way I'm not stuck with getting dozens of separate bills up to years after a procedure, with no way of really knowing what should have been covered by insurance or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, like a doctor with a membership club. Generally doesn't take your insurance, although some services might covered by your insurance. Good example is MDVIP - https://www.mdvip.com/ . I have no relation to the company other than being a customer. I pay $1,600 a year for my Mom to be a member and it's the best money I've ever spent.
Would it still be good to have insurance in addition to this, in case of disaster?