I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#2It's depressing to me to think that people hate others so much that they would go to such great lengths to keep others from getting healthcare and ensure their demise. These same people would have no problem accepting healthcare from others if it was their lives that were in danger. I truly cannot fathom the hypocrisy, hate, and cruelty that must exist in these people's hearts towards their fellow citizens.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#3Part of why healthcare is so expensive today, is we're capable of saving so many more lives than before. As little as a generation ago, many more would have died, people who now go on to live fruitful productive lives.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#4Part of why healthcare is so expensive today, is we're capable of saving so many more lives than before. As little as a generation ago, many more would have died, people who now go on to live fruitful productive lives.
America spends more per capita than any other first world country for worse outcomes [1]. Healthcare is expensive because of the profit motive. Single payer isn't implemented for (mostly) the same reason.
60% of Americans want single payer [2].
"A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.
Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade.
Among those who see a government responsibility to provide health coverage for all, more now say it should be provided through a single health insurance system run by the government, rather than through a mix of private companies and government programs. Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats – especially liberal Democrats – are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.
Even among those who say the federal government is not responsible for ensuring Americans have health care coverage, there is little public appetite for government withdrawing entirely from involvement in health care coverage. Among the public, 33% say that health care coverage is not the government’s responsibility, but that programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be continued; just 5% of Americans say the government should not be involved at all in providing health insurance."
Emphasis mine.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/04/20/52477419...
[2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-suppo...
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#5> It was eye-opening to see just how low our discourse has sunk, to be forced to acknowledge that what passes for debate in the age of the internet is often nothing more than spewing venom at the other side. How are we ever supposed to find a solution that’s better than either Trumpcare or Obamacare if we can’t even shut up long enough to recognize the humanity in the people on the other side of the debate?
So people on one side of the fence are not happy about the very high medical costs required to keep a child alive. They do not understand the humanity behind the numbers.
On the other side of the fence are parents who are not happy that some people think their child is an excessive burden on the system. They (understandably) do not understand (or at the least, are looking away from) the numbers behind making their child viable.
The author correctly identifies one side's shortcoming wrt balanced discourse, but does not see the blindness of her own implied position -- that no cost is too high to save a life. Nowhere in this piece does she broach the subject of numbers and real cost [1].
Finding balance is very difficult in any area, especially in areas where you only have _one shot_ (an example is your child's education, where many parents feel that no amount of investment is enough, and more is always better). But since the system does not have infinite resources, it's a necessary conversation to have (which the author could have brought up, but failed to do so -- understandably, since this article is a strategic opinion piece meant to further the author's self-interest, which I completely respect).
A billion dollars to save a child's life, we would likely agree, is too much. $1,000, we would likely agree, is entirely justified. Where we draw the line, why, and how we get there (of urgent need is our relationship with end of life care and treatments) is an important conversation that we are failing to have, and those of us on both sides of the fence are equally culpable for this shortcoming.
[1] The large 6 figure bill and post insurance $500 bill is only used qualitatively in the introduction.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#6Part of why healthcare is so expensive today, is we're capable of saving so many more lives than before. As little as a generation ago, many more would have died, people who now go on to live fruitful productive lives.
America spends more per capita than any other first world country for worse outcomes [1]. Healthcare is expensive because of the profit motive. Single payer isn't implemented for (mostly) the same reason. 60% of Americans want single payer [2]. "A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single pay…
Are "worse outcomes" controlled for lifestyle choices, demographics, and obesity? Or is it a stepping stone to a soapbox?
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#7Based on the background of the mother, she would have been able to have had insurance even without Obamacare, and would have still been able to have insurance no matter what the Republican Congress passes. In this situation, no matter what the government did, her child would still have been able to get the necessary surgery.
In addition, Boston Children's Hospital is one of the premier hospitals in the world. Given the specialized nature of the problem and the fact that heterotaxy cases are pretty rare, even without insurance, the chances are high that the child would still have been treated and the hospital would have eaten the cost.
Thus, pre/post/no Obamacare, the child still would have had the treatment. Thus, you cannot derive a political position from this case.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
America spends more per capita than any other first world country for worse outcomes [1]. Healthcare is expensive because of the profit motive. Single payer isn't implemented for (mostly) the same reason. 60% of Americans want single payer [2]. "A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single pay…
Are "worse outcomes" controlled for lifestyle choices, demographics, and obesity? Or is it a stepping stone to a soapbox?
Life expectancy, infant mortality, and quality of care.
http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0011_health-outcomes
Americans being "fat", sedentary, and certain demographics having expensive chronic illnesses aren't the cause (except perhaps heart attack mortality, which I'm not going to spend the time this evening digging into), if that's your implication.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#9Based on the background of the mother, she would have been able to have had insurance even without Obamacare, and would have still been able to have insurance no matter what the Republican Congress passes. In this situation, no matter what the government did, her child would still have been able to get the necessary surgery. In addition, Boston Children's Hospital is one of the premier hospitals in the world. Given t…
I am assuming that your statements are correct.
However, if we examine the author's motives, she seeks a society where any child who shares her son's ailment (or other life threatening but treatable -- albeit expensively -- diseases) can receive treatment, whether or not they share her fortunate circumstances or not.
In that light her rhetorical strategy remains reasonable.
Re: I shared my toddler's hospital bill on Twitter
#10> It was eye-opening to see just how low our discourse has sunk, to be forced to acknowledge that what passes for debate in the age of the internet is often nothing more than spewing venom at the other side. How are we ever supposed to find a solution that’s better than either Trumpcare or Obamacare if we can’t even shut up long enough to recognize the humanity in the people on the other side of the debate? So people…
Who sets the numbers and why, though? How much is profit, how much should be profit, when it comes to human health and rehabilitation whether mental or physical assistance is required? Or, ignoring profit, why take away public funding to programs for poor people just to provide tax breaks to rich folks? How much is a dollar worth to each individual, relatively-speaking? There are few easy answers, except (almost) everybody wants to see costs lower to the levels they are in other countries. Setting price or profit caps and limits is one method, ensuring the system can’t ask for inflated amounts from insurers is another. This could affect quality of service, but then again, it might not. All stores might charge the same price for some brand name item but not all stores offer equal customer service or trained staff... The same is surely true of medical facilities.