How would you feel about losing your company-provided health insurance for "medicare for all"?

[Anonymous]

Sure. You won't specify the diagnosis so an actual comparison can be done here, though?

[Anonymous]

As every child matters one hopes to every parent, rich or poor, thus Medicare for All. If fortunate add Private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure. You won't specify the diagnosis so an actual comparison can be done here, though?

I'll give one but not the other (coincidence of two uncommon and unrelated illnesses being too telling) Spondyloarthritis. Four years and scores of doctors to diagnose. A painful disorder especially in initial stages. We were told repeatedly the pain was all in the child's head--obviously easier than trying to figure out a cause.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7520023/Mysterious-viral-LA-subway-singer-revealed-classically-trained-musician-homeless.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so convinced that healthcare drives health outcomes? Variety of factors go into health outcomes—especially factors generally outside of the healthcare system like diet, exercise and stress levels.

Has anybody actually shown that access to healthcare will cause health outcomes to improve. The worst possible case would be Euro costs/access and American outcomes.

Because preventative care makes a huge difference both in costs absorbed by all of us and in outcomes. Right now a large portion of our population relies solely on emergency rooms because they can't get preventative care so they can't get help until they are very sick.
Of course access to healthcare improves health outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK! I just had a brilliant idea to help hold down costs and introduce transparency into doctor's fees - and whch could be easily enacted.(I'm the PP upthread who can't get the upfront price for a small procedure I need and therefore can't determine whether I should wait for Medicare age or do it now.)

I think we all agree that this nonsense we hear from doctors ("I can't tell you my fee ....you'll just have to wait until insurance processes the bill after the fact") is absolutely insane. But if you're on Medicare, it's no secret what doctors are reimbursed. There are published schedules that give the reimbursement of every conceivable exam, treatment, and procedure.

So what if we require that doctors disclose their fees using the Medicare reimbursement as the benchmark? Doctors are free to set their own rates - no price fixing - but they must let you know their charges relative to the standard Medicare fee. So.....you could have a doctor saying (to non-Medicare patients, obviously) that he/she charges 125% of Medicare rate, or. 145%, or whatever. And it wouldn't have to be standard across-the-board, either. The doctor could say that procedure to do ABC is 125% Medicare, and the XYZ procedure is 150%, etc.

The benefits are multi-faceted. FIrst, consumers would know the max what they would be charged ( before insurance kicks in). Two, it would create pricing competition among providers, which is a good thing. And third, because of the competition in pricing, costs would come down.

So....who wants to vote for MOI?

You should consider going to another country to get this procedure performed. Maybe South Africa or Singapore? I don't know how f Singapore has medical tourism but I know South Africa does.

[Anonymous]

That PP could also consider domestic medical tourism. There are places that cater to this with lower prices than found elsewhere. Medical tourism thrives on price transparency.

Buffalo MRI, which caters to Canadian medical tourists, for example, puts its prices right up on its website:

http://buffalomri.com/services/screening-services/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so convinced that healthcare drives health outcomes? Variety of factors go into health outcomes—especially factors generally outside of the healthcare system like diet, exercise and stress levels.

Has anybody actually shown that access to healthcare will cause health outcomes to improve. The worst possible case would be Euro costs/access and American outcomes.

Because preventative care makes a huge difference both in costs absorbed by all of us and in outcomes. Right now a large portion of our population relies solely on emergency rooms because they can't get preventative care so they can't get help until they are very sick.
Of course access to healthcare improves health outcomes.

Possibly for some. But it is very common for people to use the ER as an urgent care.

[Anonymous]

It is this policy more than almost any other that will ensure that I don't vote for Warren or Sanders.

Utterly ridiculous that they want to do away with insurance and compel everyone to be covered by Medicare for all. I support a public option - that makes a lot of sense. Why on earth would anyone want to do away with the insurance coverage that tens of millions are perfectly happy with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. You won't specify the diagnosis so an actual comparison can be done here, though?

I'll give one but not the other (coincidence of two uncommon and unrelated illnesses being too telling) Spondyloarthritis. Four years and scores of doctors to diagnose. A painful disorder especially in initial stages. We were told repeatedly the pain was all in the child's head--obviously easier than trying to figure out a cause.

I am really sorry you and your child are dealing with this. It is a painful and debilitating disorder --as you well know! -- and early diagnosis makes a difference in long-term effects.

That being said, the average time from symptoms onset to diagnosis is longer in the US than in the European Union. The average in the US was 13 years and for the EU it was 8-11 years, as of about a decade ago. In more recent years, the US is somewhere in the 6-10 year range, and the average for the EU is right at about 7 years for the most recent data. That does not convince me that the US system is doing a better job for kids with AS than the EU.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00296-002-0237-4
https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/prevalence-of-axial-spondyloarthritis-in-the-united-states-among-patients-with-chronic-back-pain-and-other-spondyloarthritis-related-features/
https://www.usa.thisaslife.com/symptoms/ankylosing-spondylitis-patient-journey/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That PP could also consider domestic medical tourism. There are places that cater to this with lower prices than found elsewhere. Medical tourism thrives on price transparency.

Buffalo MRI, which caters to Canadian medical tourists, for example, puts its prices right up on its website:

http://buffalomri.com/services/screening-services/

MRIs are only useful insofar as they make a difference. People want them; that doesn't necessarily mean they need them or are helped by them.

[Anonymous]

People also tend to want head CTs in the ED when their kids have concussions. Often they think a CT is warranted for good care.

Unfortunately, the data shows CTs are not useful in the absence of certain symptoms or signs on a detailed neuro exam. More importantly, a head CT in childhood doubles your risk of brain cancer in your lifetime (which is already low, but nonetheless) -- so it is definitely NOT warranted unless there is good reason, even if parents ask for them.

[Anonymous]

I could care less about my insurance company. What I care about is access to my doctors and other medical facilities, and the overall cost I’m paying. I’d be ok if my taxes went up if my overall health costs (premiums, copays, dedectables) were the same. I’d even pay a little more to cover the relief I’d feel knowing that I’d still be covered even if I lost my job. Heck, I’d consider starting my own freelance business if I didn’t have to worry about finding health insurance.

Actually I think I actively dislike my insurance company. Higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles seem to be the norm and I’m not able to see why. There is no transparency.

What was eye opening to me is that in some cases, going without insurance is cheaper than having it. For example, my relative is on a certain medication. She lost her job and thus insurance. She found several local programs to help with access to doctors (free clinics). She found out that she paid LESS money paying for her medicine out of pocket than she did when she had insurance. I couldn’t believe it, but she showed me her receipts. She used Good RX as coupons, which isn’t insurance but if they can get drug costs down, why couldn’t her previous insurance company? Of course, without insurance, she’s screwed if she gets a catastrophic illness.

[Anonymous]

Given how racism and socioeconomics impact everything in the US, isn’t it wise to worry about negative impacts of medical care rationing on low-income and people of color? I’m sure this must have come up in parts of Europe, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. You won't specify the diagnosis so an actual comparison can be done here, though?

I'll give one but not the other (coincidence of two uncommon and unrelated illnesses being too telling) Spondyloarthritis. Four years and scores of doctors to diagnose. A painful disorder especially in initial stages. We were told repeatedly the pain was all in the child's head--obviously easier than trying to figure out a cause.

Yes. Many doctors are lazy and will always assume it’s a horse even if there is a hint of stripes. Not worth their time to determine if it’s a zebra. I’ve only met a handful of truly great physicians.

That’s why you always have to be your own best advocate - regardless of healthcare system.