UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the apologist for the insurance industry who's been posting in this thread all day in fact is an employed wonk with the insurance industry. LOL.

Yeah, that poster seems to be worshipping soundbites.

workshopping

Well they aren’t working.

Honestly, healthcare IS a basic human right. As a society we’ve developed the science to treat disease and ease suffering. Why a big fat insurance CEO needs to get a big cash bonus before humans are treated is simply bizarre.

I think most people agree that healthcare is a human right but the rub is deciding how much healthcare and what kind of healthcare that is?

The question is, how do we make sure those decisions are made by people for whom health care is care, rather than those for whom it is first and foremost a financial investment whose value must by definition grow?

Well these are decisions that should not be made by people with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. No matter who is the CEO, they’re going to have conflicting legal duties to their investors and a moral duty (and contractual) to their customer.

Insurance company are using AI to approve and deny medical decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the apologist for the insurance industry who's been posting in this thread all day in fact is an employed wonk with the insurance industry. LOL.

Yeah, that poster seems to be worshipping soundbites.

workshopping

Well they aren’t working.

Honestly, healthcare IS a basic human right. As a society we’ve developed the science to treat disease and ease suffering. Why a big fat insurance CEO needs to get a big cash bonus before humans are treated is simply bizarre.

I think most people agree that healthcare is a human right but the rub is deciding how much healthcare and what kind of healthcare that is?

The question is, how do we make sure those decisions are made by people for whom health care is care, rather than those for whom it is first and foremost a financial investment whose value must by definition grow?

Really, it's already far beyond this stage. It's that denying claims randomly benefits the insurance company. Forget about eyeballs on the claim. If their software, or their humans, or whatever is making mistakes, that's profit. There is zero incentive for them to improve, in fact they select for incompetence. Every denied claim is a claim that may never come back.

This. I have BCBS and I’m required to submit any out of network claim to BCBS via mail. There’s no way to submit it electronically on my current plan. There’s no way to check if it has been received. About a third of the time, I get no response for months and resubmit because it was apparently lost.

That’s weird. I have BCBS Carefirdt and it’s all in the online portal.

I used to have a different Carefirst BCBS plan through an old employer and it allowed online submissions. The federal employee program BCBS plan requires paper.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1730jbu/bluecross_blueshield_fep_still_requires_mailedin/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

But as a civilized society, it has to work this way. The healthy, working people support their elders because when they start to age or get cancer, they want to be supported.

It is moral to care for those who cared for us.

We can provide care to elders without offering an all-you-can-eat buffet of healthcare.

When my 91 year old grandfather was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the assumption at the hospital was that he would pursue aggressive (and incredibly expensive) chemotherapy. The reality is that chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer at 91 would only prolong his life a few months and would dramatically diminish his quality of life during that time. That's a terrible use of medical resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

But as a civilized society, it has to work this way. The healthy, working people support their elders because when they start to age or get cancer, they want to be supported.

It is moral to care for those who cared for us.

We can provide care to elders without offering an all-you-can-eat buffet of healthcare.

When my 91 year old grandfather was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the assumption at the hospital was that he would pursue aggressive (and incredibly expensive) chemotherapy. The reality is that chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer at 91 would only prolong his life a few months and would dramatically diminish his quality of life during that time. That's a terrible use of medical resources.

Yes. But otherwise you have “death panels”. Don’t you remember this from Obamacare? It takes patients to decline care like this. Many don’t. But it’s obviously not sustainable or in the best interests of patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

[Anonymous]

Say what you want about this killer but we have been talking about healthcare and it’s ethics for over a week now. He wanted to make a point and he certainly made it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

More medical intervention? Why not just die of natural causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Irrational family members and elderly patients at end-of-life care time are what drive the health costs off a cliff in America.

Should this apply to babies in ICU with a diagnosis of three to nine months to live as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Irrational family members and elderly patients at end-of-life care time are what drive the health costs off a cliff in America.

Should this apply to babies in ICU with a diagnosis of three to nine months to live as well.

Or even back it up earlier to the super preemies. The reality is nobody wants to tell anyone else no, their care is not necessary or worth it. People want other people to make the hard decisions they would never make themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

+1 I have zero desire to be over 80 and be sick to the point where I’m sitting around waiting to die and all of my family has to sit and watch me whither away and having to tolerate pain. Let the elderly decide after the age of 80 and let people over 65 decide if they have something terminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Irrational family members and elderly patients at end-of-life care time are what drive the health costs off a cliff in America.

Should this apply to babies in ICU with a diagnosis of three to nine months to live as well.

Yes. We spend millions keeping babies alive who will never leave the hospital, let alone live anything close to a normal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

More medical intervention? Why not just die of natural causes.

Because it can be extremely painful and debilitating without support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

More medical intervention? Why not just die of natural causes.

The condition will continue to get worse or more painful by then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say what you want about this killer but we have been talking about healthcare and it’s ethics for over a week now. He wanted to make a point and he certainly made it.

Yet oddly, we have not talked about Gun Control, with this cold-blooded m*rder. hmmm. Where are all those marches and protests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone read the CNN article about health insurance denials? On a personal level, they are all terrible stories … but on an economic/policy level, I’m not so sure.

The 70 year old woman from Worcester complains that she pays hundreds of dollars a month but her insurer would not cover more than 6 weeks in a post-acute rehab center after her surgery, although it appears that center cost about 5K a week…..the economics just don’t add up. Most elderly people will have multiple health issues and surgeries are not uncommon. If the insurer is charging hundreds in premiums, yet paying out tens of thousands in provider charges, how can this make sense? It used to be that these large costs were rare so the premiums paid by healthy people covered the costs of the unlucky, but now it seems like almost everyone has some health condition or needs a surgery to improve quality of life. Post-acute in patient care is great but that wasn’t even really a thing 20-30 years ago—you just had to have family that would stay with you to help you post-surgery.

And the young girl with cancer probably picked a cheaper plan with a higher co-pay, figuring she was young and healthy. Should insurance companies not be permitted to offer those types of plans? I really don’t know. The problem is that most health care consumers don’t really adequately assess their potential risks and everyone is operating with insufficient information about what their health needs might be, and what things actually cost.

As far as the paramedic and his MRI….that seems ridiculous and he probably has a good appeal.


https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/12/business/us-health-care-insurance-frustrations/index.html

5% of the population accounts for 50% of healthcare spending. There are a lot of people like me who rarely visit doctors and have no prescriptions. I do screenings, blood work, etc., as recommended, but I'm a healthy 47 yo F who pays about $5K a year in premiums.

Are we talking about the same 5% of people year after year? If not, I'm not sure this is particularly helpful information; it just means that in a given year, 5% of the population gets really sick.

It seems like a small share of the US population have long-term illnesses that require expensive treatment, and those people should definitely get all the help they need. But a good chunk of the expensive patients are just people who like to get the latest tests and treatments for every small health issue, expecting miracles and without doing any of the hard work it takes to stay healthy. For example, for most (not all) people, exercise will resolve back pain, but some people refuse to exercise and just want $$$ surgeries and painkillers. I know someone who goes to the ER (or takes her kids there) many times each year, because she has untreated anxiety and refuses to see a therapist or take anxiety meds. And before you tell me I'm lucky that I'm not seriously ill -- I have a chronic condition that I manage cheaply with drastic changes in diet and exercise, while I know some people spending tens of thousands on medication that allows them to live symptom-free without any adjustment to their diet or exercise. I'm not immortal and I'm sure some day I'll need some expensive round of cancer treatment, but getting expensive treatments when absolutely necessary in old age is not the same as expecting them as a routine matter starting in childhood.

Why should one group "definitely" get expensive on going treatment and another be denied some tests?

In order to ensure a baseline of health for the whole population. If you want every headache test to be paid for, at the expense of not having money left for cancer treatments, you will end up with a society where minor conditions are over treated and life-threatening ones are fatal.

Tell us which age group sucks up most of the resources and how that benefits the whole population.

Oh I agree 100%, the ridiculous life-extending care for the oldest cohorts are out of control in this country. Paying $30,000 a month for intensive nursing care for a very sick 90-year old so he can live to 91, all by himself strapped into a bed with a feeding tube.

I fail to see how that person "definitely" needs their care but a younger able bodied person should be shamed and denied for seeking out answers or tests for an issue they are having. Since apparently we have to pick and choose what benefits society as a whole, according to that PP.

You're not reading right. Extending life for the oldest people who are not able to sustain themselves is a waste of money and makes it harder for younger, healthier people to get the care that can actually help them go back to living a normal life.

Well advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia

More medical intervention? Why not just die of natural causes.

Because it can be extremely painful and debilitating without support.

And in the meantime you might be a terrible burden on your loved ones for years or even decades.