UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[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:

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.

Excellent equation. And one I think we know the answer too.

End of life
Chronically ill and disabled
Illegal immigrants

Yeah, why shouldn’t insurance companies just become money printing machines?

Something is a gatekeeper either way.

And the PpP still answers the question: the largest segments sucking down resources are end of life, chronically ill/disabled, and illegal immigrant.

All three cohorts pay in zero to the system (illegal aliens) or usually premiums yet are vastly net users .

Good luck getting an anesthesiologist if they’re all tied up. Rationing happens every single day.

Zero?! Really? Illegal immigrants farm the land, raise your babies and clean your toilets, all of which are jobs lazy Americans find beneath them and would never do. I would not call this zero contribution.

Healthcare should be a universal right and free, the way it is in the rest of the developed world.

Zero in to the insurance, welfare, medicaid, hospital system? Yes, it’s zero.

That’s what happens when you country hop to USA and go into labor, use the hospitals, have an anchor baby on welfare, etc. You paid in zero to the system, and took out lots.

Same thing for public education. Arrive and start using.

how are illegal immigrants collecting welfare. Please explain this to me. (Hint, the only place this happens is in your imagination and on Fox News.)

Yes, and I interact with a lot of undocumented immigrants for my job. Most of them have SSNs and pay taxes (you don’t need to be documented for that). The great majority of them are here to work, and it’s very hard to find a job that’s under the table. Even day labor and informal childcare is less of a thing lately.

+1 Also many immigrants are paying in to social security and Medicare even if using fake or stolen SSNs, and many of them will never collect SS or be on Medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why not legalize medically assisted suicide?

That’s a separate issue. People can deny expensive and futile treatment, while still receiving comfort care (pain meds, fluids, oxygen). That is what hospice is.

Actually, hospice tries to tell families that it is totally normal to stop giving nutrition and hydration to people. I don't call that "comfortable." There is a whole rationalization that is used to hasten death.

Hospice hastened my sister's death, at the age of 43, by weeks by administering a lethal dose of morphine. She told me ahead of time that they had a "kit" that was ready to go when she was. She told me this days before she died, but was not supposed to say anything. She was not ready, but when she started getting worse, her boyfriend and hospice nurse took matters into their own hands. They have no idea how lucky they are I didn't call the police. Hospice is not what they have led people to believe.

[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:

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.

Nurse here. And this is why Advanced Directives and having the conversation with loved ones are so important. We see so much intervention at the end of life that honestly sometimes just looks like torture. And often it is family driven.
I can understand when it’s a young person and there is a hope that person will pull through and make it. But 80-something year old nana with dementia and no quality of life? It happens more often than people realize.

My BILs family put his frail, broken (from two falls) 85YO dad through two, TWO full codes in two days before he died. I always feel so bad for that man leaving the world while having his ribs crushed and I have so much sympathy for the health care workers who had to do it. It is horrifying the things people do to postpone the inevitable.

My 80 year old dad wants to live and asked us to do everything including restarting heart if need be. Happened actually. His life and his choice. Still alive..moving slower but still alive.

No one is advocating taking that choice away from him.

DP-The insurance flicks above are aggressively advocating for just that.

He is welcome to pay for choice then- that is what is being said. Extreme resuscitation measures and artificially keeping an 80+ yr old alive is not reasonable to expect insurance to pay out for that, nor should it be tax payers responsibility

He would be paying for it, through his insurance.

[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:

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.

Nurse here. And this is why Advanced Directives and having the conversation with loved ones are so important. We see so much intervention at the end of life that honestly sometimes just looks like torture. And often it is family driven.
I can understand when it’s a young person and there is a hope that person will pull through and make it. But 80-something year old nana with dementia and no quality of life? It happens more often than people realize.

My BILs family put his frail, broken (from two falls) 85YO dad through two, TWO full codes in two days before he died. I always feel so bad for that man leaving the world while having his ribs crushed and I have so much sympathy for the health care workers who had to do it. It is horrifying the things people do to postpone the inevitable.

My 80 year old dad wants to live and asked us to do everything including restarting heart if need be. Happened actually. His life and his choice. Still alive..moving slower but still alive.

No one is advocating taking that choice away from him.

Actually, a lot of the posters above are.

No, the argument is about who gets stuck with the bill. If you want to try to stay alive forever then you can pay out of pocket. Insurance can’t and shouldn’t cover everything

Where do you draw the line, as posters up thread note? Old age? Severe conditions expensive to treat? Cancer treatments? Pre-term babies? Institutionalized mental patients or disabled patients? What is the dollar value you are comfortable assigning to their care, before it gets cut off? And is that different from the dollar value you would assign to yourself, your children, or people you are close to?

[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:

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.

Nurse here. And this is why Advanced Directives and having the conversation with loved ones are so important. We see so much intervention at the end of life that honestly sometimes just looks like torture. And often it is family driven.
I can understand when it’s a young person and there is a hope that person will pull through and make it. But 80-something year old nana with dementia and no quality of life? It happens more often than people realize.

My BILs family put his frail, broken (from two falls) 85YO dad through two, TWO full codes in two days before he died. I always feel so bad for that man leaving the world while having his ribs crushed and I have so much sympathy for the health care workers who had to do it. It is horrifying the things people do to postpone the inevitable.

My 80 year old dad wants to live and asked us to do everything including restarting heart if need be. Happened actually. His life and his choice. Still alive..moving slower but still alive.

No one is advocating taking that choice away from him.

Actually, a lot of the posters above are.

No, the argument is about who gets stuck with the bill. If you want to try to stay alive forever then you can pay out of pocket. Insurance can’t and shouldn’t cover everything

Where do you draw the line, as posters up thread note? Old age? Severe conditions expensive to treat? Cancer treatments? Pre-term babies? Institutionalized mental patients or disabled patients? What is the dollar value you are comfortable assigning to their care, before it gets cut off? And is that different from the dollar value you would assign to yourself, your children, or people you are close to?

Every civilized country with universal healthcare does exactly this. 95 year old cancer patients in Canada aren't offered hundred of thousands of dollars of chemotherapy. In the UK, 22 week preemies aren't resuscitated, sparing them a lifetime of profound disability.

Every system rations care to control costs. The only question is whether we want it rationed based on value and medical expertise or whether we want it rationed by health insurance companies based on ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why not legalize medically assisted suicide?

That’s a separate issue. People can deny expensive and futile treatment, while still receiving comfort care (pain meds, fluids, oxygen). That is what hospice is.

Actually, hospice tries to tell families that it is totally normal to stop giving nutrition and hydration to people. I don't call that "comfortable." There is a whole rationalization that is used to hasten death.

The hospice industry is another big business can of worms: https://www.propublica.org/article/hospice-healthcare-aseracare-medicare

[Anonymous]

Americans will become more familiar and comfortable with suicide in the coming years.

It is time to get away from the idea that we must fight against death at all costs. When you've live to 85 or beyond, you should not be receiving thousands upon thousands of dollars of healthcare, nor taking up the space in a healthcare facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Free Luigi!

Whatever happens over the next two years of trial, he’ll never be free.

[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:

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.

Excellent equation. And one I think we know the answer too.

End of life
Chronically ill and disabled
Illegal immigrants

Yeah, why shouldn’t insurance companies just become money printing machines?

Something is a gatekeeper either way.

And the PpP still answers the question: the largest segments sucking down resources are end of life, chronically ill/disabled, and illegal immigrant.

All three cohorts pay in zero to the system (illegal aliens) or usually premiums yet are vastly net users .

Good luck getting an anesthesiologist if they’re all tied up. Rationing happens every single day.

Zero?! Really? Illegal immigrants farm the land, raise your babies and clean your toilets, all of which are jobs lazy Americans find beneath them and would never do. I would not call this zero contribution.

Healthcare should be a universal right and free, the way it is in the rest of the developed world.

Zero in to the insurance, welfare, medicaid, hospital system? Yes, it’s zero.

That’s what happens when you country hop to USA and go into labor, use the hospitals, have an anchor baby on welfare, etc. You paid in zero to the system, and took out lots.

Same thing for public education. Arrive and start using.

how are illegal immigrants collecting welfare. Please explain this to me. (Hint, the only place this happens is in your imagination and on Fox News.)

You are in fantasyland.

They use the ER by lying about their name and address.

They apply for welfare benefits using false social security cards.

Schools now provide free breakfast and lunch for all kids, rather than exclude illegal immigrants.

They have babies who collect benefits, etc.

Look at this list of "noncitizen" exceptions who can receive SNAP in Maryland:
Some people who are not U.S. citizens are not eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). There are exceptions for refugees, asylees, immigrants whose deportation has been withheld, Cuban/Haitian entrants, Amerasians and some immigrants legally admitted for permanent residence, parolees, aliens granted conditional entry, and certain battered spouses and children. Border Crossing Native Americans, certain Iraqi and afghan immigrants, victims of human trafficking and Hmong or Laotian tribe members may also be eligible. Even if some members of your household are not eligible, those who are may be able to get food supplement benefits.

And please don't try to argue that asylum seekers are legal. Basically every person who crosses the border claims asylum, and the Biden administration has tried to "parole" as many people as possible during their administration.

The point of the PP above is that you cannot provide extension health, education and welfare benefits and then have an unending stream of immigrants coming to collect them. The math already doesn't work because even Americans draw out much more than they paid into Social Security and Medicare.

Correct, everyone on pending phony asylum cases for 3-5 years- most of whom No Show, get access to snap, welfare, free transpo passes, drivers licenses, work permits, etc.

And this is on top of generous CASA de Maryland services and donationsX and any fraudulent IDs and stolen identity benefits they get via their underground network.

[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:

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.

Excellent equation. And one I think we know the answer too.

End of life
Chronically ill and disabled
Illegal immigrants

Yeah, why shouldn’t insurance companies just become money printing machines?

Something is a gatekeeper either way.

And the PpP still answers the question: the largest segments sucking down resources are end of life, chronically ill/disabled, and illegal immigrant.

All three cohorts pay in zero to the system (illegal aliens) or usually premiums yet are vastly net users .

Good luck getting an anesthesiologist if they’re all tied up. Rationing happens every single day.

Zero?! Really? Illegal immigrants farm the land, raise your babies and clean your toilets, all of which are jobs lazy Americans find beneath them and would never do. I would not call this zero contribution.

Healthcare should be a universal right and free, the way it is in the rest of the developed world.

Zero in to the insurance, welfare, medicaid, hospital system? Yes, it’s zero.

That’s what happens when you country hop to USA and go into labor, use the hospitals, have an anchor baby on welfare, etc. You paid in zero to the system, and took out lots.

Same thing for public education. Arrive and start using.

how are illegal immigrants collecting welfare. Please explain this to me. (Hint, the only place this happens is in your imagination and on Fox News.)

Yes, and I interact with a lot of undocumented immigrants for my job. Most of them have SSNs and pay taxes (you don’t need to be documented for that). The great majority of them are here to work, and it’s very hard to find a job that’s under the table. Even day labor and informal childcare is less of a thing lately.

+1 Also many immigrants are paying in to social security and Medicare even if using fake or stolen SSNs, and many of them will never collect SS or be on Medicare.

Lol

Most work off the books the majority of the time, via a cash pay contractor of a contractor of a contractor.

And everyone knows not to let your reported HHI go above $42k or you’ll lose your welfare benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans will become more familiar and comfortable with suicide in the coming years.

It is time to get away from the idea that we must fight against death at all costs. When you've live to 85 or beyond, you should not be receiving thousands upon thousands of dollars of healthcare, nor taking up the space in a healthcare facility.

Why? We are the wealthiest country in the world. I don’t think we should prolong life when it’s miserable and a lost cause but just arbitrarily writing off people after 85? I know people in their late 80s and early 90s that are quite vital and sharp. Sometimes they have had health issues and those issues are addressed and they bounce back. I am thinking of an 87 yr old woman I know that still walks 5-6 miles several times a week. We spend a lot of money on weapons systems. That may be necessary unfortunately but if we can spend on that I think we can also spend on healthcare for people who still have life in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why not legalize medically assisted suicide?

That’s a separate issue. People can deny expensive and futile treatment, while still receiving comfort care (pain meds, fluids, oxygen). That is what hospice is.

Actually, hospice tries to tell families that it is totally normal to stop giving nutrition and hydration to people. I don't call that "comfortable." There is a whole rationalization that is used to hasten death.

The hospice industry is another big business can of worms: https://www.propublica.org/article/hospice-healthcare-aseracare-medicare

Off topic but PLEASE don’t include scientific misinformation while discussing capitalism and big business.

I’ve seen too many people die a more uncomfortable death than needed because of this misunderstanding.

When someone is actively dying, it is in their best interest NOT to have hydration. Their vasculature cannot hold fluid in and it spreads to places it shouldn’t be (ie- lungs). Same goes for nutrition; bowels slow down. Bodies know how to die.

-hospital Oncology RN who has no interest in anything but patients’ comfort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans will become more familiar and comfortable with suicide in the coming years.

It is time to get away from the idea that we must fight against death at all costs. When you've live to 85 or beyond, you should not be receiving thousands upon thousands of dollars of healthcare, nor taking up the space in a healthcare facility.

Why? We are the wealthiest country in the world. I don’t think we should prolong life when it’s miserable and a lost cause but just arbitrarily writing off people after 85? I know people in their late 80s and early 90s that are quite vital and sharp. Sometimes they have had health issues and those issues are addressed and they bounce back. I am thinking of an 87 yr old woman I know that still walks 5-6 miles several times a week. We spend a lot of money on weapons systems. That may be necessary unfortunately but if we can spend on that I think we can also spend on healthcare for people who still have life in them.

Of course. No one is saying that you get cut off from all healthcare at 85. Only that we shouldn't be spending tens and hundreds of thousands on aggressive treatments to marginally extend the lives of octogenarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans will become more familiar and comfortable with suicide in the coming years.

It is time to get away from the idea that we must fight against death at all costs. When you've live to 85 or beyond, you should not be receiving thousands upon thousands of dollars of healthcare, nor taking up the space in a healthcare facility.

The fact that there aren’t enough doctors and caregivers in this country for the Boomers means that people will be asking for a way out.

[Anonymous]

One doctor says United Healthcare is the most evil
Corporation in the US

https://l.smartnews.com/p-15dezbm/O3lwPV