World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ElkinFencer10]

The biggest problem is for those of us in the middle - those who technically have the ability to pay but for whom the costs are so prohibitive that we have to be on Death's door to feel like it's worth it. Until my new insurance kicked in this month, it cost me $90 to see my doctor WITH insurance. That's fucking four tanks of gas for a five minute visit. If I didn't go, then he wouldn't write my Zoloft prescription. If I didn't have my prescription, then I'd be an emotionally unstable wreck completely incapable of being a functioning adult.

Also, what is considered "elective" can be bullshit. Breast reduction is usually considered elective even if you have x-rays over the course of years showing damage to a woman's spine due to oversized breasts. Any treatment for gender dysphoria is considered elective by almost all insurance policies despite the well established mental health damage that it causes.

[jp1]

I don't disagree about emergency medical attention. Those same people however cannot get medicine or long term care via primary doctor. Things such as high blood pressure, diabetes, chronic pain, depression, and any multitude of other medical problems aren't addressed with long term care via the Emergency department.


Even if a prescription is written from the doctor or a local health department (should you be fortunate enough to have one), good luck affording it if you are unemployed, underemployed, or uninsured.

Our medical care isn't nearly as bad as it seems to be perceived abroad. But, there are very real issues for lower class and poor people. Even with insurance the cost to my family in medical expenses this year has been immense. Conversely, or perhaps accordingly, the quality of care has been very high.

From the point of view of someone who has dealt with a lot of medical expenses both short and long term, as well as someone with family who goes untreated for chronic illness daily...I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[Pulsar_t]

Principal pushed children out of the way before being killed by bus in Indiana

Is the reason altruism is always in short supply because it goes contradictory to human's predatory nature?

[Ack]

Also, what is considered "elective" can be bullshit. Breast reduction is usually considered elective even if you have x-rays over the course of years showing damage to a woman's spine due to oversized breasts. Any treatment for gender dysphoria is considered elective by almost all insurance policies despite the well established mental health damage that it causes.

It should be noted though that most of these sorts of mandates are based on state regulations. For instance, as of December 19, 2013, only California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Connecticut required insurance companies to provide policies regarding gender transition.

These sorts of policies are also rarely used: among employers with 1,000 to 10,000 employees, only one out of 10,000 employees will take advantage of transition-related benefits when available, while in organizations with 10,000 to 50,000 employees, only one in 20,000 workers will make use of this coverage, according to a Williams Institute study.

[ElkinFencer10]

Also, what is considered "elective" can be bullshit. Breast reduction is usually considered elective even if you have x-rays over the course of years showing damage to a woman's spine due to oversized breasts. Any treatment for gender dysphoria is considered elective by almost all insurance policies despite the well established mental health damage that it causes.

It should be noted though that most of these sorts of mandates are based on state regulations. For instance, as of December 19, 2013, only California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Connecticut required insurance companies to provide policies regarding gender transition.

These sorts of policies are also rarely used: among employers with 1,000 to 10,000 employees, only one out of 10,000 employees will take advantage of transition-related benefits when available, while in organizations with 10,000 to 50,000 employees, only one in 20,000 workers will make use of this coverage, according to a Williams Institute study.

I completely agree. That's why I think we need federal regulations to fill in where states fail to protect patients. As for how rarely used it is, that's only more reason to over that coverage; it's so rarely used, it won't cost the companies much.

[Ack]

Also, what is considered "elective" can be bullshit. Breast reduction is usually considered elective even if you have x-rays over the course of years showing damage to a woman's spine due to oversized breasts. Any treatment for gender dysphoria is considered elective by almost all insurance policies despite the well established mental health damage that it causes.

It should be noted though that most of these sorts of mandates are based on state regulations. For instance, as of December 19, 2013, only California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Connecticut required insurance companies to provide policies regarding gender transition.

These sorts of policies are also rarely used: among employers with 1,000 to 10,000 employees, only one out of 10,000 employees will take advantage of transition-related benefits when available, while in organizations with 10,000 to 50,000 employees, only one in 20,000 workers will make use of this coverage, according to a Williams Institute study.

I completely agree. That's why I think we need federal regulations to fill in where states fail to protect patients. As for how rarely used it is, that's only more reason to over that coverage; it's so rarely used, it won't cost the companies much.

I was thinking more that with that kind of rarity, most state bureaucracies don't think they'll ever need to mandate it. After all, mandates are fought and argued for by lobbyists and special interest groups.

The issue with federal regulations to "fill in" would be insurance cost increases across the board, likely just pushing insurance obtainment further out of reach. Instead we need to figure out a way to lower those costs. The Republicans have advocated removing restrictions on state markets in the hope that competition and reduced administrative costs would lead to lower prices, though even with this removal, it would take insurance companies time to integrate into new markets and make connections with medical professionals there, and critics argue it will cause an extensive amount of deregulation and insurance quality degredation.

Here's an interesting pair of contrasting articles on the possibilities of interstate insurance:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... 88dd919bb1

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upsho ... .html?_r=0

As for pharmaceuticals...no, I'll give you that one. That market is FUBAR. About the only group that seems to have any control there is the Department of Veterans Affairs because they can negotiate for lower prices.

[ElkinFencer10]

If we joined the rest of the First World and just put a single-payer system in place, we wouldn't have to worry about the cost of insurance. We could even have a dual system like Britain albeit with payments rather than providers - a federal health care program and a separate private one. We do it with schools already.

[Ack]

If we joined the rest of the First World and just put a single-payer system in place, we wouldn't have to worry about the cost of insurance. We could even have a dual system like Britain albeit with payments rather than providers - a federal health care program and a separate private one. We do it with schools already.

When you say single-payer, do you mean like in Taiwan? Because most of the First World doesn't actually have a true single-payer system. Sweden, Germany, France, Canada...they all have private health care providers and services, supplementary health insurance or private "sickness funds" and the like. The Netherlands' system is built on mandatory insurance via private providers. Ireland allows private insurance to be purchased on top of public health insurance and maintains private facilities, while some specialty private insurance organizations work with specific groups or industries, such as the Gardai.

In fact the United States has a two-tier system already, it's just that the public one isn't as extensive as in these other countries.

[ElkinFencer10]

I mean either a true two-tier system (since the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid are the only real federal programs, and most of the country doesn't fall into those criteria) or a system in which ALL payments are made by the federal government without the existence of (or at least need for unless one just wants supplementary insurance) a private health insurance industry.

[Erik_Twice]

But, as he has made it abundantly clear over the years, Erik does not like the US much. I don't think it matters what evidence I were to show him on anything, we'd always be the root of all evil.

That's bollocks, Ack, I just think it's a country like any other and that means flaws and problems.

You guys are coming from the viewpoint that "American exceptionalism isn't that dated" or that "The US healthcare system is the best in the world", which such an idealized extreme that it's no wonder my posts may seem hateful to you.

After all. Does Bloomberg hate the US? They place American Healthcare in 44th place:
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/be ... -countries

What about the Commonwealth fund? They ranked it last in its comparison with 10 other countries:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/20 ... 05c2de1b96

And then there's the Pew report, the World Health Association and dozens upon dozens of organizations, health experts and politicians whose views of the US Healthcare system are practically identical to mine.

Trying to paint criticism of the American healthcare system as hate is dumb and pretty damn jingoistic, c'mon.