Jump to content

Menu

Free Birth Control; Children Up to 26; Pre-Existing Conditions; Free Mammograms, etc. If these matter to you...


umsami
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't see anyone arguing this.  I see schools, etc, working hard to teach kids about healthy diets and lifestyles.  I see tons of PSAs showing the end results of poor choices and those have made differences (smoking rates have decreased, etc).

 

I don't see any of that stopping TBH.  It's been working.  At our local grocery store I see more and more truly healthy things offered for sale.  They wouldn't be there if folks weren't buying them.

 

But I also don't feel the need to tell those lifestyle sinners that they can't have health care and I'm still willing to pay for it.  If they get these diseases due to their lifestyle choices, to me, that's punishment enough.

 

Many things being pushed as "healthy" lifestyle/diet choices are questionable and are pushed by lobbyist.  The food pyramid/my plate (whatever it is they call it these days) is primarily lobbyist driven.  Research, especially in diet, is VERY mixed and muddled.  

 

I know, from my animal science studies, grain has very specific and adverse effects on the digestive tract, blood ph, and alters they very methods of energy metabolism and muscle chemistry of animals. Many of these animals are also being forced to eat unnatural vegetarian diets as well.  Yet we are told to be eating a healthy diet we must be eating more servings of grain than anything else, by what, almost double?  

 

It just does not compute to me.

 

Stefanie

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are profoundly wrong. Do your research. Genetics had FAR more to do with it other than say things like smoking which is why there are a lot od people that can eat twinkies and never exercise their whole lives and not get diabetes or have a heart attack.

Genetics and bad luck. I ate healthy, exercised, etc yet I still was diagnosed with a rare cancer. Thankfully, my husband has good insurance through work that has so far paid for everything. So far that has mainly been drs appts and lot of tests. When you have a rare disease you are lucky if there is even one drug available. There are no generics, no samples. If your insurance even covers it, you are still facing a large bill. You can't negotiate with a pharmacy.

 

I worry a lot about my cancer getting worse and needing treatments and more expensive medications.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I mean.

If you pay almost $15K a year - someone who is making $30-$45K/yr is not paying that much. So his costs are being paid by someone like you. Bc his actual medical costs are not any cheaper than yours.

 

If we had XXX number of people who couldn't afford insurance pre ACA and many claim that they weren't getting medical care, but now they are still not paying as much as you, but are getting that medical care - who is paying the difference?

 

 

We pay $5600 in insurance premiums as a payroll deduction and my husband's employer pays around $24,000 on premiums for us. We are a bit past your range but those outlay figures were roughly the same 5 years ago when our income was more like $35K a year (which was a huge downshift since previously I worked FT and earned more).

 

My husband has stuck with a job that has better benefits than cash pay because we need the insurance. The insurance his employer pays is not free to us- it's part of his compensation and he earns it. It's also why I stayed home and not him. Health insurance isn't great in my sector of employment.

 

Why ever do you assume that families earning $45k a year aren't paying for their health insurance? Certainly some are qualified for assistance (depending on family size, employer, health and location) but a great many people in that approximate income bracket get insurance via their work and they pay for it.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to call shinanigans. No hospital would let a child die at 33 weeks with zero care. This story would be front page of every news outlet.

 

I'm not the OP, but I can tell you my relative  isn't allowed to discuss the settlement of her premie's wrongful death suit.  I will tell you she was on Medicaid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anyone arguing this.  I see schools, etc, working hard to teach kids about healthy diets and lifestyles.  I see tons of PSAs showing the end results of poor choices and those have made differences (smoking rates have decreased, etc).

 

I don't see any of that stopping TBH.  It's been working.  At our local grocery store I see more and more truly healthy things offered for sale.  They wouldn't be there if folks weren't buying them.

 

But I also don't feel the need to tell those lifestyle sinners that they can't have health care and I'm still willing to pay for it.  If they get these diseases due to their lifestyle choices, to me, that's punishment enough.

 

So you think the Cocoa Puffs and juice for breakfast they serve regularly constitutes a healthy diet?  And the fact they barely have recess for elementary and none for junior high school or high school is encouraging an active lifestyle?  If they are teaching otherwise then they are definitely sending mixed messages.

 

I do think there have been efforts, but it's not enough and if you happen to be lower income you might get the message of what you are supposed to do, but it's difficult to actually do that due to lack of money and access. 

 

There are plenty of healthy things for sale, but in the mega grocery stores around here I'd say probably 75% of what is in the store isn't all that healthy.  Even the dietician recommendation segments they feature in the sale's fliers are often about packaged products (packaged smoothies, cereals, frozen diet meals, etc.).  I don't know what is so healthy about those things. 

 

I don't know what the answer is.  So long as I don't go out and eat and avoid social gatherings involving food I do quite well with healthy eating.  If I have to go somewhere it's nearly impossible sometimes because the stuff they have is crap.  So if I were a student relying on the cafeteria, etc....I'd have mostly crap to choose from.  Sometimes I do like to go out and eat, but most places I've gone to about the best I can do is just order an appetizer of some sort because I figure well at least I'm getting a smaller portion of crap.  And some of the offerings in places are a joke and it's understandable why anyone would choose crap.  Like a fast food joint in a mall with the sad afterthought selection of apples and oranges.  If you are hungry, that's not going to fill you up.  And their crap tastes good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only on page 5, so my story probably isn't relevant anymore, but still, I feel compelled to share.

Once upon a time, I quit my soul-sucking job without having another one lined up. This meant we had to transfer our family from my excellent health care to DH's excellent health care. The major difference was that mine was like $15 a month for family coverage (taken out of my paycheck) and his was around $50. I felt guilty about reducing our income by half, so I suggested that we only obtain coverage for DH and DD, thereby saving, I don't know, something like $25 a paycheck? DH said that was stupid, and we were all going on the policy.

Fast forward 6 months, and I'm diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer. Early 30s, no family history, I exclusively breastfed for 2 years...this was a complete surprise.

My first 6 months of care cost over $100,000...for my insurance company. If I hadn't been insured, I would either be dead or homeless at this point.

All this insurance talk sends my anxiety through the roof.

 

*We've always had phenomenal coverage, with a very low employee contribution, and we don't have deductibles or any of that nonsense. This is due to being state employees. My absolute best solution for the insurance issue is to have everyone on this kind of insurance. So, maybe not universal coverage provided federally, but by the states?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And neither we, as a society or the govt can afford to continue paying such high costs.  We also can't afford to absolve a large % of population of not paying anything for their healthcare. 

 

 

 

 

Who are those people you refer to?

 

 

People who get subsidies.  Am I wrong?

 

 

Yes.

 

Those people get help paying insurance premiums because they cannot afford to purchase insurance otherwise. They still pay. They also still have copays, deductibles, not covered out of pocket expenses.

 

They are not "not paying anything for healthcare".

 

 

I should have said "paying very little". 

 

 

I never found $1200/mo. to be "very little" while writing the check. YMMV.

 

 

Here is what I mean.

If you pay almost $15K a year - someone who is making $30-$45K/yr  is not paying that much.  So his costs are being paid by someone like you.  Bc his actual medical costs are not any cheaper than yours.

 

If we had XXX number of people who couldn't afford insurance pre ACA and many claim that they weren't getting medical care, but now they are still not paying as much as you, but are getting that medical care - who is paying the difference?

 

That's what I mean by many people "paying very little".  They are paying very little compared to actual costs.  And someone has to fill in for the difference. 

 

Maybe this thread has educated you along the way, because you most definitely appeared to believe people with subsidies were paying nothing.  And then very little. My subsidy was once $10/mo (we declined to take it.)  It has also been $200/mo.  This year, it's much higher, but my family's coverage is also much crummier.  (We pick the most Cadillac plan every year, and this year's is a lemon.)

 

I am "one of those people" getting a subsidy.  I have yet to pay less than $10k in a year for health care, and last year was closer to 20, with few family members using any services at all, a couple of well visits, and only one with a few major tests (not treatment.)  I'm incredibly worried about what this year will be.  So, if you come out of this thread realizing subsidized members aren't getting something for nothing, at least it's a step.

 

*ETA - Dh changed jobs right around the ACA start.  His employer option was about $2,000/mo with a $10,000-ish deductible. (I can't remember now if it was 9 or 11, so I split the difference.)

Shopping without the government site gave us about $1700/mo without a much better deductible.

I shopped again this year without the site, and got $1900.

When we talk about "can't afford", it isn't all low or even mid-income people in that pool.  We have a very nice household income.  And I will be skimping on mental health care this year, or however long our coverage holds, because the best plan I could find that wouldn't sink us WITH a subsidy has a giant co-pay on a big deductible.

 

People can feel free to paint me as a moocher, but their perceptions will never change my reality.

Edited by Carrie12345
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to call shinanigans. No hospital would let a child die at 33 weeks with zero care. This story would be front page of every news outlet.

Just because you have never experienced it, does not means it is a lie. You would be shocked to find out what the unemployed but not yet considered low enough income to sign up for Medicaid crowd endures. You make light of their pain so I don't exactly care much about your opinion now!

Edited by FaithManor
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things being pushed as "healthy" lifestyle/diet choices are questionable and are pushed by lobbyist.  The food pyramid/my plate (whatever it is they call it these days) is primarily lobbyist driven.  Research, especially in diet, is VERY mixed and muddled.  

 

I know, from my animal science studies, grain has very specific and adverse effects on the digestive tract, blood ph, and alters they very methods of energy metabolism and muscle chemistry of animals. Many of these animals are also being forced to eat unnatural vegetarian diets as well.  Yet we are told to be eating a healthy diet we must be eating more servings of grain than anything else, by what, almost double?  

 

It just does not compute to me.

 

Stefanie

 

Exactly.  And even some of the big gurus people mention...like the guy who says eat blah...mostly plants.  Ok well grains are plants right?  So I can load up on white bread and rice.  Which no I don't think that is what he meant, but I need more specifics than that.  i think a lot of people do. 

 

I think the carb recommendations are hugely out of whack.  Even for diabetic diets they are telling people to eat as much as 150 grams per day of carbs (although lately looking at the recs they seem to have changed their tune to include that this may not work for some people).  They recommend this calling it low carb because compared with the average American diet it IS low carb.  But it's really not that low and if you have diabetes pretty much guarantees you'll be on drugs for the rest of your life. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, I live in a land of socialized health care, and the government doesn't dictate my health care - my doctor and I decide my health care. Obviously that's within a context of resources which are not endless...but so far I've made it through 4.5 decades without the government ever saying 'No!' to what my doctor and I decide.

 

I absolutely do not understand the US system of health, but just wanted to correct the idea that the government controls our health care choices under this system, in my country at least.

 

I've only ever lived under the U.S. style of health care. Once when in England, I had a brief though positive experience with the UK system, but that's the extent of it. What I don't understand is how people just like me, can tell you Sadie, and others like you who live in countries with socialized health care how bad your system is, when they have never even experienced it

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

We have won world wars and put a man on the moon, so **** me if we couldn't puzzle this out if we really wanted to do so.

 

And I say this as someone with access to amazing health insurance and no serious health conditions. We also pay a healthy tax bill and would have no issues doing so if the money went to help fellow citizens rather than corporations.

 

Yeah, I don't get that either. We are supposedly the best nation in the world, but we are the only nation that can't manage freaking healthcare? I don't buy it. We just haven't wanted to, because of the intense pressure the insurance lobby puts on officials. 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, those that want to have just catasrophic plans...how does that help a person with say, asthma? Or diabetes, or other chronic conditions? Those can be very expensive to control but are not going to be a one time cost. We have people, adults and kids, in this country that are not getting the care they need for these things because they can't afford it. 

 

That's wrong. Morally wrong. 

 

Not politically wrong. Morally wrong. And when they show up in the ER with a bad asthma attack and need to be admitted or end up having a foot amputated, and can't pay for THAT, guess who does? You do, with your taxes that subsidize some hospitals, and with those super high fees for say, a crummy blanket in an ambulance. That's where those outrageous fees come from, from poor people with no coverage and no money to pay getting super expensive treatments at the hospital rather than much less expensive treatment for their chronic conditions. 

 

You are going to pay. You already pay. But at least with actual universal coverage those people could be treated before they are in crisis. Maybe save kids lives. 

 

But you know, personal responsibility is kind, so screw them all. 

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, those that want to have just catasrophic plans...how does that help a person with say, asthma? Or diabetes, or other chronic conditions? Those can be very expensive to control but are not going to be a one time cost. We have people, adults and kids, in this country that are not getting the care they need for these things because they can't afford it. 

 

That's wrong. Morally wrong. 

 

Not politically wrong. Morally wrong. And when they show up in the ER with a bad asthma attack and need to be admitted or end up having a foot amputated, and can't pay for THAT, guess who does? You do, with your taxes that subsidize some hospitals, and with those super high fees for say, a crummy blanket in an ambulance. That's where those outrageous fees come from, from poor people with no coverage and no money to pay getting super expensive treatments at the hospital rather than much less expensive treatment for their chronic conditions. 

 

You are going to pay. You already pay. But at least with actual universal coverage those people could be treated before they are in crisis. Maybe save kids lives. 

 

But you know, personal responsibility is kind, so screw them all. 

 

Definitely you are paying one way or another.  If a minor break in my foot requiring no treatment costs $6000 in the ER, I must be paying for something else. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, those that want to have just catasrophic plans...how does that help a person with say, asthma? Or diabetes, or other chronic conditions? Those can be very expensive to control but are not going to be a one time cost. We have people, adults and kids, in this country that are not getting the care they need for these things because they can't afford it.

 

That's wrong. Morally wrong.

 

Not politically wrong. Morally wrong. And when they show up in the ER with a bad asthma attack and need to be admitted or end up having a foot amputated, and can't pay for THAT, guess who does? You do, with your taxes that subsidize some hospitals, and with those super high fees for say, a crummy blanket in an ambulance. That's where those outrageous fees come from, from poor people with no coverage and no money to pay getting super expensive treatments at the hospital rather than much less expensive treatment for their chronic conditions.

 

You are going to pay. You already pay. But at least with actual universal coverage those people could be treated before they are in crisis. Maybe save kids lives.

 

But you know, personal responsibility is kind, so screw them all.

This has always been my question. HSA's are talked about like they are the solution and they are a good idea but what if you have no money to put in them??

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you have never experienced it, does not means it is a lie. You would be shocked to find out what the unemployed but not yet considered low enough income to sign up for Medicaid crowd endures. You make light of their pain so I don't exactly care much about your opinion now!

You are right, I was very rude and I'm sorry. I hope they were able to get a lawyer and sue the hospital.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, those that want to have just catasrophic plans...how does that help a person with say, asthma? Or diabetes, or other chronic conditions? Those can be very expensive to control but are not going to be a one time cost. We have people, adults and kids, in this country that are not getting the care they need for these things because they can't afford it. 

 

 

You just don't get those things if you're smart!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has always been my question. HSA's are talked about like they are the solution and they are a good idea but what if you have no money to put in them??

Yes. And if memory serves some of them do not roll to the next year so if you save the money and then do not use it all you lose it. It happened to us back in 2006 but maybe things have changed since then. We have been using it up even if it means making extra orthodontist payments or getting new glasses even if it hasn't been a year or whatever. I wonder if we need to keep doing that. I better have dh check the rules!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And if memory serves some of them do not roll to the next year so if you save the money and then do not use it all you lose it. It happened to us back in 2006 but maybe things have changed since then. We have been using it up even if it means making extra orthodontist payments or getting new glasses even if it hasn't been a year or whatever. I wonder if we need to keep doing that. I better have dh check the rules!

That's how ours works--use it or lose it. Before the end of the year we received several notices from various medical centres to do just that, so I think it's still common practice.

 

How would savings accounts be any kind of solution? Having one saves us a little bit on taxes, but that's the only benefit. And we can only take advantage of that because we can afford to, and because it's offered through DH's work. I'm terribly confused how a savings account could possibly be a viable replacement for insurance? My oh my, the privilege behind that viewpoint! :banghead:

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get that either. We are supposedly the best nation in the world, but we are the only nation that can't manage freaking healthcare? I don't buy it. We just haven't wanted to, because of the intense pressure the insurance lobby puts on officials.

:iagree:

 

I cannot like this enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has always been my question. HSA's are talked about like they are the solution and they are a good idea but what if you have no money to put in them??

 

And even if the you have a good income and can spare money to save: you might be able to pay out of pocket for routine care, maybe a broken leg, save for an uncomplicated birth - but most definitely not for extended cancer treatment or, heaven forbid, a premie who needs three months in the NICU, or for some meds for expensive chronic conditions.

These are costs society as a whole should share, because the burden on an individual family is too great. It is the moral thing to do.

 

Honestly, I cannot wrap my mind around that we need to even debate this in a country where so many people claim to be Christian - and where the very people who shout the loudest about Christian values are the ones to trample them in the dust.

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get that either. We are supposedly the best nation in the world, but we are the only nation that can't manage freaking healthcare? I don't buy it. We just haven't wanted to, because of the intense pressure the insurance lobby puts on officials.

And the misinformation that is floated out there (socialism! Nanny state! Deadbeats! Irresponsible floozies who want me to pay for their birth control!) convinces many people to put pressure on legislators to work against their own best interests.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, those that want to have just catasrophic plans...how does that help a person with say, asthma? Or diabetes, or other chronic conditions? Those can be very expensive to control but are not going to be a one time cost. We have people, adults and kids, in this country that are not getting the care they need for these things because they can't afford it.

 

That's wrong. Morally wrong.

 

Not politically wrong. Morally wrong. And when they show up in the ER with a bad asthma attack and need to be admitted or end up having a foot amputated, and can't pay for THAT, guess who does? You do, with your taxes that subsidize some hospitals, and with those super high fees for say, a crummy blanket in an ambulance. That's where those outrageous fees come from, from poor people with no coverage and no money to pay getting super expensive treatments at the hospital rather than much less expensive treatment for their chronic conditions.

 

You are going to pay. You already pay. But at least with actual universal coverage those people could be treated before they are in crisis. Maybe save kids lives.

 

But you know, personal responsibility is kind, so screw them all.

Katie is right.

 

When someone goes to the ER for that amputation or stroke or heart attack because they've not been taking their meds, their care is paid for through your taxes. There is a chunk of money the govt sets aside for "indigent care" and it comes out of your money pool. You're paying for major surgeries that never would have happened if we were willing to cover the cost of their meds.

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're at it, can we just address the phrase, "Skin in the game?" Aside from the fact that the sound of it is repulsive and calls to mind Shylock's pound of flesh, can I just point out (preach to the choir?) how patronizing that is coming from a load of people who never have to worry about health care? It's breathtakingly tone-deaf, particularly after reading this thread. It sounds as if most of us are already shaving off the metaphorical pound of flesh every month. And they want people do did deeper into their pockets?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, I live in a land of socialized health care, and the government doesn't dictate my health care - my doctor and I decide my health care. Obviously that's within a context of resources which are not endless...but so far I've made it through 4.5 decades without the government ever saying 'No!' to what my doctor and I decide.

 

I absolutely do not understand the US system of health, but just wanted to correct the idea that the government controls our health care choices under this system, in my country at least.

Under our system, someone with a profit motive gets to decide which care is appropriate for you. People get denied care by their insurance companies everyday. Sometimes it's appealed, and gets covered, but often not. What I don't get is the number of people in this country who don't understand that their care is already being "rationed" and the insurance company already controls their choices. They're so worried about the government doing it and it's being done to them everyday.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you planning on never using Medicare when you become eligible because the government is involved?

If you would like to put this in a nonsnarky way, I'll be glad to address it.

I would really appreciate hearing an answer to this.

 

Lawana

Sitting in the hospital with my 81yo mother for her 4th hospitization in 9 months, very aware that her care is absolutely determined by Medicare rules

Edited by Lawana
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katie is right.

 

When someone goes to the ER for that amputation or stroke or heart attack because they've not been taking their meds, their care is paid for through your taxes. There is a chunk of money the govt sets aside for "indigent care" and it comes out of your money pool. You're paying for major surgeries that never would have happened if we were willing to cover the cost of their meds.

AMEN!

 

There is a moral imperative unless one subsribes to a surivival of the fittest master race of super humans worldview in which the poor and the sick and the injured should remove their dna from the gene pool as soon as possible by dying and getting it over with already.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katie is right.

 

When someone goes to the ER for that amputation or stroke or heart attack because they've not been taking their meds, their care is paid for through your taxes. There is a chunk of money the govt sets aside for "indigent care" and it comes out of your money pool. You're paying for major surgeries that never would have happened if we were willing to cover the cost of their meds.

 

Until I read this thread, I thought that money from my taxes and insurance payments was being used to reimburse hospitals for care provided to people who were actually poor or indigent. 

 

Now, I know that a portion of this money is going to people using health sharing systems, and then negotiating away significant portions of their bill.  As a agnostic tax payer, it seems that I'm subsidizing the care of people who are wealthier than I am, and that this is being justified with a Biblical passage that seems, to me, to be about Christians voluntarily helping Christians.  

 

ETA to be more clear in the first line. 

Edited by Daria
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.

No wonder why I don't come here anymore.

The first message I see is going to cause a hot-bed of disagreement on the boards.

Yuck.

 

Hmmm. Have you actually read the thread? There is disagreement yes, but there is an important and respectful discussion happening. You don't come here because you don't like discussing important topics of the day?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until I read this thread, I thought this money was going to people who were actually poor or indigent. 

 

Now, I know that a portion of this money is going to people using health sharing systems, and then negotiating away significant portions of their bill.  As a agnostic tax payer, it seems that I'm subsidizing the care of people who are wealthier than I am, and that this is being justified with a Biblical passage that seems, to me, to be about Christians voluntarily helping Christians.  

 

OK, this is a totally new concept to me, too, as I've never really looked into how these health sharing systems work.

 

Daria, I know you're speaking plain English, and I've nearly got it, but if anyone would care to speak to this a little more, I'd appreciate it. How does this work again?

 

I guess one question is this: Do the health sharing systems (or the comparative wealth of people participating in same) make it more possible to "negotiate away" part of the bill than for the truly poor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until I read this thread, I thought this money was going to people who were actually poor or indigent.

 

Now, I know that a portion of this money is going to people using health sharing systems, and then negotiating away significant portions of their bill. As a agnostic tax payer, it seems that I'm subsidizing the care of people who are wealthier than I am, and that this is being justified with a Biblical passage that seems, to me, to be about Christians voluntarily helping Christians.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding.

 

The poor see none of the money set aside for indigent care. That money is earmarked to reimburse hospitals for crisis care they must provide for free, care that wouldn't be necessary if maintenance care on chronic conditions was paid for to begin with.

 

When people negotiate down their bills, the write off money is used to justify negotiating higher reimbursements with insurance companies resulting in higher premiums and deductibles. Or reduced FTEs (full-time employees). And other people losing their homes because they don't know how to work the system as well.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this is a totally new concept to me, too, as I've never really looked into how these health sharing systems work.

 

Daria, I know you're speaking plain English, and I've nearly got it, but if anyone would care to speak to this a little more, I'd appreciate it. How does this work again?

 

I guess one question is this: Do the health sharing systems (or the comparative wealth of people participating in same) make it more possible to "negotiate away" part of the bill than for the truly poor?

If I understand your question, the answer is anyone is eligible to negotiate down a hospital bill. Whether or not one is successful depends on education, whether one is fearful of being deported, whether the institution is for profit or not, the person you're speaking to that day, the solvency of the institution, how many other people have tried to do the same thing this year, and many other factors. Some institutions refuse to treat until the patient portion is paid up front.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear up a misunderstanding.

 

The poor see none of the money set aside for indigent care. That money is earmarked to reimburse hospitals for crisis care they must provide for free, care that wouldn't be necessary if maintenance care on chronic conditions was paid for to begin with.

 

When people negotiate down their bills, the write off money is used to justify negotiating higher reimbursements with insurance companies resulting in higher premiums and deductibles. Or reduced FTEs (full-time employees). And other people losing their homes because they don't know how to work the system as well.

 

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean that I thought that the money was going to poor people, but that it was being used to reimburse hospitals for health care to people who could not otherwise afford it.

 

I'll go back and fix that!

 

Can I ask a clarifying question, though?  Are you saying that "indigent care" funds only provide reimbursement for health issues due to untreated chronic illnesses?  If someone who is uninsured is hit by an asteroid, or diagnosed with cancer, for example, the hospital is also required to treat them.  Where do those funds come from?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure do tend to think those opposed to reform are the lucky ones with great insurance. We have " good" insurance that we pay $1200/month for. That doesn't leave much to live on folks! Then there is a $10,000 deductible, then 80/20. I would gladly pay more taxes to have a simpler system. I don't think I'd be paying more. By the way, my Dh works FOR a hospital and that's as good as it gets!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean that I thought that the money was going to poor people, but that it was being used to reimburse hospitals for health care to people who could not otherwise afford it.

 

I'll go back and fix that!

 

Can I ask a clarifying question, though? Are you saying that "indigent care" funds only provide reimbursement for health issues due to untreated chronic illnesses? If someone who is uninsured is hit by an asteroid, or diagnosed with cancer, for example, the hospital is also required to treat them. Where do those funds come from?

Hospitals accept a number of indigent patients each year. Indigent care funds do not cover chronic care, only acute care. So asteroids are covered as are broken limbs and lacerations, gunshot wounds and walking in front of a bus. But a huge number of emergency patients are there because of untreated diabetes, cancers, heart disease, wounds, etc.

 

This may vary state to state but I believe county hospitals are required to accept anyone who comes through the ED. If the patient is admitted, their long term care is paid for by the state. Then they are stabilized and released. The underlying cause isn't addressed. So people with life-threatening, chronic conditions are turned back out into the streets all the time. Many chronically ill poor or homeless people are well known at hospital emergency departments.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to call shinanigans. No hospital would let a child die at 33 weeks with zero care. This story would be front page of every news outlet.

I believe it. I have heard of similar things happen, but it depends on where you are.

Edited by Janeway
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  If someone who is uninsured is hit by an asteroid, or diagnosed with cancer, for example, the hospital is also required to treat them.  Where do those funds come from?  

 

The hospital is required to stabilize them, NOT treat them. No, they are not going to get cancer care. If they are bleeding out, they will be sutured up, IV's given, whatever. But no chemo, etc. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually aome treatments are a grey area. Technically in some states the hospital does not have to provide cancer treatment. They have to stabilize the patient if they come through in an emergency medical condition, but they are not required to provide chemo, radiation, follow up care. A lot of cancer treatment is provided by independet practitioners and outpatient.bthese clinics and docs are not required to accept a self pay or uninsured patient. Some do pro bono work, some do not or only a certain percentage per year so if they have already met their threshhold of uninsured patients, they will not accept more. It is a high cost, high liability business to operate so there is limit on the free care. In terms of liability, especially so here in the states where liability insurance premiums for certain specialties can top a quarter million ars pet annum and upwards of half a million.

 

The hospital must treat you for the emetgency and stabilize you. It is not required to give you long term, chronic care and outpatient treatment. But thr catch 22 is that without prevantive and outpatient chronic care management a lot more emergency admissions are a guarantee which is more expensive in the long run not to mention resulting in more dead people. But the suffering and dead part doesn't bother a lot of people and especially policy makers too much.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in a nation where a huge portion of the populace claims "Xian country!", this idea of every man for himself to negotiate the price of their healthcare - it just doesn't compute.

 

Xians are called to live in community, taking care of each other - and not just people in your own healthshare who can all sign the same statement of faith. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part of the thread has been very eye opening for me. I did not realize that various Health Share minsteries were negotiating directly with doctors and hospitals to lower prices for members. If so, then it seems that they are passing costs off to others on health insurance plans. And all that without commensurate regulation. Very interesting!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm amazed how many say that well, if you are REALLY poor, or disabled, there should be medicaid for you, but everyone else should have another system. In other words...if you are poor or unluky enough to be unable to work, government care is good enough for you, but if you have money then you deserve different, and according to them, better care. 

 

So how much money you have should determine what level of care you get? Do Christians really truly believe that????

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part of the thread has been very eye opening for me. I did not realize that various Health Share minsteries were negotiating directly with doctors and hospitals to lower prices for members. If so, then it seems that they are passing costs off to others on health insurance plans. And all that without commensurate regulation. Very interesting!

Is that true? I am under the impression that they leave the negotiating up to the individual patient. But I may be wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that true? I am under the impression that they leave the negotiating up to the individual patient. But I may be wrong

 

Inspired by this thread, I did a bit of googling, and it looks like some ministries actually negotiate for their members. I was not aware of this. I thought it was just a cost sharing arrangement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also any passed along cost isn't policy so much as reallocation. It's less of a science and more of an art. If an institution has a large number of write offs or no-pays, they still order to pay salaries and provide care, right? So they reduce employees and make do with less. They negotiate higher reimbursements. They charge $130 for a bandaid. There are a finite number of pie pieces. If this piece is smaller, you have to make it up by shaving it off another piece. It's budgeting.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...