827
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 280 points 1 year ago

This is super personal to me because it almost killed me. I've told this story on reddit, but it bears repeating:

tl;dr lost my doctors due to an insurance change 4 weeks in to a 6 week open heart surgery recovery...

In 2018, my company was in the process of being sold. No big deal, above my paygrade, nothing for me to worry about.

Then I got sick right after Thanksgiving. Really bad heartburn that lasted 5 days. It wasn't heartburn. I had a heart attack. 12/3 I had open heart surgery, single bypass, and that started a 6 week recovery clock.

On 1/1, the sale of my company closed and we officially had new owners. I also officially lost all of my doctors because the new employers don't do Kaiser in Oregon. They do it in WA and CA, but each state has to be negotiated and they never had presence here.

1/2 I start working with Aetna to find doctors, hospitals, etc. Beyond the cardiologist I need a new pharmacist, podiatrist, diabetes care and a general "doctor" doctor.

Fortunately, my new employer is a big enough fish, they have their own concierge at Aetna and she gets me into the Legacy system.

On 1/3 I start developing complications, but I don't know it at the time. It starts with a cough. All the time. Then, when I try to lay down, like to sleep, I'm drowning, literally choking and gagging.

The concierge and I try to get an appointment, we're told 2-3 months. For a dude still recovering from open heart surgery? Best they could do is 2 weeks. 1/14.

I can't lay down to sleep so I buy a travel neck pillow and sleep sitting up.

I get to see the new doctor at the "official" end of the 6 week recovery. He doesn't know me or my history so he wants to run tests.

I'm sitting at home playing video games and waiting on test results when the call comes... Congestive heart failure. Report to the ER immediately.

My heart developed an irregular heart beat, which caused fluid build up in my chest. They admitted me and were getting ready to pull fluid off me.

"What happened to your foot?"

"I dunno, what happened to my foot? I can't feel my feet."

Remember when I said I was sitting around playing video games, waiting for test results? Yeah, my foot was touching a radiator and I didn't know it. 3rd degree burns, first four toes. Pinkie was spared.

So I'm in the hospital a week. I lose 4 liters of water per day. 50 lbs. of water. No wonder I was drowning. Regular bandage changes.

So now I'm facing two procedures. Electrocardio version to fix my heart, skin grafts to fix my toes.

This whole time the new insurance covers 80% until I reach the out of pocket maximum of $6,500. Then it will cover 100%.

The old insurance? ER visit for heart attack, hospital admission, 8 days in the hospital, open heart bypass... $250.

So we hit the out of pocket maximum almost immediately. My wife had a problem with her foot running through the Seattle airport. The doctor who did her toe amputation was decided to be out of network so that was another $1,100.

I was never unemployed through all this. I had enough vacation and sick time banked to cover it. Cobra didn't apply. Buying my old insurance wasn't an option, it was far too expensive without employer backing. Income is too high for assistance (thank god) and I took steps to max out my HSA account, which is good because we drained it twice.

Three 1 week hospital stays (2 for me, 1 for my wife), multiple ER visits, two more major medical procedures... That would be enough to break most people even with good insurance.

So if you read any of that, let me ask you something... Why does the quality of my health care and my quality of life have to depend on who I work for and what insurance companies they choose to work with?

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 158 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is always what I think of when I hear arguments that our health care is "free market". If it were, you could fire AETNA and go back to Kaiser. But that's not the case, so insurers aren't really beholden to satisfying their users, because their users aren't their customers.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the kind of story libertarians can’t imagine because they simply lack an imagination. We don’t choose when we get sick. Your companies merger should have had no impact on your ability to get healthcare. What an absolutely insane thing to read.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago

Someone at some point should have told you this, but it rarely gets communicated until its too late. If you have peripheral neuropathy, even if you are not a diabetic, you should be doing nightly foot inspections with the aid of a mirror.

It drops the likelihood of acquiring an amputation by around 70%. Pretty much all my patients who have had amputations acquired them because they didn't know about a foot wound before it became infected and spread to the bone.

Simply flashing your feet at a mirror kept propped next to a nightstand can significantly improve your overall health outcomes.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Oh, I'm well aware, but at that time I was also sleep deprived. :(

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

I figured as much, though preventative healthcare is so rare nowadays I thought I'd chime in.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Fucking brutal, man. Murica, I guess.

[-] moistclump@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Holy. Fucking. Shit. I’m sorry you had to go through that. That’s really horrible.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I got a question!

How did forcing the doctors who knew you were in the midst of a sensitive medical situation not get forced into violating their hypocratic oath?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

So, a couple of things... Kaiser is a membership hospital, if you aren't a member, you don't get in and as of 1/1/2019, I wasn't a member anymore. :(

There is this thing called "Continuity of Care" but that only applies for services I had under the old hospital that aren't available under the new one.

Because the new hospital DOES have a cardiac department, continuity of care didn't apply.

Lastly, the Hippocratic Oath is largely a myth. ;)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-myth-of-the-hippocratic-oath-201511258447

"According to a 1989 survey, barely half of U.S. medical schools used any form of the Hippocratic Oath and only 2% used the original. In a 2011 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, about 80% of practicing physicians reported participating in an oath ceremony, but only a quarter felt that the oath significantly affected how they practiced."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] quicklime@lemm.ee 120 points 1 year ago

That's in the same category as "who would consider health care an appropriate industry for profit?".

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 76 points 1 year ago

Who would consider it? The same people who are coming for public education.

[-] iyaerP@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

The cruelty is the point.

Their end goal is a population of moronic wage-slaves who are living a barely subsistence lifestyle that will believe anything told of them rather than challenging the wealth, power, and right to rule of the ruling class.

They aren't just conservative, they're regressive. They long for the days of Feudal lordship with themselves cast as the lords.

[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"The cruelty is the point."

I see this phrase often, and I disagree with it and I'm not sure why people keep repeating it.

Cruelty: inflicting pain on others. This is not the point at all. They don't wake up every morning and say "how can I cause more pain" on individuals or the general populace.

They are almost completely indifferent to the suffering of others that they cause. They are simply greedy and selfish, they want all the money and power, so they can have it all to themselves. Fucking over everyone else is just the process to get and keep what they want. This is my opinion at least.

"Cruelty is the point" is just silly, and absolutely wrong. I also feel like it misdirects talking about the true motive, which I think is mostly greed and selfishness. Cruelty is just a side affect they don't care about.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] violetraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

You have a good point and it almost seems more malicious this way. At least with cruelty there's a point of sorts behind the action. This way is almost indifference and feels much more sociopathic since its willful not changing those actions

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

I think that there are spaces in healthcare where you could safely apply a free market. "Hey, yeah, I see you have a cane, but have you tried my super luxury high speed low drag jet-powered hover cane? Guaranteed to be 1000% more like a Nerf commercial than any standard cane!"

"Woah, check it out, we built an MRI that's way cheaper and doesn't scare the shit out of people!"

"Hey, I found a medicine that cures baldness!" Etc.

Right? I can see the intersection of luxury (in the sense that not buying it incurs no cost, not even an opportunity cost), convenience, and healthcare being a place where there's room for the free market. The problem is that we've gone and applied it to everything, including all kinds of things that shouldn't be free market. Then you end up with all kinds of goofy fucking bullshit like corporates parenting stuff that the DOD paid to develop (Epi Pens, vaccine adjuvants, etc), GSK opting to develop a singles vaccine instead of a tuberculosis vaccine, etc, etc, etc. Oh, that last one is real. Here: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits

This is probably an unpopular take on Lemmy, but I believe that free markets generally work well where they exist. But there's a lot of things that have no business being free markets, like healthcare, and aren't free markets (and won't behave like them) even if you try super hard to pretend that they are. You see, a truly free market requires the ability to say no and suffer no cost. You can buy Bob's Widget, Jan's Widget, or no Widget and be perfectly fine. This is not the case in healthcare. If you're having a heart attack, your choices are:

-Agree to pay for this widget but we can't/won't tell you how much it costs until we're done.

-Die

That's not a free market, that's not how free markets work.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 98 points 1 year ago

History lesson time: This wasn't done on purpose. It's an artifact of decisions made by Congress during World War II to support war production.

So many young men were away at war that it created a labor shortage, even with some women entering the work force. This led to spiraling increases in wages that were threatening the viability of critical war manufacturers.

In an effort to protect this manufacturing sector, Congress capped wage increases. But those corporations were still competing for workers and now they were no longer able to offer them higher and higher wages. So instead, they started offering them "perks" like health insurance, pensions, and paid time off.

THEN:

"In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls."

Emphasis mine. And guess what? When those young men returned from war and re-entered the work force, they wanted those perks too. So which company was going to be the first to deescalate the arms race and NOT offer health insurance?

And those perks being so ubiquitous meant the government never had an incentive to provide health coverage directly to anyone of working age, so we only have Medicare for retirees.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235989/#:~:text=In%201943%20the%20War%20Labor,of%20maneuvering%20around%20wage%20controls.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago

And the the employer requirement and massive expansion of GMOs were added under Nixon. He and his contemporaries could have pushed for national health care but of course they didn’t.

[-] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Sorry, what does GMO mean in this context?

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 10 points 1 year ago

Had to look it up myself. I think it refers to Group Member Organizations, which would be the health insurance providers.

When you really think about it, health insurance companies are a bizarre sort of consumers' union. Your insurance company negotiates prices with providers on your (and their own) behalf leveraging their buying power based on the size of the group. That was probably a good thing at one time, but now the system is so completely broken that if you try to get the same procedure done without insurance, and it'll cost you double or triple what it would cost the insurance company.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

You forgot this part, before WW2:

During the Great Depression, FDR considered making national health insurance part of his signature New Deal legislation — which would have made the US a pioneer — but those provisions were nixed to prioritize the Social Security retirement and disability programs, among others.

So old people chose something that benefits themselves only over something that benefits everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

And you also can't discount the role Unions played in the American healthcare system. Because not only can you get healthcare through your employer, if you're in a union you can get coverage through your union. And there was a time when unions had their own doctors on payroll.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago

Wage slavery.

[-] Nerrad@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

No small businesses want to mess with this shit. Just give everyone health insurance, all the time, without the interference of corporate greed. Doing so would reap a huge savings of scale efficiency. Get rid of the middle man.

[-] negativenull@lemm.ee 41 points 1 year ago

Indentured Servitude is the point. Business want to make it difficult for you to find another job.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

My wife and I were just talking about this. We pay $600/m and the very few times we go to a doctor we end up paying anyways. We never meet the deductible but we can't not have insurance because we have a kid who does need it. In the twelve years we have paid we have never reached the deductible even with having a kiddo who's had surgery. Once you get past october it seems like they charge it to the following year if your close to meeting the deductible it's insane...

[-] TyrionsNose@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

That’s not the problem with the healthcare in the US, because that eventually flips and you hit your deductible every year.

The problem is you lose healthcare if you need to quit your job and you pay more than any other country. And I attribute that simply to the middle man, aka the health insurance companies. They don’t seem to provide any benefit other than contributing at least 10% for pure profit reasons to the $3.4 trillion we spend every year on healthcare.

[-] Case@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 1 year ago

My biggest problem is some schmuck who I doubt has a medical degree, and has never seen me as a patient, but has absolute power over what a MEDICAL DOCTOR deems necessary.

At that point it really begins to sound like practicing medicine without a license to do so, let alone the knowledge required to get an MD.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] berrodeguarana@lemmy.eco.br 13 points 1 year ago

Thats insane.

Here in Brazil I pay around 65-70 dollars per month and then I have full hospitalization coverage and full doctors appointment coverage.

And there are better options lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I tell anyone and everyone we will not get universal healthcare until this is prohibited. Certain votes feel having a job with benefits is something they have earned. They see it as some badge of honor or some.

Abolish it. Make it illegal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

So we don't fuck off work to mass protest and dine in the flesh of the wealthy.

Saved you a click.

[-] luckyhunter@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

TLDR It's a deductible expense for the business, it's taken out pre-tax for the worker, and businesses get way better rates than if a individual was to go get a quote for the same plan.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago

That only makes sense because the system is so goddamn stupid.

The "most powerful nation in the world," but when it comes to our health, we just let the capitalists bend us over...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Canada's public/private system has a lot of this as well. Drug, dental, optical, anything else are part of employer's group benefits. There are public drug coverage options where your deductible is calculated as a percentage of your net income, and a public senior's plan with a flat deductible.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tell me again why soulless corporations should not be in control of essential services for humans?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For all its talk about free markets, the GOP vehemently defends this very not-free-market system. To be fair, the Democrats defend it to the death too, but they don't pretend like they value free markets, so they're just greedy and corrupt, not greedy and corrupt hypocrites.

[-] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

What prominent democrats defend our health care system?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Because we've regressed into one of those shithole countries our wannabe dictator keeps harping about.

[-] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Personal experience: having guaranteed health care not tied to my employment is a huge burden off my shoulders. I am so grateful that my wife and I are taken care of, and I vote for people who try to make it happen for everyone. But let’s face reality, there are huge entrenched interests that oppose any kind of universal plan, so the ACA with all its flaws is probably the best we will get for quite some time. Even where I live, in California, with the legislature and all statewide elected offices under single-party control for years now, it hasn’t happened. The ACA was a deal with the devil to get more people insured, yeah, but insurance is no guarantee of health care. I’m glad I have the latter.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It even happens in Canada, just to differing levels.

We don't have a national pharmacare plan so any drugs you need outside a hospital will come out of pocket.

You either need to pay for private insurance or get it via a job where it becomes mandatory for full time employees (possibly past a certain enployee count)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
827 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19240 readers
1208 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS