Submitted by prehistoric_knight t3_1199m3t in technology
Comments
da90 t1_j9lyv44 wrote
Found the commie!!! /s
Willinton06 t1_j9ncaln wrote
Do you want the poors to live long lives or something? The longer they live the more chances of revolution, actually, we shalt increase insurance premiums 10% and decrease teacher salaries 5%, just so they don’t get any crazy ideas
SeanHaz t1_j9p5e12 wrote
America uses the capitalism model (more than most countries at least) and they have the highest income from people traveling for healthcare.
It is clearly doing something right, even if it's doing a lot wrong.
boldberserker t1_j9pbg4f wrote
It’s true that all that money affords us the newest medical technology and nicest accommodations for in patient medical procedures. But I don’t think that should be reserved for only foreign oil barons and other billionaires that can afford it. If we can ever work together to demand proper universal healthcare with the funding it deserves we’d all be much better off.
SeanHaz t1_j9pdckz wrote
I'm not so sure. I live somewhere with public healthcare and it is accomplished by giving employees less money (doctors nurses etc.). Since we're paying doctors less money many qualified doctors leave the country for places which pay more. Since we have a shortage of doctors and nurses the waiting times are long, we have many deaths due to long waiting times.
They also put a lot of money towards things which help their stats rather than things which improve quality of life for people eg. Keeping elderly people barely alive while they're bed bound for years to improve life expectancy.
I'm from Ireland and I'm familiar with the UK, it seems both have the same problems. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and this is the situation, I imagine the situation would be even worse in poorer countries.
boldberserker t1_j9pf6rg wrote
I’m not saying it would be perfect or easy. Many people die in the US because they can’t afford healthcare even if they have insurance. It sounds like changes to the payment model for doctors and nurses need to be made in Ireland and the UK. It shouldn’t take years in a bureaucratic process to make those changes. Just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it should be ruled out. There’s ways to improve it and implement better with the advantage of seeing how it has worked elsewhere for decades.
SeanHaz t1_j9phsxg wrote
If you increase the cost we can't afford it, if you keep the cost the way it is we'll have the same problems.
I'm not saying it should be ruled out because it's not perfect, I think it should be ruled out because it is worse than your current system.
It has "worked" in Ireland for decades, it has also"worked" in the US for decades...to me it isn't obvious the public system is better. I know the USA had the most ventilators compared to its population which helped save a lot of lives during COVID, it's more expensive but you get what you pay for.
boldberserker t1_j9pzxx2 wrote
It works in nearly every 1st world country besides the US. I don’t believe people should have to choose between going bankrupt or saving their loved one by treating cancer. We certainly don’t get what we pay for in the US. We pay the highest cost for pharmaceuticals in the world. They’re no better than what you can buy in Canada or Mexico for pennies on the dollar. My insurance premiums and all of the working people’s keep going up, but my healthcare has gotten worse. I have to make appointments weeks to months ahead of time and once I am seen I’m shuffled along so they can hurry to the next patient. They have stats they have to meet too which don’t have anything to do with making people better. I could go on and on. Most of us in America are not getting any better healthcare and definitely not getting what billionaires get. And it’s not like that business will go away. Billionaires will still pay doctors privately to get their luxury healthcare. Meanwhile the rest of us are paying to increase wealth for shareholders for increasingly less time with our healthcare professionals.
SeanHaz t1_j9q19i9 wrote
You seem to be complaining about the quality and cost of healthcare. Unfortunately you can't have both.
I understand that you don't want people to choose between bankruptcy and death but that doesn't make universal healthcare a good idea. It will solve some problems and cause others. It's a really complicated issue and having seen what public healthcare looks like in a wealthy country I get the impression that privatisation is the way to go. You seem to have the opposite impression. To me this just shows that both systems suck and completely overhauling something which sucks for something else that sucks may not be wise.
boldberserker t1_j9qlyi1 wrote
I see what you’re saying, and it makes a lot of sense. You don’t know what you don’t know. I’ve never traveled to another country and had to use healthcare outside of the US. The state I live in provides health insurance to those who can’t afford it, and I was very grateful to be able to use it for the births of all 4 of my children. Had I not been covered by state healthcare the cost for each birth is ~$10,000 and most insurance plans don’t cover more than $2000 of that. That adds up fast. I would be more inclined to agree with your point of view if healthcare costs in the US were similar to just 30 years ago, but they have dramatically increased and there’s no end in sight.
StealyEyedSecMan t1_j9ncogk wrote
I think you mean the monopoly model not the capitalism model...capitalism would have a competitive market and low margins..monopoly high margins and little competition or market choices.
SeanHaz t1_j9p5q2m wrote
Unfortunately in medicine it's complicated, you want to encourage people to invest in innovation so you give companies patents on stuff they discover/invent. Then because you've given a patent you've also given them a monopoly.
I don't know how to solve that problem
StealyEyedSecMan t1_j9q2dag wrote
The financial people do, we just have to agree there needs to be some balance.
Gh0sss t1_j9o2cok wrote
doesn't really work when both companies are heavily incentivized to nickel-and-dime people for life saving medications, i think the main problem is that people are heavily profiting from these drugs, and that there is an incentive and movement among pharma companies to ask for way more money than what it took to actually create the drug
StealyEyedSecMan t1_j9oa5g0 wrote
Intervention is needed to create a competitive market for the drugs...historically there are many examples
StealyEyedSecMan t1_j9q2iwa wrote
This is straight textbook, who's downvoting this?
proletariat-platypus t1_j9u7jft wrote
Capitalism inherently trends toward monopoly. Just look at how few companies own nearly everything in the global economy.
StealyEyedSecMan t1_j9x8jv4 wrote
Why the downvotes? This is directly pulled from economics definition...it's a statement of fact.
Scr0bD0b t1_j9ldhxj wrote
Hi, are you here to see Dr. AmazonBasics or Dr. FZBKOWJ? Walk-ins for prime members only.
Suolucidir t1_j9li4tt wrote
One Medical will charge you a monthly subscription fee just to make appointments to see their doctors/nurses. Then they will bill your insurance as usual and collect a copay.
What I don't understand is how this business model does not constitute insurance billing fraud?
If they participate on your insurance panel then the fees are supposed to align with the insurance Explanation of Benefits, aren't they?
Willinton06 t1_j9ncfe3 wrote
Easy answer, it’s all bullshit, and they pay millions to the cheapest whores in the country, congressmen, to keep it a gray area
loadformorecomments t1_j9mjq2f wrote
The monthly fee (actually, it's annual) is not for medical services. It doesn't have an insurance billing code. You can consider it an entrance charge.
Suolucidir t1_j9mp1ds wrote
Yeah, exactly.
It's a fee not included on my explanation of benefits to see a doctor that is in-network, and thus a service provider which I am already paying the insurance payor to see for medical care.
That does not seem legal at all.
letsgolakers24 t1_j9mt94b wrote
It’s legal. It’s the ability to see a primary care provider at moments notice, instead of waiting for an appt. It’s $199 (now with a discount) for a year, so $16/month? Lots of people would easily take that
crewchiefguy t1_j9njmlc wrote
On the surface it’s probably a really good deal for those that would normally not be able to afford basic medical care. But it’s amazon so it will just end in exploitation somehow
MasterYehuda816 t1_j9nfvxp wrote
Ok this is fucking ridiculous. Big Tech’s grip on the tech industry is bad enough. Now we have to worry about it branching out to other industries?
-_-_-__-_-_-__-_- t1_j9p8vb3 wrote
Sorry, there's a delivery delay for Timmy's heart transplant
boldberserker t1_j9lvsqt wrote
We really need to stop using the capitalism model with healthcare. There’s no morally defensible reason we should be concerned with shareholder profits when it comes to medicine.