They think this is about actuarial tables and insurance, and all this stuff. No, this is about freedom. This is about whether we as Americans should be free to buy what kind of insurance we want….

*It’s a freedom issue. It really isn’t about actuarial tables. It isn’t about all the ins and outs. We have always taken care of those who are sick in our country.

Not hyperbole. I have never been free to buy whatever insurance I want. Either I get whatever my employer says I get, or go without.

We have never, ever turned anyone away. I’m a physician. I’ve operated in hospitals for 25 years. I have never, ever seen anyone turned away who needed care*

Reddit post from a physican, @wisefool can let us know how accurate it is.

… the United States spends vastly more per capita than other countries with decreased life expectancy. The US system is geared more towards acute care and for profit systems. A consequence of this is that chronic medical conditions are very poorly managed. Nobody wants to take care of sick people because that costs money. In addition, the large number of uninsured also puts off health care issues until it is an absolute emergency and this drives up costs significantly.

For example, in my training we had a 22 year old college student come in to the ER with abdominal pain. He worked part time as a bartender while he was in college; he had no insurance. He had been having abdominal pain for a month…he didn’t seek out medical care because he could not afford it. Finally the pain was so great he came in. He had ruptured his appendix a month before and had a grapefruit sized abscess in his abdomen. He needed the abscess drained percutaneously and several weeks of antibiotics before we could go in to try and remove the appendix. His colon was so inflamed we had to do cecectomy and give him an ileostomy. After three months the inflammation had died down enough to take down the ileostomy. His hospital bill was hundreds of thousands of dollars with multiple stays in an ICU. That cost is passed on to other patients which drives up premiums. That’s just one small example.

The causes are varied and complex, but the American health care system as it is set up is not sustainable for much longer. America’s genetic makeup and lifestyle can account for some of the variances, but it would not move the needle much. At the end of the day, this is a profit driven system skewed towards high end emergent care focused on procedures.

Source, am doctor and father worked in the health insurance industry

This is probably true.

I definitely think that’s true. For years, everyone Republican I know (or at least the ones I talked to about healthcare) thought “Obamacare” was free healthcare for illegals and welfare queens.

One of my parents is still on the “Obamacare must go” bandwagon for that reason. This is despite the fact that my brother has a significant pre-existing condtion and relies on the ACA for coverage. The Fox-based hate is that strong.

A doctor will never see someone who is turned away, because that person won’t even be able to schedule an appointment. And yes, this happens all the time.

He is blaming the high costs of medical care on expensive hospital care (as opposed to say primary care physicians.) I know this is an old argument. When they started Neighborhood Health Plan in New York (about 20 years ago? They changed names) it was a sort of medicaid expansion. The rationale they gave in the papers was that hospitals were expensive, and the uninsured would go to hospitals for ‘routine care’.

Now these insurers engage in their own little scandals and scams… NY medicaid btw has excellent coverage now (at what financial cost I don’t know) - I rarely see self-pay patients come in anymore when there used to be a couple every day.

He’s a hospitalist, if he says there’s a lot of waste I’ll believe him. I was told a certain large, prestigious hospital had a head nurse in charge of discharging the poor insurance people. I used to review medical records from the hospital for new appointments. It’s very common - guy feels something weird in the heart, goes to the ER. If they had medicaid or no insurance they’d get a checkup, maybe an EKG and discharged… If they had BCBS or a nicer insurance they got the echo, maybe a diagnostic cath/angiogram… I know of this egregious example The doctor sent them to the ER with instructions to get caths done. IIRC he was responsible for a huge percentage of Mt Sinai’s cath lab referrals. It’s big money. He was getting kickbacks in the form of rent money for a little room. The original report is in bloomberg but it’s paywalled now. I heard a rumor the FBI was investigating them but that was 10 years ago and nothing’s happened… so they skate again.

Insurance is a form of waste. It is not the only reason. It would help and it’s a step in the right direction!

If we had medicare for all we’d hit other issues of ‘waste’. The way I figure physician time is a limited resource. Even if they were unpaid robodoctors there’s only so much they can work in one day… We’d still see steering towards profitable procedures (cardiac stents are the big thing now… They’re what, 40k a pop? I think I saw a scandal where one doctor put the One man’s experimental, medically dubious procedure is another man’s cutting edge life-saving cure.)

Any rational, fair system would need some sort of triage system determining who gets what care. I can only assume our Northern cousins have figured it out, as have most of other countries (fewer procedures, lower costs, same outcomes in mortality…)

The problem with Medicare is that the shit is controlled by a captive Congress so they have zero incentive in health cost control. It’s true what some rightists say, they basically pay for everything and it’s an honor system. That said, BCBS, UHC, Aetna and all those medicare HMOs have zero incentive to do fraud checking cuz it’s government money… They even hire companies to go through records and find more diagnosis on patients so they get a higher yearly lump sum. (It’s called risk-adjustment and it’s a very good idea in principle because otherwise insurers will try to kick out expensive, sick members.) Various large and regional insurers got caught doing bullshit adjustments. Unitedhealthcare got fined or something for it, but like big enough doctors and hospitals they pay pennies to the dollar…
Even a high profile case like Melgen (the florida doctor that was friends with NJ Dem senator Melendez) he paid $42 million out of $136 million prosecutors allege was stolen.

Risk adjustment is interesting, so the average medicare member is worth about 6k a year. Diabetes would be worth 3k more. Depression is worth 4k more. So the insurers scan lines of doctor’s notes looking for keywords like ‘tired’ and use that to code in depression. It’s a third-party thing now. I think the big insurers don’t do it anymore, but most of the regional ones we use still do it. They send a nurse to scan 50-100 records at a time to upcode. That’s why I’m convince EHR is a scam for insurers to get more medical data and the freaking technocrats will use ‘outcome scores’ to pay doctors more or less. It’s gonna be bullshit like how schools game their student’s test scores.

Rand Paul was an opthalmologist, and he stopped practicing a decade ago. I’m not sure how much insight that really gives him about the experience of uninsured patients with cancer, hear conditions, diabetes, etc.

Yes, absolutely. Medical care will always be a limited resource, and the healthcare industry’s behavior will always respond to economic incentives. Happily, every other western nation has already worked this problem, providing us a huge number of examples.

The difficulties here are almost entirely political. The technical and economic problems and approaches are well studied. We know there are no perfect solutions – but there are a bunch of pretty good ones already up and running elsewhere.

Oh sure, didn’t mean to imply otherwise - except I think most would agree it’s better to get care before the heart attack.

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

The whole thing sounds, uh, complicated. :/
If a Dem wins then new health care legislation seems like it would be all consuming.

He is an ophthalmologist, not a hospitalist. The vast majority of his work is performed in outpatient clinics. He certainly performed operations in hospitals, but unless he botched them it’s unlikely his patients spent more than a few hours there before discharge.

Ophthalmogists are largely insulated from the complexity of inpatient care. That’s not a criticism, in fact it’s why a lot of them choose that specialty and why it’s very competitive. But it also means they have limited insight about routine hospital management.

Sorry, I was responding to the @ summons and didn’t see the Paul Rand thing. I was referring to the Reddit post.

Thanks for sharing, @wisefool! Really awesome to get some perspective that isn’t talking points.

A good look at US employer-sponsored health care as a tax (as well as candidate plans):

The third source is employer-sponsored insurance, which covers about 159 million workers, spouses, and children. Employer insurance is very costly, with the average family premium running just under $19,000 a year. For average wage workers living in a family of four, this premium is equal to 26.4 percent of their total labor compensation. If you count this premium as taxes for international comparison purposes, the average wage worker in the United States has the second-highest tax rate in the developed world, behind the Netherlands. As with Medicaid, employer insurance is very unstable, with people losing their insurance plan every time they separate from their job (66 million workers every year) or when their employer decides to change insurance carriers (15 percent of employers every year).

Wasn’t sure where this should go, but it is about healthcare.

Groupon as a form of inexpensive healthcare.

Oh, and of you feel up for it, there are a few great comments.

Good reminder of some of what the Trump administration has been doing to hobble the ACA, and the effects (so far).

He is such a dick. He’s so petty. He doesn’t give a damn about it either way but since Obama did it he has to remove it.

So, this might be some good news.

Might be some good news, as long as the insurance companies aren’t doing the whole cable company thing where they claim a lower above the line price then add a bunch of BS below the line things like higher deductibles and co-pays.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/15/779346889/why-even-universal-health-coverage-isnt-enough

I don’t think the anecdotes described in this article will be a surprise to anyone here, but it’s a good reminder that insurance and cost - while important - are not the only issues to address.

This Econtalk podcast with Keith Smith of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma was incredibly interesting. (Fair warning - it’s also very long and a bit rambling, like all Econtalk podcasts.) They talk a ton about the various inefficiencies that are driving up costs in our current health insurance system. For instance - hospitals charging huge amounts so that A) the insurers can claim to be getting great discounts when they pay less and B) the hospital can claim to be losing big amounts to maintain their non-profit status and also get federal funding for providing “uncompensated care”.

Now, I don’t agree with their conclusion that the best solution to the problem is for everything to go free market. Their solution for anyone who can’t afford care is basically “charity will take care of them.” IMHO, anyone supporting that solution is ignorant of how racial, class, regional, and cultural differences limit the availability of such charity.

Nonetheless, the discussion about how the current market is distorted by the way insurance and providers interact is instructive, regardless of how you’d like to solve the problem.