Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You -- And It Could Raise Your Rates (propublica.org) 299
schwit1 shares an excerpt from an in-depth report via ProPublica and NPR, which have been investigating for the past year the various tactics the health insurance industry uses to maximize its profits: A future in which everything you do -- the things you buy, the food you eat, the time you spend watching TV -- may help determine how much you pay for health insurance. With little public scrutiny, the health insurance industry has joined forces with data brokers to vacuum up personal details about hundreds of millions of Americans, including, odds are, many readers of this story. The companies are tracking your race, education level, TV habits, marital status, net worth. They're collecting what you post on social media, whether you're behind on your bills, what you order online. Then they feed this information into complicated computer algorithms that spit out predictions about how much your health care could cost them. Patient advocates warn that using unverified, error-prone "lifestyle" data to make medical assumptions could lead insurers to improperly price plans -- for instance raising rates based on false information -- or discriminate against anyone tagged as high cost. And, they say, the use of the data raises thorny questions that should be debated publicly, such as: Should a person's rates be raised because algorithms say they are more likely to run up medical bills? Such questions would be moot in Europe, where a strict law took effect in May that bans trading in personal data.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My employer offers a discount on health insurance for anyone who promises not to smoke, and another discount for anyone who logs their workouts. So we don't all pay the same rate even though we're all in the same pool.
Re:Who is affected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oxymoron Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We could pay off the national debt (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're a fiscal conservative single payer just makes sense. The only reasons to oppose it are bad ones.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're a fiscal conservative single payer just makes sense
The problem is we don't have the fiscal variety of conservatives anymore. All we have is the moral type. I consider myself a lefty, only because the "conservatives" are more interested in who I'm having sex with rather that what they are spending my money on.
We don't have conservatives (Score:5)
To be fair, I say not many because Hilary was very, very conservative. Hell, she opposed gay marriage & TPP until Bernie dragged her to the left to secure the nomination. But I'll say this for her, she would have kept everything as is. Stayed the course. It's one of the many, many reasons she lost. If you take the stock market out of the equation the US economy is doing crap. Wages have fallen about 20-30% in the last 40 years. People want change, they just don't know how to get it.
Which is why we're not letting them do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No not an "oxymorn". An "unfair" system is the US system that consigns humans to the scrapheap of poverty and sickness just because an exploitive private health system put its own shitty profits above human dignity and health.
Theres nothing "fair" about an unregulated capitalist healthcare system and the overwhelming weight of experience and history attests to that.
Why does the United States, ostensibly one of the richest per-capita countries in the world have to continue to e
Re: (Score:3)
They can still be evaluating the group plans.
I just doubt the effectiveness of the information for the stated purpose. This seems like another BigData Garbage Dump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Who is affected? (Score:3)
This creates a fairly obvious incentive to call the sickies, unless making an exception for some total rockstar. Which has the obvious consequences in both risk of being dismissed for some trumped up reason and in terms of reduced mobility(among those whose employers aren't actively cullingthe un
Re: (Score:2)
> Among other possible cases, hiring and firing decisions are an obvious candidate: employer-pooled insurance doesn't remove the impact of high or low cost individuals; just average it across a bunch of employees.
That would make your employer ripe for a lawsuit from some bottom feeder more than willing to take your case on contingency. Depending on your condition, you might already have reason to have invoked the ADA explicitly.
Re: Who is affected? (Score:4, Interesting)
If your former or prospective employers are foolish enough to gloat somewhere discoverable about ditching the uneugenic, and you are able to make it through a long, punishing, probably expensive, case that will stamp a radioactive "NOT A TEAM PLAYER" on you whether you win or lose, perhaps you'll obtain a settlement of some sort.
That's definitely not scary enough to discourage something so eminently cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of bullshit is Minority Report meets HMOs.
Through employers (Score:2)
How do you think insurers come up with group pricing...?
Re: (Score:3)
Most people in the US get their health insurance either from their employer, or from the Obamacare exchanges. In both cases they're not treated as individuals (from a buying point of view) by the health insurance industry, instead they're treated as part of a group (on the exchanges this is called "community rating")
The point of the article is that although individual lifestyle rating is not being done yet, today's data mining could be used to implement such a scheme whenever insurance companies find such data lucrative enough to justify putting in the IT infrastructure to monitor it.
Re: (Score:3)
You do if you're self employed, and there are quite a few of us out there, not everyone works W2 jobs my friend.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless they also factor in your arrogance, which drastically increases your chances of being harmed by other humans.
Re:Who is affected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that one time you searched for Little Debbie snack cakes to prove to your friends how unhealthy they are for you. The data aggregator just lumps you in with the rest of the "unhealthy eaters" out there.
Now your insurance premiums go up by $200/mo with no explanation and no way to dispute the data.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that your premiums would get any cheaper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While keeping insured healthy is one way to reduce claims, they have other strategies they use regularly that are easier and more effective: denying claims, dragging their feet on pre-approvals, limiting care available, removing drug choices, requiring high co-pays and cost sharing, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who is affected? (Score:5, Insightful)
The current trend about insurance is a Mormon idea (Google :: Medical Information Bureau),
started a _long_ time ago under the guise of "fraud protection." If the U.S. would finally adopt
single payer, none of this BS would be relevant any more. Dunno what it's gonna take, though...
CAP === 'fathoms'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus all the various other taxes that are used to subsidize it, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
And taxes are relatively low and the budget is balanced.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Here in BC, Canada it's a whopping $75/month per family, assuming two adults.
I would rather not have to wait 6 weeks for an MRI, or have trouble even getting a family doctor, or have to go to the ER on the weekend instead of one of the several quick care clinics within easy walking distance even in my sorry post-cancer condition.
The idea you think you can get away with paying only $75 per family is why I want NOTHING to do with people like you having monopoly control over my cancer treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Tests in the US aren't immediately scheduled either. What's the big deal about going to the ER if it's cheap and relatively well-run -- the reason that American fear "the ER" is largely due to price.
I'd love to only pay $75/mo for insurance -- it's at least predictable, cheap, and one less source of stress in my life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who is affected? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, there are reasons why the US system is so much more expensive than its Canadian counterparts. The US has a Lexus style system (for those lucky enough to have good insurance) and Lexus prices. The Canadian system, is more Corolla style with Corolla price.
But like two cars, the interesting thing is that the health outcomes for identical conditions are nearly identical.
What you purchase for an expensive health-care system is a much more pleasant system (no lines, lots of tests that occasionally catch something, but mostly make the patient feel better, etc.) and marginally better outcomes.
The downside is, of course, that costs are so high that there's really no way of providing fairly comprehensive medical service to the entire population.
As a Canadian, naturally, I prefer a system that allows all Canadians to be covered (with difficulties, of course, there are lines, and in some areas, primary care doctors are harder to find - natural outcomes of a much more economical system) over a more pleasant system with similar outcomes, where a substantial portion of my fellow citizens access to health-care is a major source of stress and concern (to put it mildly).
Psychologically, I think our health-care system helps bind us together - it is a concrete and ever-present example that as a people, we have expressed a sentiment that the lives of all Canadians are equally important, from the richest to the poorest. It's an ideal, and we certainly don't meet that ideal, but we spend considerable resources attempting to do so, and I think that makes a great deal of difference to who we are as a people.
I'll take the fact that my taxes are buying Corollas for four rather than a Lexus just for myself. It's not a trade-off I'd necessarily make individually, but it's one that I'm happy to have the government make on my behalf.
Re: (Score:3)
People I know in BC who have needed an emergency MRI get it within 24 hours (it is a bit slow on Sunday). There's lots of clinics so you don't have to go to the emergency and when I had to take a friend to emergency a couple of times last year, he'd be in by the time I parked and walked back to the emergency. Did have to wait till morning to get operated on though.
Same with my sister who made the mistake of needing bypass surgery on the weekend, took 12 hours before she was in the OR.
Where things get slow i
Re: (Score:3)
We are already paying MUCH more than any other "civilized"* country, and yet not only we do not cover EVERYONE, as the other "civilized" countries, we have worse outcomes.
This Bullshit about cost totally ignores what we are ALREADY paying for shit-sandwich outcomes.
Grow the fuck up.
* = To call yourself civilized, you kind of have to act that way, even if it hurts a little in some tiny way.
Re: Who is affected? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem that the idea of a "perfectly healthy lifestyle" changes every few years or so. Is fat the demon? Or is is sugar? Or maybe carbs?
Is a glass of wine with dinner good for you, or should we all be hopping on the wagon with Carrie Nation? How much exercise is too much?
The goalposts keep shifting, and no one has any real idea of what's "healthy." In fact, it may vary by body type and genetics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. You just think it does because the media jumps on the fads. There's been very consistent views about what a healthy lifestyle is and it doesn't involve cutting out any demons or exercising too much. Even while the news was telling us fat was bad the science kept saying eat a balanced meal. Even while the news was saying OMG eggs! cholesterol! scientists were saying eat a balanced meal.
Same with exercise. Short of physical injury the message has been quite consistent too little exercise is bad. D
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that the idea of a "perfectly healthy lifestyle" changes every few years or so. Is fat the demon? Or is is sugar? Or maybe carbs?
Eat a fad-free diet and get lots of exercise, and you will stay in the best of health. No matter what happens in the world of fashion, that core recommendation never changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who is affected? (Score:5, Funny)
a blind man throwing darts at a voodoo doll tied to a dartboard summed with the output of a random number generator.
Following the airline ticket model, I see
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before Obamacare, the state private markets were based strictly on age.
So?
After Trumpcare they might be based on age and your online habits.
It's only far that your insurance company knows as much about you as possible, right? That way the rich people with easy jobs and healthy living conditions can pay less.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obamacare did NOT help the self-employed, if anything it hurt MANY of us.
I previously was able to get insurance with a "high deductible" policy, I think it was maybe $1200 a few years back, and only cost me maybe $75-$100 a month or so. With th
That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to live in a country where basic medical care isn't free.
Sounds like a third world undeveloped nation, where the government can't afford to run hospitals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the hypothesis that it's the lack of government-funded health care which drives up prices in the U.S., in 2009 prior to Obamacare passing, the U.S. governme
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm...well, looking at the federal govt's track record for efficiency, cost savings, and high standard of care with those existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA)....I don't think they've proved themselves qualified to handle the care for ALL of us yet.
Horrible costs, horrible management and poor standard of care.....that's all they've shown us they can
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I understand your reasoning. You're saying that because the US mostly private system is very, very expensive, the problem is not that the system is mostly private?
No, the US isn't going to be able to fix it's system with a little bit of legislation. Powerful interests, from physicians to pharma are going to be pissed off. But data from the whole world agrees that some sort of socialized system is both most efficient and most effective.
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Either a heavily regulated and subsidized private system or a more socialized system could work, but what the US has now is a Frankenstein system with various limbs from various systems sewn together, and entrenched interests who get their gravy train from the wide variety of inefficiencies and have sufficient political clout (largely as consequence of that wealth) to block any efforts for genuine reform. If we had a rational, above the board government right now they'd launch an even more aggressive legislative and regulatory assault on the problem than we got with Obamacare. Because we have a corrupt government that represents an ideology that venerates selfishness instead, we'll probably plod along until the system collapses under its own unsustainable weight and causes a massive recession or depression.
Re:That stucks (Score:4, Insightful)
and entrenched interests who get their gravy train from the wide variety of inefficiencies
And when you dig into the health care system in the US to any appreciable extent you realize that it's not just a gravy train of inefficiencies, it's inefficiencies all the way down. Inefficiency is a core structural component of the US healthcare system.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the massive amounts of spending is because the government funded health insurance pays out private health care prices, making the private healthcare providers extremely rich.
But yes, I do end up paying for "free" healthcare with my taxes. It's part of the ~30% I pay in tax. Slightly less than the OECD average according to your link.
You've missed out one big part of the US funding model - massive private lobby groups manipulating government policy. Maybe that's part of the reason you pay 60% more tha
Re: (Score:2)
Funny -- people in civilized countries pay LESS for insurance, yet have better outcomes than in the good 'ol US of A. I.e. longer life expectancy. Are you jealous?
Not every country subscribes to the Puritan idiocy that people's lives need to be micromanaged and every transgression against purity needs to be fined and/or punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Informative)
Go to much of Europe outside the UK, and it's like a breath of fresh air.
(1) No warning signs everywhere, and no attempt to protect people from themselves. 10 year olds walk or take transit to school. Train windows open -- if you stick a hand out, it's your own problem
(2) Fewer nannying restrictions on alcohol
(3) Widely ignored and/or lax drug laws in many countries
(4) Fewer sexual taboos. Nudity/toplessness are much more accepted
(5) Stricter privacy laws. More restrictions on employers -- employers aren't allowed to meddle in private lives outside of work as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough to protect themselves without breaking the bank and worshiping their militaries like some kind of false idols. (While quietly mistreating their veterans.)
If the US truly wanted to merely "defend" itself, it wouldn't be expensive -- a few ICBM silos and missile subs are an ample deterrent against invasion. The problem is US bullying of other countries to support obsolete industries like Saudi oil, their pet theocracies in the Middle East, and an unwinnable war on (some) drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That stucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That stucks (Score:4, Informative)
Had they been in the US the tragedy would have unfolded in the same way. An experimental treatment that _may_ have offered an extension on life but which cost most of $1.5 million (in one example that I found).
That the NHS cannot and will not cover every treatment should be obvious. Where that line is drawn will always be tragic.
That these are the worst examples you can find either points to a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotion or the shallowness of your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like the president of your local HOA.
Re:That stucks (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, as a person who pays into health insurance for others "unhealthy lifestyles" without ever taking out, I'm one of the dumbasses who wants to keep it that way. Insurance, by it's very own nature, is going to have people people who take more and those who give more. There is no way around that.
But you know, if we decided we wanted to care about other people and not just ourselves, universal healthcare would also bring about broader policies to help people get into and maintain "healthy lifestyles". With privatized healthcare, that's just not the case. No health care company is going to get you in the door preemptively to help fight against diabetes before it happens. They're more happy to let it happen and and then charge you out the ass for it because they're in the MONEY business and not the HEALTH business. It's the whole reason why we pay more per person than other nations for our precious privatized health care.
So, why did I put "healthy lifestyle" in quotes? Who's going to determine what is healthy? Certainly not you. I don't need my premiums raised if I'm a non-smoker and non-drinker just because I might be into rock climbing. Should my premiums go up because a healthy activity I find enjoyable could cost an insurance company more money? No. Fuck that noise.
If you want to stick it to the unhealthy, why not just tax the things that make an unhealthy lifestyle? Is it because you don't agree with the regulation or is it because you yourself engage in said unhealthy lifestyle from time-to-time?
What is the correlation between being poor and being unhealthy? Does it make sense that the people with the highest premiums should also be the poorest? I think not. How is a person supposed to pull themselves out of the healthcare-poverty loop? Do you just expect a large swath of the population to just get rich?
Either way, I don't think you really thought this through. I sincerely hope you get financially fucked and get into some shit situation because it seems like that's what it takes these days for people to feel empathy. Maybe you'll get a couple fingers chopped off and then you can decide which one is more important (and cheaper) so they can reattach it. Not like those chumps in Canada who would get ALL of their fingers back just for showing up. Don't they get a choice? Where is THEIR freedom? Who would assume I want all of my fingers back?! That's absurd!
Re: (Score:2)
From the link in the other response to my post, what dumbass wants to live in a place where the cost of medical procedures averages 60% higher than the most expensive other 12 OECD countries? Countries where you are "mandated to pay for those with unhealthy lifestyles" have much lower spending per capita.
If you're "careless with your lifestyle" and need an appendectomy because you appendix bursts, of which you don't have much control over, it'll cost you $5,004 in Canada and $7,962 in USA for the same proce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd tell that to my wife, but I had a partially subsidised snip.
If she has to get cut open again, it won't be my fault.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: That stucks (Score:5, Informative)
you'd rather have the government make the rules.
Yes.
You want that heart bypass surgery? No problem, we'll pencil you in for July 6th, 2028.
An absurd exaggeration that flies in the face of actual data from countries with socialized healthcare systems, but absurdity is guaranteed when your argument has nothing of substance to stand on.
Not at all. I worked for several years on a medical office management system that ran in 12 or so countries. My team had members from Canada and the U.K. and they both had horror stories about the "free healthcare" involving their mothers. For the Canadian mom, she was diagnosed with a heart problem and was told to stay in bed until money was available for treatment. She was told that it shouldn't more than six months. The U.K. mom had breast lumps discovered in a checkup and was scheduled for a biopsy. In six months coincidentally. Both moms were brought to the U.S. right away for treatment even though it wasn't "free".
Regarding the medical office system we were working on, as much as a pain in the ass it was dealing with 50 states worth of insurance companies, the Canadian "single payer" system was A LOT harder to deal with. Unbelievably complex rules about who could get what at what age and in what Province depending on the time of year. This was a while back so maybe it's all rainbow farting unicorns now.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the heart problem severe enough to warrant immediate treatment?
Were the breast lumps ultimately found to be malignant? (Malignant and benign lumps tend to "feel" different, so maybe the doctor was justified in not panicking immediately.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah... I dunno. Both my parents had fairly life threatening conditions. My Dad had a quad bypass (and then another just recently), and my Mom had lymphoma. Both got treatment right away, both had their incident over a decade or more ago, both are still alive today, both are from rural areas where access is typically a little worse, but they're fine. And neither had to declare bankruptcy over their medical bills. Thanks but I'll take the Canadian system over the American one any day. To be fair (tooooo
Re: That stucks (Score:5, Insightful)
The plural of anecdote is not data. Proper health outcome studies consistently show that the US is middle of the road in the world, and lags behind the modern social democracies.
The UK and Canadian systems definitely aren't perfect, but they're better, both in outcome and efficiency, than the US system.
Re: (Score:3)
Proper health outcome studies consistently show that the US is middle of the road in the world, and lags behind the modern social democracies.
The last 'proper' study I saw attributed the differences to smoking rates in the countries. Overall measuring the quality of a healthcare system is not easy because there are so many factors involved in outcomes besides just the system. What 'proper' health outcome study are you talking about? Did it adjust for lifestyle of the participants? It's not an easy question, but we can say that people from the US sometimes prefer to visit Canada for treatment, and sometimes people from Canada prefer to visit the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30 years ago, the French probably still smoked more -- it was definitely more accepted. I don't remember smoking sections on most US trains in the 80s, but it was common in Europe.
Likely, the real difference is due to lower levels of stress. People who are more secure in their jobs, are given ample vacation time, aren't required to work 50-60 hours a week on 40 hours of pay, and aren't constantly worried about medical expenses will be less stressed. Add to this better diet and lower income inequality (ea
Re: (Score:2)
We spend 2.5 times more per capita on healthcare than the Brits do https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org]
I sure as hell hope our wait times are less than their's.
Considering how much more we spend than any other country on healthcare we really don't get that much back in return.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heresy, I know, but....
Re: That stucks (Score:5, Interesting)
And let me guess, you'd rather have the government make the rules...we'll pencil you in for July 6th, 2028...
Oh, yes, that's exactly how it works in my country, where we have a proper taxpayer funded public health system.
When I got diverticulitis a few years ago and needed a bowel resection, I had to wait 25 years for surgery.
Hang on, no I didn't because the government have nothing to do with scheduling surgery, it's doctors that do it, and I had to wait two weeks. It cost me no dollars at all.
Clueless A/C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1st world is getting smaller by the day (Score:3, Insightful)
No other 1st world nation treats it's own citizens as badly as the USA does. Notable areas are health care, education and the private prison system.
The sooner we let go of the idea that America is 1st world, the better. It no longer shares the western liberalism ideals that have driven much of humans forward over the last 200 years. Specifically, it's lost site of "equality" and replaced it with rampant capitalism.
It wasn't always this way. America 1950 - 1970 was decidedly better for it's citizens than the late stage capitalism technological dystopia that is now before us.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got your history all wrong.
In the United States, it's "life, liberty, property."
In France, it's "liberty, equality, fraternity."
Equality has never been a part of the American way of life, because the Founders were wise enough to understand that equality and freedom are incompatible.
Re: (Score:3)
Your 'duress' is a golden age in history. No other people have had so much, nor lived so well.
You have been raised in a community and a society. By the time you were able to make decisions for yourself you've already benefited directly from things society has provided, like education and medicine and indirectly by living in a country with rule of law and relative peace. These were offered as part of a social contract. part of that contract includes limitations to your absolute freedom - a requirement to abi
Europe... (Score:3)
"Such questions would be moot in Europe..."
True. But not only for privacy reasons. Most European countries have either public or heavily regulated private insurance markets. Paying through the nose for insurance with sky-high deductibles, like many Americans do, would be unheard of.
In the US, having a child costs thousands to tens of thousands. In most of Europe, it's covered, and out-of-pocket is equivalent to a few hundred dollars, if not less.
This is the point of community rating (Score:5, Interesting)
So when there is the talk about repealing Obamacare or single payer or free market maximalism for health insurance, this is very much what is at stake. Unregulated private insurers maximize their profit by isolating high risk individuals and either pricing them in or kicking them off the rolls. The money and resources spent on these deep dives are wasteful and detrimental from the standpoint of society as a whole, but totally rational from the standpoint of the individual insurers because those downsides can be offloaded onto someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THAT"S HOW INSURANCE WORKS!
How many times does this need to be repeated?
Insurance is all about risk mitigation. If you are high risk, you are high cost. That's how it works, no amount of Obama attempting to play God is going to change that.
Why is this such a hard concept to get? If you want to raise costs, you try and force insurance companies to see everyone as the same, because then they can't handle risk properly.
That is not how insurance works.
I pay into insurance knowing that if bad things happen I don't go bankrupt.
If I can only get insurance when no bad things happen and get kicked out it when they do happen, what is the point of getting insurance?
Re: (Score:3)
If you have auto insurance, it's going up after you have a wreck - but they'll pay for the wreck. Heck, you can even buy a rider that insures your insurance rate (forgiveness for an accident).
You also have a max you can be charged for your auto insurance - the way that works varies from state to state, but insurers are required to lose money on the highest-risk drivers in order to enter the market. Seems like that would work just fine for health insurance. If you're a fat lazy slob like me, you'll pay mo
This is the shit that will get peoples' attention (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet again, China is leading the way (Score:3)
In the end (Score:3)
The insurance companies will simply get sued for discrimination*. They can claim that sick / unhealthy people cost more to insure, but that's the point of insurance. You rake in a huge pool of cash from both the healthy and unhealthy to cover the costs. In related news, if the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries were regulated, we wouldn't need insurance because the aforementioned industries wouldn't be allowed to charge anything they wanted simply because they can. Get that under control and healthcare for everyone might even be doable.
*Especially when they start charging elderly folks or folks with inherited / genetic diseases more for the same coverage.
It's cheaper to fly to another country and pay cash for a procedure than it is to get it done here in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
" In related news, if the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries were regulated, we wouldn't need insurance because the aforementioned industries wouldn't be allowed to charge anything they wanted simply because they can "
As an example:
A recent MRI ( of which I spent exactly ten minutes in the machine ) cost me $800 USD. EIGHT HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS for ten God Damn minutes.
This kind of shit is why the whole system needs to be regulated.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to split up the cost of the $1.5 - 3.0 million machine across everyone who uses it. Not to mention the cost of keeping the liquid helium cold or replacing it if the machine has to be shut down. $800 is probably still too high, but I wouldn't imagine it being cheap either.
Rates aren't the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to the ACA there were multiple instances of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s getting skin cancer and being denied care because they had acne medication when they were teenagers. The justification was that the the "acne" was in fact cancerous lesions.
If you think there's something wrong with that you're right. The only solution is to vote people who support single payer in. The hodge podge system we have now is going to collapse because it is being _made_ to collapse. So long as we don't have healthcare as a basic right someone will take it away for profit..
But the single payer folks now need overwhelming power thanks to our current SCOTUS, which is likely to cry the 10th Amendment on any legislation. We'll need to first get Medicare for All passed and then follow it up with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing all Americans healthcare. Otherwise we'll have to wait 40 years for the SCOTUS to change hands. We've got 45,000 people dying every year for lack of health care. If you're reading this you might be next. We can't wait that long.
Re: (Score:3)
It is, but think about it. You have to pretend to be interested in something you are not, and act as if it makes up a big part of your life. And you have to keep that up for a long time. That is hard. And then there is the added problem that people often get interested in things if they are forced to spend time on them, for instance because it's part of their job.