Anger at Health Insurance Prompts the Public to Fund a 9-Year-Old's Bionic Arm (yahoo.com) 236
A 9-year-old girl born without a left hand had "started asking for a robotic arm to help her feel more confident," her mother told the Washington Post. So her parents met with a consultant from Open Bionics, which fits people with lightweight, 3D-printed prostheses that function more like a natural arm and hand — known as Hero Arms.
The bionic arms are manufactured in Britain and cost about $24,000, but the Batemans were hopeful that their health insurance company, Select Health, would pay for one for [their 9-year-old daughter] Remi. Remi said she tried using one of the robotic arms for a few days in Colorado and was thrilled to cut her food with a knife and fork for the first time and carry plates with two hands. "I loved it so much — I could function like a full human," she said. "I was able to steal my dad's hat. When they fit me for my arm, I told them I wanted it to be pink."
On Oct. 1, the Batemans sent a prescription for the robotic arm and office notes from Remi's pediatrician to Select Health for approval. One week later, their request was denied, Jami Bateman said. "They sent us a letter saying it was not medically necessary for Remi to have a Hero Arm and that it was for cosmetic use only," she said. "We appealed twice and were again denied."
"It was very upsetting, and Remi cried when I told her, because we'd all been so hopeful," Bateman added. "It broke our hearts." In mid-December, a frustrated Jami Bateman tried an approach she'd seen other people use when their health insurance failed them: She started a GoFundMe for her daughter, hoping to purchase a robotic arm through the kindness of strangers.... Bateman was stunned when friends and strangers chipped in more than $30,000 in just a few days, surpassing the family's $24,000 goal. People who donated understood the Batemans' predicament, and many were furious on their behalf.
As donations poured in, the Batemans received a call from somebody else who wanted to help. Andy Schoonover is the CEO of CrowdHealth, a subscriber-based resource that helps people negotiate lower costs for medical bills. He told the family on Dec. 16 that his company wanted to pay the entire cost of Remi's bionic arm. "We were looking for some ways to help people during the holiday season, and I stumbled upon Remi's story on social media," Schoonover said. "We were honored to help her out...."
Remi quickly came up with an idea. "She came to me and said, 'Mom, I know how it feels to have one hand. Is there someone else we can help?" Bateman recalled. She said she contacted Open Bionics and learned there was a long list of children who had been turned down for Hero Arms by their health insurance companies for the same reason Remi was denied...
Somewhere in Maryland, the mother of a 9-year-old boy born without a left hand suddenly got a surprise phone call explaining Remi's decision. "I was so proud of Remi that I immediately started crying," she said. "She wanted to give my son an opportunity that I was unable to give him. It just touched my heart."
They had been trying to raise money by running a lemonade stand. But yesterday Remi's GoFundMe page posted an update. The 9-year-old boy's arm had now been paid for.
"And maybe, if more donations roll in we can help a third child!"
On Oct. 1, the Batemans sent a prescription for the robotic arm and office notes from Remi's pediatrician to Select Health for approval. One week later, their request was denied, Jami Bateman said. "They sent us a letter saying it was not medically necessary for Remi to have a Hero Arm and that it was for cosmetic use only," she said. "We appealed twice and were again denied."
"It was very upsetting, and Remi cried when I told her, because we'd all been so hopeful," Bateman added. "It broke our hearts." In mid-December, a frustrated Jami Bateman tried an approach she'd seen other people use when their health insurance failed them: She started a GoFundMe for her daughter, hoping to purchase a robotic arm through the kindness of strangers.... Bateman was stunned when friends and strangers chipped in more than $30,000 in just a few days, surpassing the family's $24,000 goal. People who donated understood the Batemans' predicament, and many were furious on their behalf.
As donations poured in, the Batemans received a call from somebody else who wanted to help. Andy Schoonover is the CEO of CrowdHealth, a subscriber-based resource that helps people negotiate lower costs for medical bills. He told the family on Dec. 16 that his company wanted to pay the entire cost of Remi's bionic arm. "We were looking for some ways to help people during the holiday season, and I stumbled upon Remi's story on social media," Schoonover said. "We were honored to help her out...."
Remi quickly came up with an idea. "She came to me and said, 'Mom, I know how it feels to have one hand. Is there someone else we can help?" Bateman recalled. She said she contacted Open Bionics and learned there was a long list of children who had been turned down for Hero Arms by their health insurance companies for the same reason Remi was denied...
Somewhere in Maryland, the mother of a 9-year-old boy born without a left hand suddenly got a surprise phone call explaining Remi's decision. "I was so proud of Remi that I immediately started crying," she said. "She wanted to give my son an opportunity that I was unable to give him. It just touched my heart."
They had been trying to raise money by running a lemonade stand. But yesterday Remi's GoFundMe page posted an update. The 9-year-old boy's arm had now been paid for.
"And maybe, if more donations roll in we can help a third child!"
And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three time (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they still donâ(TM)t have to pay for the damn arms.
We need to raise GoFundMe funds to lobby Congress to pass universal healthcare.
Growing pains (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you give them the cheapest, most generic prosthetics that are still useful to them. Maybe with expandable bits, maybe able to hand 'em down to the next kid when the current owner outgrows them.
Of course, "useful" is already an almost impossible barrier to overcome. A natural healthy human arm is a damn amazing tool, and can't really be replaced by strapping on a dead weight with a slow grasping device triggered by a muscle twitch sensor on a stump.
Re: (Score:3)
They will need to be replaced with larger ones, eventually. Once the kid grows to a point where they are less effective than a new set would be or cannot be used.
They are in fact medically necessary to provide high-quality care for their condition.
And no you don't restrict them to generic inexpensive prosthetics, because that is a low quality of care.
And I would say the insurance company should have to pay for them -- that is their job.
The insurance company just doesn't want to pay money.
Skimping on necess
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the US spends 2x as much on healthcare for similar outcomes as comparable countries doesn't mean the available money is infinite.
Somebody has to sit down and do the analysis to decide how the funds are best allocated based on cultural values, and ultimately nobody's going to get all the money to themselves. Somebody will be 'shortchanged', probably everybody to some degree.
Unless a prosthetic is 99.9% reusable and can serve multiple children in turn, it makes no sense to give a kid a top of th
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, "useful" is already an almost impossible barrier to overcome. A natural healthy human arm is a damn amazing tool, and can't really be replaced by strapping on a dead weight with a slow grasping device triggered by a muscle twitch sensor on a stump.
I know a guy (now in his 60s) who was born with no left hand. I knew him about a year before I realized it, because that was his natural state. He was so well adapted to it, that it wasn't obvious until he was trying to do something that really requires two sets of fingers (buttoning a shirt cuff, IIRC).
When he was young, he was fitted with what was then a state of the art artificial hand. He tried it, and it's been sitting in a drawer since. He told me once that the only thing he could imaging using it for
Re: (Score:2)
>I agree that this rewards the insurance company for denying coverage.
I really don't get these 'GoFundMe' stories as 'feel-good' stories. Each and every one is about a massive failure. Sometimes it's a societal one, sometimes a personal one, but rarely is it just some random bad luck for which there were no reasonable financial precautions to be taken.
Every time you see a donation campaign for someone with a health issue, you should be ashamed of your healthcare system and angry at the people who keep
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, children grow very fast. These prosthetics will be too small pretty soon.
I was thinking the same.
Was the insurance company wiling to buy a lower cost but less "cosmetic" prosthesis? If so then I can understand why a claim for a custom 3D printed prosthesis that cost $24,000 would get denied. There would likely be a claim like this every year until the patient matures in 10 years or so. That's a lot of money.
Wasn't there some news recently on hearing aids? The issue was that hearing aids cost a lot of money because they were regulated as medical devices versus something else.
Re: (Score:2)
If it doesn't get denied, somebody will go into business making a $50,000 arm that's just a little bit better and then stir outrage when that is determined "not medically necessary." We simply haven't accepted any rational basis for what medical expenses are justified given cheaper alternatives etc.
Re: (Score:3)
We already have death panels.
"Hey, UHC! I'd like to get preapproval for my brain surgery."
"Denied"
"What? Why?"
"We're a business."
"But my doctor says I'll die without it!"
"So? How is that our problem?"
"But I've been paying you guys my insurance premiums for years now, just for something like this!"
"And our shareholders thank you."
Re: (Score:2)
My god, how will a company like United Healthcare ever survive? https://www.macrotrends.net/st... [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Not universal healthcare.. We need a law that Penalizes all improper denials by insurance companies with Treble damages plus all litigation costs and additional penalties and sets the default legal presumption that all Denials by an insurer of procedures prescribed by qualified medical professionals are both improper + in bad faith, and if the denial was actually merited they can try to prove its legitimacy.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:3)
Some sort of random peer review by medical professionals. That keeps bad docs from collaborating to approve each other's prescriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they still donâ(TM)t have to pay for the damn arms.
We need to raise GoFundMe funds to lobby Congress to pass universal healthcare.
I've said this for a long time. Given that the government runs on baksheesh, the people can band together and buy some politicians. Once you own enough politicians, they will obey.
Good luck raising half a trillion (Score:2)
Universal healthcare would require a fundamental change in our culture. The idea that you shouldn't have to pay for somebody else to have something would need to go. The argument that universal healthcare makes doctors slaves would have to be seen as ridiculous by the majority of the population.
It's tough to do that because there's an animal instinct for fairness that can be exploite
Re: (Score:2)
Insurers spent $117M on lobbying last year. If they kept that up for 1000 years, they would still not have reached your improbable "half a trillion" claim.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:2)
Can someone please explain what "Select Health" is? Did they mean "SelectHealth"? Yes, these sorts of things matter, they managed to get the spacing on that CrowdWhatever company correct...
Confusion of for-profit healthcare with government (Score:2)
Maybe you could have got the Funny mod you deserved if you remembered that Slashdot is font crippled?
You also touched on a couple of serious issues, but I don't think you got anywhere close to insight, but perhaps that was FP haste and brevity?
For-profit healthcare is sick and "earns" larger profits in all the wrong ways. By letting sick people get sicker. By not curing "profitable" diseases. But mostly by favoring long-term treatment over accurate diagnoses that lead to short-term cures. Killing patients w
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we need employers to stop forcing us into crappy plans. The government can play a role here. Make the market for health insurance work better and give people better options for using those employer funds to save up money tax free in health savings accounts. Don't require minimum withdrawals under a certain age so people can save up while they are healthier.
The employer's HR benefits administrators choosing the cheapest plan or the one with the best sales team isn't a free market and doesn't put the decision making into the hands of the people actually using the health insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we need employers to stop forcing us into crappy plans.
Or not pay at all if we don't want to. That money could be used elsewhere for something useful such as housing or food or retirment funding. Or, it could be invested and used as an emergency fund if needed.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:2)
I am ok with an option out model for health like you can opt out of a 401k. But some minimum being required is probably more preferable overall. Most people need retirement savings beyond Social Security and will get sick before Medicare. Health Savings accounts should absolutely be an option to get whatever money the employer would have spent subsidizing the insurance plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have $250k to burn in the even of the need for a major hospitalization. Most people don't.
That's because they're wasting their money on insurance. Had they used the thousands of dollars they waste on insurance every year to buy an S&P 500 ETF, they would have the money for a hospitalization.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:2)
That cannot be true. If demand for stocks were to spike like that, the stocks would be priced out of range of most people. Anything with a guaranteed return on investment has a taxation basis somewhere backing it. Otherwise it has to fluctuate with supply/demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Its the only insurance thats tied to your job. Its practically a shackle. When I go from one job to another my homeowner insurance doesnt change. My life insurance usually doesn’t change. My car insurance doesn’t change. Yet I have to weigh the health insurance in my decision to take a job. This had been the case since the 60s when health insurance started to be a thing. Congress, both parties, thinks its good to make the employer pay for it. This is a disaster. The easy button is pretax deducti
Re: (Score:3)
"The employer's HR benefits administrators choosing the cheapest plan or the one with the best sales team isn't a free market and doesn't put the decision making into the hands of the people actually using the health insurance."
This. One company I worked for switched from BCBS to UHC because it was a "better deal".
And it probably was cheaper, since that's easier to do when you deny 1/3 of the claims submitted.
#rememberUHC
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:3)
No one would knowingly choose a health insurance that denies twice as many claims as their competitors. Give people choice and the bad actors get squeezed out of the market.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:5, Informative)
Already Universally Mandatory thanks to OsamaUncare...
For all intents and purposes, it is not mandatory. It's a mandate with no penalties for noncompliance. Have you forgotten that Trump's Congress from his first term defanged it? The penalties from the personal mandate were eliminated, turning it into a personal choice. If you have a policy solely because of the ACA, you are doing so by choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The penalties from the personal mandate were eliminated
It's amusing that the Rethugs were the ones to "defang" it, since Romneycare, which it's modeled on, had pretty onerous penalties. When Romneycare was imposed Democrats thought it was the the worst thing ever, but after a renaming and several million dollars of campaign cash from the insurance cartels they did a complete 180 and it became the best thing since the invention of the wheel.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:3)
Romneycare still has onerous penalties on Massachusetts for lack of insurance above a certain income
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OsamaUncare
And that, right there, is why nobody cares about you shit-eating Crossburning Inbred Klan Fuckboys.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:5, Informative)
Slavery, KKK, Jim Crow
I love when people say shit like this while completely forgetting that both parties have done a 180. Democrats of back then are now republicans. The republicans of back then are now democrats. You do not get to pin political party wins or losses of 80+ years ago on the party today. Especially when those parties no longer stand for any of what they did back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery, KKK, Jim Crow
I love when people say shit like this while completely forgetting that both parties have done a 180. Democrats of back then are now republicans. The republicans of back then are now democrats. You do not get to pin political party wins or losses of 80+ years ago on the party today. Especially when those parties no longer stand for any of what they did back then.
So your argument is because Democrats used to support slavery before they completely changed their part platform, then even though the current Democratic party hasn't supported racist policies in decades or centuries, we shouldn't hold those who currently espouse those views and enact those policies accountable for their words and actions? So... whatabout-what-you-did-150-years-ago-when-you-were-somebody-else-ism?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure there are no Republican politicians out there who want to repeal the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth amendments to the Constitution, or think of imaginative ways to make sure that racial minorities have no representation in Congress at all, or scheme to make sure that racial minorities cannot vote in their primaries, write letters about how they do not want the secret to get out that they are trying to exterminate the black race, who intend to resegregate the military or federal by race, wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, both the ideologies and geographic concentrations of both parties flipped. It wasn't a quick flip or anything - it took decades.
The Southern Strategy. Republicans wanted to seize control of the South. To do it, and to get the then racist democrats that supported slavery, they had to allow the racism in their party. Meanwhile, democrats were pushing those people out and moving more north. Check out a 1920s electoral map - red in the north, blue in the south. Current day is red south, blue north.
But, yea
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO. You really just linked to a blog (not a valid source). From a fiction novelist (definitely not a valid source). And a libertarian (really, really not a valid source).
I can't imagine being stupid enough to fall for that. Especially when it has "think for yourself" plastered all over and no libertarian thinks for themselves. They're literally too stupid to do so.
Re: And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the numbers it's all red states signing up for the affordable care act. https://www.kff.org/affordable... [kff.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Pick one. Meanwhile I have health insurance b
Re:And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three t (Score:4, Insightful)
Government provided health care has been found to work the world over in first world countries. No it's not perfect, but everyone gets a basic, decent, level of health care regardless of income and doesn't have to worry about the cost of it.
Private health care has failed.
Let's try the solution that's proven to work. It is extraordinarily dumb to keep trying the same failed "solution" over and over again simply because you want to keep voting for politicians that you secretly know are morons who hate you but can't admit it. (Because let's be honest, that's the reason you oppose single payer or state provided healthcare - you're ideologically aligned with the morons, and you know they'd fuck it up.)
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question, would a 9-year-old in Britain or Canada get a $24,000 bionic arm, or a cheaper alternative?
Re:And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three t (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. "How to get your Hero Arm through the NHS":
https://openbionics.com/en/nhs... [openbionics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the CEOâ(TM)s heart swelled up three t (Score:4, Interesting)
A single point of MALIGNANCY? Are you MAD?!
Yes, insurance and healthcare need reform. Making it a single of FAIL is NOT the solution.
Mad? Perhaps. But I think about three things when I think about the viability of socialized medicine:
1. It's good enough for Congress.
2. Common sense suggests that if everyone had coverage, costs would go down if only because the poor would have preventative health care, which reduces acute care costs, and they wouldn't have to use the extremely costly (to the rest of us) ER for routine medical care -- even before you start accounting for the millions in wasted administrative overhead that would be eliminated.
3. Many studies show that switching to single-payer would save both the individual and the government money, including one the Koch Brothers funded with the intent of shooting down the idea, but ended up being one of the biggest supporting studies for Single Payer: Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. trillions [usw.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I’d rather raise funds to force Congress to vote for their own term limits. Starting to think that is how we will get universal healthcare.
California has term limits. It led to elected officials who aren't around long enough to learn the basic mechanisms of the state government, and cannot do anything without relying on nameless, faceless professional bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone for anything. We also have the highest energy costs, especially gasoline (in a state where you either drive a car, or live in a cardboard box - literally), highest unemployment rates, highest housing costs, highest homeless rates, and worst business c
Re: (Score:2)
GoFundMe is magical thinking, not a cure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GoFundMe is magical thinking, not a cure (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not aware of the particulars beyond the summary, but perhaps I could try to reason out why this claim was denied. One immediate possibility that jumps out is that the patient was is only nine and will continue outgrowing any robotic limb. I'm assuming that doesn't require replacing the entire device at full cost each time, but it's not something that grows with the individual.
Regardless of that, there's no perfect system that will produce infinite medical care on demand in the manner which you want. This may be upsetting to you or others, but it's simple reality. The U.S. cost more, but has some of the shortest waiting times for seeing specialists and for major surgeries. It's typical for wealthier Canadians, for example, to get treatment in the U.S. simply because it's quicker. There are also too many people who mistake the absence of a bill to be paid for the notion of "free" healthcare as though taxes don't exist.
I'm sure some will also mistake my post as a defense or an endorsement of the U.S. system, which it isn't. Like too many other systems (e.g. education) it has become overrun with administrators and bureaucrats that only get in the way of the actual providers. Worse still those parasites have become so imbedded that making change has become difficult as they lobby government for rules and regulations that enable them to remain in place so they can keep funneling money to politicians who function similarly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but the ACA mandates that a percentage of premiums be spend on medical care (this is referred to as the Medical Loss Ratio within the law) so any approval made and paid is money that doesn't go towards some other approval.
Incorrect. The ACA sets a MINIMUM of 80% of premiums must be spent on care not a maximum. If they aren't meeting that ratio they would be forced to lower premiums or find a way to spend more money on their policyholders' care. The mandated ratio is nothing more than a cap on their maxi
Re: (Score:2)
"The mandated ratio is nothing more than a cap on their maximum profit "
It's not even that, it just a limit on the profit than can be taken directly from the premium overages because THAT'S NOT HOW YOU MAKE MONEY UNDERWRITING INSURANCE.
Pooling risk means you are converting random expenses to systematic cash flow. You can then reinvest the float. You just need a little bit of overage to cover some of the variation and then you buy reinsurance yourself for the outlier events.
Re: GoFundMe is magical thinking, not a cure (Score:2)
I am going to blow your mind. Insurance companies get to use the pre-discount amount when they claim their government regulated medical loss ratio is within 80% to 85%. And yes, those discounts are dynamically chosen every quarter or so so they exactly meet this rate.
Re: (Score:2)
"This may be upsetting to you or others, but it's simple reality. The U.S. cost more, but has some of the shortest waiting times for seeing specialists and for major surgeries. It's typical for wealthier Canadians, for example, to get treatment in the U.S. simply because it's quicker."
When calculating wait times, how to you weight the patient that was denied the procedure by their insurance company?
Mental Health (Score:2)
Re: Mental Health (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit mind boggling that insurance is required by law to cover gender affirming care, but not limb affirming care? I identity as wanting to have hands and feet.
Wipe out the Health Insurance Companies (Score:5, Insightful)
The welfare of the people is tasked specifically to the Government, not private entities.
End this scam and hang every healthcare C*O, every major shareholder, the lawyers behind it all, the lobbyists making it happen, and maybe we'll start seeing real change in this country.
Oh, and if you have Kaiser Permanente as your insurance provider - they're blatantly committing prescription billing fraud, and I have financial documentation via my bank to prove it.
Kill 'em all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kill 'em all.
I'm not sure that's a precedent you want to set. First it's insurance CEOs. Next it's people that work in oil and energy. Next it's people that sell pesticides or operate LLMs or high frequency traders or right wingers or that guy that threw you under the bus in workplace politics. And certainly OB/GYNs, leaders of the wrong religion, vocal atheists, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
True, he doesn't think he'll be in any of the targeted groups.
You have eight too many words at the end of that sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for limiting that to 'major' shareholders. I have a fair amount of evil in my portfolio, on the grounds that "if I don't, someone else will, and I like making money". A variation of the tragedy of the commons, I suppose.
Anyway, I'd be happy to have those investments disappear as options (I'll simultaneously vote for politicians who promise legislation that counters my personal financial interest), but as long as they exist and are among the better investments, I'm going to keep investing in evi
Does nobody see the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lot of problems in the American health care system, but this story exemplifies a particularly important one: everyone gets to move the goalposts.
Companies invent a new medical device (Goalpost gets moved). Insurance company denies claim for treatment (Goalpost gets moved). Groundswell of parent and public complaints [potentially] pressures company to approve payment (Goalpost gets moved).
But we have to do it, because "think of the children", right?
And all the while, insurance gets more expensive for everyone. Because, who really pays when we give bionic arms to everyone who has a need for one? Everybody, because everybody pays for insurance.
Ladies and gentlemen, America's health care system is the Titanic, and we all know where it's headed. I started negotiating with a union 20 years ago, and our biggest concern at the time was back-to-back 15% increases in health insurance premium rates. Back in 2004, our premium was $300 a month. Doing some quick math, I predicted a continued 15% increases in premiums set against 2.5% increases in salaries would lead to premium costs that were half our salary in 2037 and our whole salary in 2044. If a fresh-out-of-college math teacher could see that catastrophe on the horizon, I thought, surely someone would fix the problem before it's too late. Nope.
Unlimited exponential growth is unsustainable. Eventually, people will be priced out of paradise.
Until we have strict controls that put limits on what medical devices will be covered by insurance, and limit industries from setting ridiculous profit margins on devices because those costs are covered by insurance, industries will keep inventing more of them, and we'll all have to keep paying for them, and costs will keep going up.
Because "think of the children". And think of the insurance bills we'll be burdening them all with by continuing this unsustainable game of moving the goalposts.
Re: (Score:3)
And all the while, insurance gets more expensive for everyone. Because, who really pays when we give bionic arms to everyone who has a need for one?
This is not why insurance is expensive. Bionic arms are not new, and 30K is not a high priced medical procedure. $30,000 is about equivalent in cost to a one-day hospital stay with any common surgical procedure.
It is why insurance is expensive (Score:2)
It's expensive, because nobody sets any limits.
$30,000 is not expensive for one person. But we're not limiting this to one person, nor are we limiting the cost. Why not add more features and options and raise the cost to $300,000, or three million?
With no limits to prices, prices know no limits.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be arguing that if something doesn't exist, it isn't needed. [wikipedia.org]
I think the real problem is that the increased productivity from innovation mainly benefits the people at the top and doesn't trickle down. In other words, health insurance isn't good enough, we need something non-regressive like Single Payer.
Not what I'm arguing (Score:3)
I'm arguing that industries exist to invent things, not for the benefit of prolonging life or increasing quality of life, but for making ridiculous profit margins and getting insurance to agree to pay for it.
Why do I need to pay $300 for an epinephrine auto-injector when its medicine only costs $1 [wtvm.com]? Why the hell does this exist [visualcapitalist.com]? Because nobody limits the cost. My government forces me to buy insurance that allows for that price to exist, because my premiums have to pay for it. And it also pays the insuran
Re: (Score:3)
And all the while, insurance gets more expensive for everyone. Because, who really pays when we give bionic arms to everyone who has a need for one? Everybody, because everybody pays for insurance.
What a crock of shit. https://www.macrotrends.net/st... [macrotrends.net]
They could pay for a 100,000 bionic arms and still turn a profit. Hell at that rate you'd get a better volume discount.
Re: (Score:2)
People hate the heartless math, but you sit down and figure out what an average human life is worth, then you figure out the costs of having them continue without help. Medical care up should be funded up to that calculated cost without question. It's just sound financial planning at the society level.
Sure, sometimes you're spending money on somebody who will never be productive enough to make it back, but you'll also be spending money on people who would have made it back regardless. It evens out.
Now, o
In complete agreement (Score:2)
Calculating car insurance rates are easy, because every car has a defined value that depreciates in value over time (usually, COVID-irregularities aside). Calculating health insurance rates are ridiculously difficult, because costs are not defined. (Obamacare removed practically all limits to annual insurance payouts, which had existed previously. Now that they don't.)
What is the price of a human? While it's impossible to settle a debate on how invaluable a human life is, we don't have to. There's a si
Re: (Score:2)
>There's a similar measurement where we calculate how much humans are willing to spend to reduce our risk of death.
Since there's no perfect answer, I like this one as a potential 'good enough' or 'best we can likely manage'.
Still... people are really bad at risk assessment and will spend a lot on incredibly unlikely things that frighten them, while not spending on things that are almost certainly going to bite them in the ass at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything else was paid out-of pocket by consumers with lots of choices/alternatives, feedback, and transparency about what they are buying and what it costs; so they shopped around carefully and kept prices lower.
That's the way things still are in many parts of the world. In the Philippines, there are private health care systems where everything is charged up front. I was taken to one about a decade ago, and I paid $12 to enter and meet with a doctor. My doctor ordered a chest x-ray. I was directed to
Re: (Score:2)
>"We have adequately proven that it is impossible to provide universal healthcare. No one can do it. It is simply not possible."
Being possible isn't the question. Being affordable AND having innovation AND preventing over-rationing AND crazy waits.... that is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
>"We have adequately proven that it is impossible to provide universal healthcare. No one can do it. It is simply not possible."
Being possible isn't the question. Being affordable AND having innovation AND preventing over-rationing AND crazy waits.... that is something else.
Whish is just impossible with more steps. The USA is not capable of insuring everyone. Universal healthcare is beyond our ability.
I could be proven wrong of course - hut our history says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, it could be done. But it would be a system with severely rationed/limited and price-controlled care. Most innovation would be lost, most new drug development and advanced treatments would stop, and the care would be very basic and take forever. Unless outlawed, anyone with any means would then have to pay for real care or real insurance. Many other countries have that model, and they have been benefiting from the USA's research, innovation, and products... once that stops here, they will suffer e
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, it could be done. But it would be a system with severely rationed/limited and price-controlled care. Most innovation would be lost, most new drug development and advanced treatments would stop, and the care would be very basic and take forever.
You are onto something. Quadruple insurance prices, and eliminate any payout. We'll have a golden age of innovation and drugs will be amazing as payout will not get in the way of the innovation that will go away if they companies become a read only setup. Health insurance perfection.
Sunday morning sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it could be done. With limits.
We have public schools. But they have budgets. They can afford only so much building space, and only so many teachers, and only so many books and technology devices. Et cetera.
We can have public hospitals. With budgets. With limits to building spaces, and doctors, and nurses, and limits to care. There will still be private industry, that provides supplementary care. And private insurance, that provides extra amounts of supplemental coverage. But at least ever
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the last time the government tried to tackle this problem, they got shamed into oblivion under chants of "Death Panels" from the public.
Yet Death Panels already exist. They're just called "claims examiners" [bls.gov].
But until we put a limit on the price of a life, life will remain priceless. And so will wrongful death payouts.
Anger directed at healthcare CEOs is justified (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And why is health care system the *"insurance"* in USA? Health is not something I can (decide to) live without like my crashed car or burned house. I do not pay for Police Department insurance or Fire Department use insurance or "need to use public road" insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of a place where the cops are optional, but fire I have. Don't pay your insurance, fire will respond only to protect your insured neighbors if your fire spreads too far.
Since fire doesn't care about property lines, I consider that absolutely insane, but it is the reality in some places.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were on Luigi Mangione jury, I would push for jury nullification. [wikipedia.org]
If I were his lawyer, I certainly would. Not the right answer, but the jury may decide it's less wrong than any other option.
Re: (Score:2)
> If I were on Luigi Mangione jury, I would push for jury nullification.
The problem is that Luigi didn't have insurance issues, and even if he had, he didn't go after the CEO of the company that he did business with. He just got angry about his medical outcome (which sucked, medicine is not magic) and picked a target.
Now... he picked a good target. I shed not a single tear over that guy's death, he was an amoral bastard presiding over a company causing a lot of harm well over the acceptable line for a
Cheaper (Score:5, Funny)
"The bionic arms are manufactured in Britain and cost about $24,000"
The cost of bionics have come down a lot since Steve Austin's day.
Already seen the commercial (Score:2)
Not sure about the funding, but wasn't this bionic arm created by a high school kid with help from Meta's LLama 3 AI? I saw it on the TV commercial: a fully functional exo-skeletal prosthetic arm and hand, sort of a web of lit-up smart material, perfectly articulated and controlled by your natural brainwaves (picked up and read at the the stump attach point). Just stick it on a stump and you're good to go! It looks like fucking sci-fi and is about 60-100 years more advanced than what we had before Meta ca
Wow (Score:2)
"...but the Batemans were hopeful that their health insurance company, Select Health, would pay for one for [their 9-year-old daughter] Remi."
Wow, the Batemans were dumb as fuck. They actually thought insurance would pay for this without a fight to the death.
There is no "health" or "care" in this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Please put these CEOs, COOs, and CFOs out of the collective misery.
The US has the worst healthcare of any industrialized nation, but worse than that, there's no HEALTH and no CARE in healthcare.
It's about maximizing the profit of the shareholders.
You know what? How about healthcare companies not being allowed to be a public shareholder owned company. Make [legislate]
them all to be public trusts... like utilities.
Revoke the publicly traded company status.
Remove the shareholders.
Kill the C-suite leeches.
3D-printed -- OSS DiY (Score:2)
Would it be not cheaper to create GoFound to open source this and have it been build-able on demand? There would be tons of people wanted to help beyond money.
the insurance company is right, its cosmetic (Score:2)
$24,000 is over twice as expensive as a traditional split hook prosthetic arm. She needs to learn how to use a split hook before she grows up and has to provide for herself. I knew a gid growing up that had a split hook and he had no problem using scissors or tying his shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there's a variant of the Hero Arm that can be had for around $6000... and for some reason 2x that in the US. Still, if you find a more complex prosthetic useful, maybe a flight to the UK for the purchase and fitting is in order if that's in your price range.
I'd love to have a chat with a prosthetics designer about the current technology, because it seems to me if we'd just give up on the 'it must look realistic' part (which, if you look around, we have - obvious prosthetics can be 'cool' now), yo
Re:Not heartwarming (Score:5, Interesting)
It produces RAGE. Billion of dollars per year paid in taxes and premiums to these insurance companies who spend all their energy figuring out how to make profit off peopleâ(TM)s suffering.
What is ironic about this problem, is finding most offices accepting a reasonable cash price as an alternative. Now I don’t know if they technically take a loss from a business perspective or not, but the point is insurance can and has been made irrelevant by this alternative payment option before.
Perhaps we need to work with doctors offices and try and pay cash for everything. Doctors office sure as shit don’t want to deal with insurance any more than we do, so should be a win-win a lot of the time. Force insurance companies to do what they should be doing all along; compete for the best price.
Re: (Score:3)
You are hitting one of the realities.
People with modern insurance generally have no or little care or knowledge for what anything actually costs, nor any direct rewards for shopping around. It breaks the free market completely, so there are no inherent cost controls through competition. It is even worse when the only affordable insurance you have is your employer's. You have no real choice in the matter.
Insurance was never meant to pay for general health maintenance. It was designed, originally, to cove
Re: (Score:2)
"Insurance was never meant to pay for general health maintenance. It was designed, originally, to cover catastrophic illness/accident."
Except most health care really is for random events, where you can't actually meet the criteria for a free market. Much of the rest is cases where the insurance company has an incentive to reduce future costs.
"Insurance companies *do* negotiate rates with providers. But they can't possibly do it as well as informed consumers."
That is completely implausible, since an insuranc
Re: (Score:2)
>"Except most health care really is for random events, where you can't actually meet the criteria for a free market."
Actually, most health care, by volume, is routine/maintenance care for things like asthma, diabetes, blood pressure, allergies, flu/colds, cuts, birth control, vaccinations, weight management, etc.
>"The problem isn't the healthcare/insurance model. The problem is Americans are bad at capitalism."
Or you could flip it around and say Americans are bad at socialism :)
Re: (Score:2)
What is ironic about this problem, is finding most offices accepting a reasonable cash price as an alternative. Now I don’t know if they technically take a loss from a business perspective or not, but the point is insurance can and has been made irrelevant by this alternative payment option before.
Perhaps we need to work with doctors offices and try and pay cash for everything. Doctors office sure as shit don’t want to deal with insurance any more than we do, so should be a win-win a lot of the time. Force insurance companies to do what they should be doing all along; compete for the best price.
It's called the concierge model, and it's been out there for years. I had a specialist who converted to that only. Pay him a monthly fee, and have unlimited access to his services. (He'd still bill your insurance company, but with a lot less concern about them ever paying). Unfortunately, that means paying the actual cost of services you need, no pooled with lots and lots of other people who don't need that same level of service at the moment. His monthly fee was about 50% of my take home pay.
The original i
Re: Not heartwarming (Score:2)
Most doctors do not take a loss when accepting cash versus insurance. Insurance requires accepting a dynamically allocated discount so that way insurance companies can meet their government mandated Medical Loss ratio of 80% to 85%. That's also if an insurance company decides to pay out.
Re:You can keep collecting money like that â (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the posts in this discussion. It is guaranteed you'll have at least a couple of posts arguing that this is the only way it can be, that it's the best method, etc. And if you tell them just to look at other countries who are doing it better, they'll deny or tell you that system just couldn't be implemented in the US.
Too many people in the US are indoctrinated into blind faith in a free market, imagining themselves to be temporarily embarrassed billionaires. Too many have Pavlovian training to react to anything 'socialist' as if that's the most evil thing in existence.
Americans put up with their healthcare system because it's what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to be bankrupted by medical costs, but if someone down the street from them gets bankrupted, "who the fuck cares?"
They don't want to be denied care, but if someone else down the street needs care, "where's my handout!?"
They don't want to die in a neglectful nursing home, but if someone else doesn't pay for the enforcement of care standards, "they should have saved more for elderly care."
They don't want to be abandoned by the roa
Re:Um (Score:4, Informative)
In other words healthcare in the USA has been shitty for ages. We pay top dollar and get bottom tier service relative to the rest of the developed word. Literally every other country with a functioning government has this figured out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, terrorism has worked out so well in the past, for everyone who has ever tried it.
Re: (Score:2)
While most of the stories the public sees are about how wonderful prosthetics are... the truth is apparently that many amputees find them clumsy and more of a burden than a help, and will wear them mostly for cosmetic purposes.
Until there's full two-way nerve communication and direct bone-mounting, it'll never be great. We're in an era where they're getting to be 'better than going without, in some cases, if you spend a lot money'.
So it does not surprise me in the slightest than an insurance company would
Re: (Score:3)
$12K/person, 200,000 people in the US with upper limbs missing.
That's 2.4 billion right there. That's something like half a percent of his current estimated net worth.
However, you don't get richer by giving your money away. The smart move would be to start a prosthetics company and use his connection to Trump to ensure he gets a sole source contract to provide them at $10K/ea (less than the current US price), make them for $6K/ea (approx current price of a Hero Arm in the UK), then run up the contract to