• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Health Care and your experiences

People can get used to almost anything, as long as the changes are gradual. Americans in particular seem to be unaware that there is even the possibility of doing things any other way than the way they grew up with; Many US opponents of universal health care are happy to declare impossible (and to provide detailed theories as to why they are impossible) things that are currently actually being done elsewhere.

Sounds true. Too many Americans have never been anywhere else, or if they were, they didn't need health care. I've seen more than one Conservative declare, "I was opposed to UHC until I got (sick/injured) in (foreign country) and boy, was I surprised."
 
The British NHS is superb. I have had one major operation and a good deal of treatment, and at least I don't have to worry about money. It must be hell to live in places where the poor are left to die. Our tories are desperate to destroy the system, but if they ever succeed they will be longing to bring it back to treat their own injuries. The NHS is far more popular than the monarchy.

Cool that you get good treatment in the UK, considering that the UK spends comparatively little on health care.
 
My understanding was that Type 1 means you are dead without insulin. So by "we can't just let people die" logic they have to give it to you free if you can't afford it.

The emergency rooms do have to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, but that is only to get the person stabilized. It is not for the necessary ongoing medical care required by a diabetic.

There is nothing anywhere in the US system that says a diabetic (or anyone else with a life-threatening chronic disease) must be given life-saving medicines or treatments for "free if you can't afford it". Quite the opposite, and the Republican stance seems to be more like "eat shit and die".
 
My understanding was that Type 1 means you are dead without insulin. So by "we can't just let people die" logic they have to give it to you free if you can't afford it.

The emergency rooms do have to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, but that is only to get the person stabilized. It is not for the necessary ongoing medical care required by a diabetic.

There is nothing anywhere in the US system that says a diabetic (or anyone else with a life-threatening chronic disease) must be given life-saving medicines or treatments for "free if you can't afford it". Quite the opposite, and the Republican stance seems to be more like "eat shit and die".

What happens if somebody comes into a hospital and doesn't have "their papers"? If they remain unconscious or just refuse to identify themselves.
 
The emergency rooms do have to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, but that is only to get the person stabilized. It is not for the necessary ongoing medical care required by a diabetic.

There is nothing anywhere in the US system that says a diabetic (or anyone else with a life-threatening chronic disease) must be given life-saving medicines or treatments for "free if you can't afford it". Quite the opposite, and the Republican stance seems to be more like "eat shit and die".

What happens if somebody comes into a hospital and doesn't have "their papers"? If they remain unconscious or just refuse to identify themselves.

If it is a life-threatening medical emergency, the ER is required to provide medical services to stabilize the person regardless of citizenship status. I believe this is only applicable to hospitals that accept medicare (a federal program), but that is just about every hospital anyway.

The shocking part of this (to me) is that this law has only been in place since 1986.
 
The emergency rooms do have to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, but that is only to get the person stabilized. It is not for the necessary ongoing medical care required by a diabetic.

There is nothing anywhere in the US system that says a diabetic (or anyone else with a life-threatening chronic disease) must be given life-saving medicines or treatments for "free if you can't afford it". Quite the opposite, and the Republican stance seems to be more like "eat shit and die".

What happens if somebody comes into a hospital and doesn't have "their papers"? If they remain unconscious or just refuse to identify themselves.
The conservative response is something along the lines of "Let them eat cake."
 
I’ve been lucky enough to have a decent income most of my working life, although the last 10-12 years of my career I worked as an independent contractor, which meant that I had to provide my own insurance, and also meant some time periods when I was between jobs. Insurance cost me about $1100 USD/mo, for myself and my wife. This was good insurance and we had no complaints. I will add that as a contractor you generally make more than a full time employee, to help defray just that kind of cost.

I’m now retired and on Medicare, as is my wife. I find no difference in the quality of care generally (same doctor etc.). For my “supplemental” as well as Part B and Part D costs I am putting out about $9,000 USD per year, so the cost is down, but not nearly what you would think when you hear that Medicare is “free.”

The real farce is Part D (prescription drug assistance). I buy my one fairly expensive drug through an international mail order pharmacy, because Part D is a boondoggle that apparently exists for the benefit of Big Pharma.

I have a mild form of a genetic disease for which until very recently there was no cure. It is generally lethal, but my neurologist can’t predict if I will die from it before old age or some other disease gets me first. (Mostly this disease – SMA – is known for killing infants and young children.)

However they have recently, within the last three or four months, come up with a “cure,” which involves five “spinal tap” injections your first year, and then three per year after that, for as long as you live. However it eliminates the symptoms of the disease and means a longer, normal life. The cost? Roughly $150,000 USD per injection, which means after the first year ($750,000) you settle down to $450,000 per year.

They’re making deals with insurance companies to bring the costs down to reachable levels, but have no deal with Medicare. For Medicare patients they say, on their website, basically, “Sorry, you’re SOL.”

I can still walk unassisted (I frequently use a walker), although I fall a lot. I can no longer safely negotiate stairs. I can only get out of a chair if it has arms to push on. In ten years I will probably be wheelchair bound. This is not the worst fate. Still, it bothers me knowing that there is a cure out there which our shitty health care system won’t let me access.
 
With everything we have happening, one thing I am grateful for is the relatively inexpensive costs.

Dad's colonoscopy and mum's op will both be free of charge under Medicare. Mum is also going to be implanted with a seed as an experimental way to administer radiation. I don't fully understand it. This is also free of charge. This will be done at the teaching university hospital on the Gold Coast.

Having watched Border Security and Customs shows on tv, I can certainly understand why pregnant women want to be in Australia or the UK to have their babies.
 
Mum is also going to be implanted with a seed as an experimental way to administer radiation. I don't fully understand it.

Most likely this will be Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy, using one or more 'seeds' of radioactive material (eg Iodine-125 or Palladium-103, which produce gamma rays in the 20-35keV 'hard x-ray' range) implanted at the tumor site for at least several days, and in some cases, 'permanently' - These isotopes have half-lives of 60 and 17 days, respectively, so the effective dose from permanent implants drops rapidly, and is negligible after several months, making removal unnecessary in many cases; The treatment is not really permanent, even though the implant remains in the patient for life.

The short effective range of these low energy gamma rays mean that the majority of the tissue damage they cause is concentrated in the immediate area of the tumour bed, killing any cancerous cells that might have remained after the lumpectomy, while causing minimal damage to healthy tissues in the remainder of the breast.

This appears to be an effective treatment approach for patients with early-stage breast cancer, and allows for what the literature describes as 'good to excellent' cosmetic results, as only a tiny area around the tumor site is affected - certainly a great improvement over mastectomy, for patients whose cancer has been detected sufficiently early.

That she has been considered for this option at all suggests that the oncologist is fairly confident that the prognosis is good, with timely treatment, so it is a cause for some optimism.
 
This, and as Loren says, one still needs enough money to pay the premiums and copays as well. If I were lucky, I would be able to perhaps afford bronze plan premiums, but the deductible is so high the plans are all but useless except in the case of a hospital stay. Note the average deductible for a single payer in Obamacare is $6092.00.

ETA: Oh, and if I spend more than half the year uninsured I get hit with the tax penalty next year.

Even if it doesn't pay a penny it's useful for knocking bills down to reasonable.

I recall some years back a repeated go-round with the lab. They got a date wrong and got a claim rejected. I didn't meet the deductible that year, it was going to be entirely out of pocket, I just wanted the insurance to approve it so the charge would be what's appropriate, not the ~10x amount the lab wanted. The lab just kept blindly resubmitting the bill without fixing the problem and ended up dropping the whole thing when the insurance company finally rejected it as too late rather than duplicate.

I used to work in the business part of a medical clinic.

Every single one of those bills costs something. Those costs are built into whatever medical care is provided by your medical provider(s) just as is the cost for nursing staff, office staff, cleaning staff, Q-tips, band aids, office supplies, etc. Everything and every employee you see in the doctor's office is something that is being paid for by the patient in addition to lots of stuff you never see.

Some insurance companies simply make it a practice to reject all claims initially. Period. Doesn't matter if it's been coded correctly, is for covered services after your co-pays and deductibles have been met: it's just rejected. This forces the provider to re-submit a claim, often with additional documentation --documentation is standard, btw, but some payers insist on more and more because it allows them to delay paying the bills that they are obligated to pay by contract. There is no benefit to an insurer to pay quickly and paying the schmo who rejects claims to reject claims is cheaper in the long run than paying the bill. Not all insurers do that but some will.

That practice costs EVERYONE money. For ZERO value. ZERO. In fact for negative value because it causes stress in the patient who is often someone who is quite concerned about their bills and can only afford cut rate insurance that pulls this stunt.

Of course, if a provider gives up or the patient gives up and pays themselves, it's great with the insurer.

That bit that is 'knocked down to something reasonable' is based upon the discount in costs that is negotiated between the provider and the insurer. Those without insurance pay full freight and when they don't, those costs are rolled into the base cost for EVERY SINGLE SERVICE a provider offers. It's really just pushing costs down the road and onto other people as best the insurer can.

Do providers make mistakes in billing? Of course they do, often because of data entry errors, coding errors, etc.

Do insurance companies claim that the the provider is re-submitting the claim without fixing the errors (or 'errors')? You betcha they do.
 
From discussions with Bilby, I gather this has been discussed ad nauseum before, however, I am curious about how you access health care.
For 20 years i had whatever the military had at the base i was stationed.

I used to laugh at people who fought health care reform by protesting 'You won't be able to pick your own doctor!'

Who the fuck cares? I never understood that. For 20 years, i showed up a sick call and got a corpsman, then escalated to whoever had the authority to prescribe something and send me home. I thought picking a doctor seems like something of a luxury to be considered AFTER we're sure we'll have ANY doctor. At some ccommands, we got an 'independent duty corpsman,' which means an enlisted who was really really good at saying, "Take two aspirin and sleep it off."

Retired now, working for a military contractor, i've got a $3000 deductible. The insurance pays pretty close to nothing until after i pay that.
Between my diabetes, chronic eye bleeding, and the various specialists we require, my family usually meets that around May.

The company has a 'matching funds' policy with regard to my HSA. At the start of the year, they put $1300 into the account, and take monthly withdrawls from my pay so that i make at least a matching contribution by the end of the year. However, it's not really the company paying matching funds. What they do is loan me $1300 at the start of the year, so i have SOMETHING in my HSA, and i can pay the loan back over the year, along with making my contributions.

Doctors, PAs, nurse practioners are not all identical, are not all equally skilled are not cogs on a wheel. Nor are patients.

I have given up on medical providers in my town (except for dentist and eye/vision people) because of some crazy bad stuff I know about, including foolishly refusing to consider serious diagnosis that was not the run of the mill/easily handled right on the spot. In a couple of cases, people died. In one case involving my husband, the provider was content to delay delay delay and and ultimately, my husband would be dead right now if I had not insisted he be seen somewhere else.

So there are levels of competence--and there is also whether there is good communication and trust between the patient and the provider. That matters almost as much as competence.
 
For 20 years i had whatever the military had at the base i was stationed.

I used to laugh at people who fought health care reform by protesting 'You won't be able to pick your own doctor!'

Who the fuck cares? I never understood that. For 20 years, i showed up a sick call and got a corpsman, then escalated to whoever had the authority to prescribe something and send me home. I thought picking a doctor seems like something of a luxury to be considered AFTER we're sure we'll have ANY doctor. At some ccommands, we got an 'independent duty corpsman,' which means an enlisted who was really really good at saying, "Take two aspirin and sleep it off."

Retired now, working for a military contractor, i've got a $3000 deductible. The insurance pays pretty close to nothing until after i pay that.
Between my diabetes, chronic eye bleeding, and the various specialists we require, my family usually meets that around May.

The company has a 'matching funds' policy with regard to my HSA. At the start of the year, they put $1300 into the account, and take monthly withdrawls from my pay so that i make at least a matching contribution by the end of the year. However, it's not really the company paying matching funds. What they do is loan me $1300 at the start of the year, so i have SOMETHING in my HSA, and i can pay the loan back over the year, along with making my contributions.

Doctors, PAs, nurse practioners are not all identical, are not all equally skilled are not cogs on a wheel. Nor are patients.

I have given up on medical providers in my town (except for dentist and eye/vision people) because of some crazy bad stuff I know about, including foolishly refusing to consider serious diagnosis that was not the run of the mill/easily handled right on the spot. In a couple of cases, people died. In one case involving my husband, the provider was content to delay delay delay and and ultimately, my husband would be dead right now if I had not insisted he be seen somewhere else.

So there are levels of competence--and there is also whether there is good communication and trust between the patient and the provider. That matters almost as much as competence.

I'm really sorry to hear about that doc who delayed doing a thorough diagnosis for your husband, Toni. That probably should have been offered right away - as an option at the very least IMHO. It's rare IME that real gross negligence is responsible for delays, but if the suspected condition could be life threatening I think there are certain ethical requirements to triage those concerns to the front.

To the bolded point, it's nice being in a little town with a big hospital and a lot of docs. I also have the advantage of being right on the periphery of the medical community because of what my Company does. It is interesting to glean what those docs and various specialists think of each other. :) But really, the main benefit is simply my own complete comfort with getting advice and opinions - from people who know their stuff, at least in their specialty. Monday I have an appointment with Dr H, a local orthopedic surgeon. If the referral was an utter stranger I'd be a bit nervous about it. But he's a guy whose skills I've heard other docs gush over, speaking almost enviously, I know a bunch of his patients and have hung out with him a little at a party or two. I have no doubt that almost anyone else with Dr H's credentials would be just as competent, and maybe even more attentive if they were some young doc trying to gain reputation and all that. But I'd be nervous right now if I never heard of him and had an appointment on Monday - and I'm not.

I guess Keith is just braver than I am, to be able to take it in stride to be designated a doctor. But I do know a lot of "medical" people, and by and large they're very good to excellent at what they do, especially considering the constraints and pressures on them. Knowing that as well as I do, it would be irrational of me to be nervous, but...
 
My husband and I are in extremely fortunate circumstances. We are both employed by large employers and have access to extremely good health insurance coverage that is affordable to us. I carry my husband on my insurance; he covers me. My insurance is a second/supplementary insurance for his care; his insurance is the supplemental for my care. When our children were young enough to be covered by us, we each covered them (for more money but still extremely reasonable). His employer provides dental insurance; my employer provides an account that will reimburse for some dental costs and also for eye glasses and contact lenses. Oh, and my husband has a medical savings account to pay for whatever insurance does not cover. I don't have one because it is usually not necessary. Our providers have our insurance information. We do pay out of pocket for eye exams and pay a portion for prescriptions, depending on what they are. The meds for rosacea are the most expensive but they last a long time.

What this has meant is that we see very little in the way of medical or dental bills. For the most part, we have been very healthy although each of us has had cancer which required major surgery but no chemo or radiation or other treatment beyond surgery. My husband has had a detached retina and cataract surgery as well. We've paid very, very little for this care aside from the insurance premiums. Each procedure cost us less than $500, which we could afford even if we didn't have the funds sitting in the health savings account. When our son was a college student (covered by our insurance but still in network for MY insurance; out of network for his father's insurance) he slipped on some ice and broke his ankle, which involved a trip to the ER, x-rays, casting, crutches. It cost us $25. Total. Yes: $25. No missing zeros. Not $250 or $2500 or even more. We paid about $1500 each for orthodontia for two of the kids, >10 years ago, with insurance picking up the rest. A real bargain although since they were in orthodontia at the same time, it was a hefty blow to our budget and at the time, I was working part time and had no insurance coverage except through my husband, so we were not earning as much money and had more bodies to provide for. Still, we were very, very, very lucky.


Everybody should be so fortunate. EVERYBODY. Every single person on the planet.

We are also fortunate to live within driving distance to a truly world class medical facility that I utilize and that I force my husband to utilize when there is anything serious going on because he still clings to the notion that local is more convenient for maintenance of the usual late middle aged condition of some (familial) high cholesterol and high blood pressure (also familial despite how difficult you might believe that it must be to live with me). But the cancer and another scare did convince him of the wisdom of going to the best possible place when facing something serious. The fancy place an hour away handled our surgeries and actually our diagnoses. EVERYBODY should have such good access to excellent health care. EVERYBODY.

The thing is, I know that the coordination of the insurance, multiple bills, statements, etc. are not free. It costs something to send out each statement, even electronically. That cost is rolled into the cost of whatever office visit, procedure or lab test ordered.

Many of my co-workers in my work unit are much younger than I am. I watch them go through a lot of mental gymnastics, trying to guess which of the three options (my employer provides 3 options for insurance! We can choose which we think suits our needs best, each at a different cost). I simply choose the most comprehensive with the smallest deductible because it is cheaper in the end for someone in our age group. Sure, most years, we don't use anything other than periodic check ups, eye and vision, dental, etc. My co-workers would say that we were 'wasting' money. I say: we're paying to be covered in case of an unexpected event, as with the cancer. Each of us was diagnosed unexpectedly--one of those: I don't think it's anything serious but I'd like to order the biopsy just in case situations. We are both alive because of that. My co-workers end up paying a lot more out of pocket than I do, even if I include the years when one of us had to have surgery.

The concerns I have about single payer were pointed out upthread by another poster who wrote about Medicare and Medicaid. The thing is, the dollar amount of reimbursement for medicaid patients has never fully covered the costs of treating those patients and now, the gap between what Medicare will pay and what the actual cost of services provided is growing larger and larger. Meaning those unpaid costs get built into the prices that everyone else pays. Also, some of the Medicare rules are byzantine, to say the least and are entirely predicated on the notion that providers are trying to cheat. Of course, some are and some do, and some patients are not honest, either.

My ONLY concern--let me repeat: my ONLY concern about single payer health coverage is that our 'fiscal conservative' legislators will try to be 'fiscally responsible' and short change providers on the actual cost of care, driving physicians out of the field and making everybody worse off.


I'm sorry: this is getting really long but I wanted to say that our current insurance situation is stellar. Truly stellar. But it wasn't always like that. When our first child was born (by c-section which is much more expensive), my health insurance refused to cover prenatal or delivery charges because my doctor determined the date of conception to fall outside of the 3 month waiting period for 'pre-existing conditions.' We were very poor then, although I was fully employed and my husband was a grad student. The doctor and hospital bills fell entirely upon our shoulders and totaled close to 33% of our gross income for the year. The pregnancy was not intended but although surprised, we were thrilled. Also extremely, extremely broke. Extremely. Years later, I realized we actually qualified for medical assistance but it never occurred to me at the time. Probably would have toughed it out without anyway.

Later, when the children were small, we were all insured through my husband's employer. The insurance coverage was pretty good (not as good as now but still good) but it kept changing every year (employer's choice, not ours and all cost driven) so that it was always a source of anxiety about whether or not we could keep our pediatricians, whom we liked very, very much and trusted. For myself and for my husband, as healthy young adults, we rarely saw a doctor so it was less problematic. For a year, we paid out of pocket for the well child visits and then we simply could not and had to change doctors. This was ok--although not ideal because the kids were all healthy and had no chronic or complicated conditions to be managed where continuity of care would be vital. Continuity of care is ideal for everyone; if you have a serious chronic condition, having to change doctors can be extremely costly in terms of dollars (to the insurers as well as the patients) and can cause delays, confusion and lack of continuity of care. This is very serious if you are talking about such common but chronic conditions as diabetes or asthma.

I understand how it is and why it is that there are 'networks' for insurance providers. But it's all nonsense and I believe should simply be illegal.
 
Doctors delaying procedures (hoping you to die) sounds more like some UHC systems :) American system seems tuned to the opposite - pointless and expensive procedures.
 
I used to work in the business part of a medical clinic.

Every single one of those bills costs something. Those costs are built into whatever medical care is provided by your medical provider(s) just as is the cost for nursing staff, office staff, cleaning staff, Q-tips, band aids, office supplies, etc. Everything and every employee you see in the doctor's office is something that is being paid for by the patient in addition to lots of stuff you never see.

Some insurance companies simply make it a practice to reject all claims initially. Period. Doesn't matter if it's been coded correctly, is for covered services after your co-pays and deductibles have been met: it's just rejected. This forces the provider to re-submit a claim, often with additional documentation --documentation is standard, btw, but some payers insist on more and more because it allows them to delay paying the bills that they are obligated to pay by contract. There is no benefit to an insurer to pay quickly and paying the schmo who rejects claims to reject claims is cheaper in the long run than paying the bill. Not all insurers do that but some will.

I know what was going on--it was the lab's screwup. Everything else on the bill was approved, just the one mis-coded charge was rejected.

That bit that is 'knocked down to something reasonable' is based upon the discount in costs that is negotiated between the provider and the insurer. Those without insurance pay full freight and when they don't, those costs are rolled into the base cost for EVERY SINGLE SERVICE a provider offers. It's really just pushing costs down the road and onto other people as best the insurer can.

Do providers make mistakes in billing? Of course they do, often because of data entry errors, coding errors, etc.

Do insurance companies claim that the the provider is re-submitting the claim without fixing the errors (or 'errors')? You betcha they do.

You're letting your hatred blind you. I saw the EOBs, the same wrong date each time.

Also, while I have never done insurance billing I have checked over a lot of the paperwork that a doctor's office got back from the insurance--and I never saw an improper rejection. Plenty of people who didn't tell the doctor when they lost their insurance (coverage was verified at the first visit, not at every visit), an occasional request for more information, various gripes about errors in the information submitted or else payment. While I'm sure there are insurance companies that play games I never ran into one.
 
I know what was going on--it was the lab's screwup. Everything else on the bill was approved, just the one mis-coded charge was rejected.

You realize, of course, that I was not writing about your personal experience but about a general issue that I saw happen over and over again while working in the business office of a multidisciplinary medical practice.



You're letting your hatred blind you. I saw the EOBs, the same wrong date each time.

Also, while I have never done insurance billing I have checked over a lot of the paperwork that a doctor's office got back from the insurance--and I never saw an improper rejection. Plenty of people who didn't tell the doctor when they lost their insurance (coverage was verified at the first visit, not at every visit), an occasional request for more information, various gripes about errors in the information submitted or else payment. While I'm sure there are insurance companies that play games I never ran into one.

You're either letting your imagination run wild or you're projecting your own feelings onto me. You're also a little out of your depth re: medical billing. As you said, you've never done insurance billing.
 
I'm really sorry to hear about that doc who delayed doing a thorough diagnosis for your husband, Toni. That probably should have been offered right away - as an option at the very least IMHO. It's rare IME that real gross negligence is responsible for delays, but if the suspected condition could be life threatening I think there are certain ethical requirements to triage those concerns to the front.

In this particular instance, the doctor was past the limit of his competence, outside of the area of his actual expertise, outdated in his knowledge but most of all driven by his ego. He was the only specialist in that specialty in town and lacked the benefit of having colleagues to help keep him up to date, and for easy consultations and referrals. But mostly, he was limited by his enormous ego that wouldn't entertain the notion that he didn't know everything (or even enough to read a biopsy report before walking into the exam room where the patient was waiting. Yep. That happened. I was present. Real kicker was that he had had the biopsy results for over a week.) And also by the fact that it was a limited practice in a small town, lacking a lot of resources that were present at the facility an hour away where my husband was ultimately treated. Oh, he also didn't like that I asked to read the biopsy report and actually understood it.

To the bolded point, it's nice being in a little town with a big hospital and a lot of docs. I also have the advantage of being right on the periphery of the medical community because of what my Company does. It is interesting to glean what those docs and various specialists think of each other. :) But really, the main benefit is simply my own complete comfort with getting advice and opinions - from people who know their stuff, at least in their specialty. Monday I have an appointment with Dr H, a local orthopedic surgeon. If the referral was an utter stranger I'd be a bit nervous about it. But he's a guy whose skills I've heard other docs gush over, speaking almost enviously, I know a bunch of his patients and have hung out with him a little at a party or two. I have no doubt that almost anyone else with Dr H's credentials would be just as competent, and maybe even more attentive if they were some young doc trying to gain reputation and all that. But I'd be nervous right now if I never heard of him and had an appointment on Monday - and I'm not.

I guess Keith is just braver than I am, to be able to take it in stride to be designated a doctor. But I do know a lot of "medical" people, and by and large they're very good to excellent at what they do, especially considering the constraints and pressures on them. Knowing that as well as I do, it would be irrational of me to be nervous, but...

I am also not as brave as Keith. I like being able to make choices about what doctors and other providers I see and who see my loved ones. Sometimes it is just simply a question of style/personality. The doctor and patient have to be able to communicate openly and that is a challenge sometimes, with many patients and some doctors.

I actually work with doctors every day. I genuinely like and respect doctors in general and most in practice. The ones who are too arrogant to consider the limits of their knowledge and/or experience or who believe that they are above any patient--those we all need to do without.
 
In this particular instance, the doctor was past the limit of his competence, outside of the area of his actual expertise, outdated in his knowledge but most of all driven by his ego. He was the only specialist in that specialty in town and lacked the benefit of having colleagues to help keep him up to date, and for easy consultations and referrals. But mostly, he was limited by his enormous ego that wouldn't entertain the notion that he didn't know everything (or even enough to read a biopsy report before walking into the exam room where the patient was waiting. Yep. That happened. I was present. Real kicker was that he had had the biopsy results for over a week.) And also by the fact that it was a limited practice in a small town, lacking a lot of resources that were present at the facility an hour away where my husband was ultimately treated. Oh, he also didn't like that I asked to read the biopsy report and actually understood it.
How small is the small town? and how big is bigger town with better doctors?
What you describe is milder version of situation in Russia. In smaller towns doctors are 40-50 years out of date and don't know shit.
 
In this particular instance, the doctor was past the limit of his competence, outside of the area of his actual expertise, outdated in his knowledge but most of all driven by his ego. He was the only specialist in that specialty in town and lacked the benefit of having colleagues to help keep him up to date, and for easy consultations and referrals. But mostly, he was limited by his enormous ego that wouldn't entertain the notion that he didn't know everything (or even enough to read a biopsy report before walking into the exam room where the patient was waiting. Yep. That happened. I was present. Real kicker was that he had had the biopsy results for over a week.) And also by the fact that it was a limited practice in a small town, lacking a lot of resources that were present at the facility an hour away where my husband was ultimately treated. Oh, he also didn't like that I asked to read the biopsy report and actually understood it.
How small is the small town? and how big is bigger town with better doctors?
What you describe is milder version of situation in Russia. In smaller towns doctors are 40-50 years out of date and don't know shit.

Town where we live/first doctor is <30,000. Town with stellar medical facilities is > 4 times that size.
 
My husband and I are in extremely fortunate circumstances. We are both employed by large employers and have access to extremely good health insurance coverage that is affordable to us. I carry my husband on my insurance; he covers me. My insurance is a second/supplementary insurance for his care; his insurance is the supplemental for my care. When our children were young enough to be covered by us, we each covered them (for more money but still extremely reasonable). His employer provides dental insurance; my employer provides an account that will reimburse for some dental costs and also for eye glasses and contact lenses. Oh, and my husband has a medical savings account to pay for whatever insurance does not cover. I don't have one because it is usually not necessary. Our providers have our insurance information. We do pay out of pocket for eye exams and pay a portion for prescriptions, depending on what they are. The meds for rosacea are the most expensive but they last a long time.

What this has meant is that we see very little in the way of medical or dental bills. For the most part, we have been very healthy although each of us has had cancer which required major surgery but no chemo or radiation or other treatment beyond surgery. My husband has had a detached retina and cataract surgery as well. We've paid very, very little for this care aside from the insurance premiums. Each procedure cost us less than $500, which we could afford even if we didn't have the funds sitting in the health savings account. When our son was a college student (covered by our insurance but still in network for MY insurance; out of network for his father's insurance) he slipped on some ice and broke his ankle, which involved a trip to the ER, x-rays, casting, crutches. It cost us $25. Total. Yes: $25. No missing zeros. Not $250 or $2500 or even more. We paid about $1500 each for orthodontia for two of the kids, >10 years ago, with insurance picking up the rest. A real bargain although since they were in orthodontia at the same time, it was a hefty blow to our budget and at the time, I was working part time and had no insurance coverage except through my husband, so we were not earning as much money and had more bodies to provide for. Still, we were very, very, very lucky.


Everybody should be so fortunate. EVERYBODY. Every single person on the planet.

We are also fortunate to live within driving distance to a truly world class medical facility that I utilize and that I force my husband to utilize when there is anything serious going on because he still clings to the notion that local is more convenient for maintenance of the usual late middle aged condition of some (familial) high cholesterol and high blood pressure (also familial despite how difficult you might believe that it must be to live with me). But the cancer and another scare did convince him of the wisdom of going to the best possible place when facing something serious. The fancy place an hour away handled our surgeries and actually our diagnoses. EVERYBODY should have such good access to excellent health care. EVERYBODY.

The thing is, I know that the coordination of the insurance, multiple bills, statements, etc. are not free. It costs something to send out each statement, even electronically. That cost is rolled into the cost of whatever office visit, procedure or lab test ordered.

Many of my co-workers in my work unit are much younger than I am. I watch them go through a lot of mental gymnastics, trying to guess which of the three options (my employer provides 3 options for insurance! We can choose which we think suits our needs best, each at a different cost). I simply choose the most comprehensive with the smallest deductible because it is cheaper in the end for someone in our age group. Sure, most years, we don't use anything other than periodic check ups, eye and vision, dental, etc. My co-workers would say that we were 'wasting' money. I say: we're paying to be covered in case of an unexpected event, as with the cancer. Each of us was diagnosed unexpectedly--one of those: I don't think it's anything serious but I'd like to order the biopsy just in case situations. We are both alive because of that. My co-workers end up paying a lot more out of pocket than I do, even if I include the years when one of us had to have surgery.

The concerns I have about single payer were pointed out upthread by another poster who wrote about Medicare and Medicaid. The thing is, the dollar amount of reimbursement for medicaid patients has never fully covered the costs of treating those patients and now, the gap between what Medicare will pay and what the actual cost of services provided is growing larger and larger. Meaning those unpaid costs get built into the prices that everyone else pays. Also, some of the Medicare rules are byzantine, to say the least and are entirely predicated on the notion that providers are trying to cheat. Of course, some are and some do, and some patients are not honest, either.

My ONLY concern--let me repeat: my ONLY concern about single payer health coverage is that our 'fiscal conservative' legislators will try to be 'fiscally responsible' and short change providers on the actual cost of care, driving physicians out of the field and making everybody worse off.


I'm sorry: this is getting really long but I wanted to say that our current insurance situation is stellar. Truly stellar. But it wasn't always like that. When our first child was born (by c-section which is much more expensive), my health insurance refused to cover prenatal or delivery charges because my doctor determined the date of conception to fall outside of the 3 month waiting period for 'pre-existing conditions.' We were very poor then, although I was fully employed and my husband was a grad student. The doctor and hospital bills fell entirely upon our shoulders and totaled close to 33% of our gross income for the year. The pregnancy was not intended but although surprised, we were thrilled. Also extremely, extremely broke. Extremely. Years later, I realized we actually qualified for medical assistance but it never occurred to me at the time. Probably would have toughed it out without anyway.

Later, when the children were small, we were all insured through my husband's employer. The insurance coverage was pretty good (not as good as now but still good) but it kept changing every year (employer's choice, not ours and all cost driven) so that it was always a source of anxiety about whether or not we could keep our pediatricians, whom we liked very, very much and trusted. For myself and for my husband, as healthy young adults, we rarely saw a doctor so it was less problematic. For a year, we paid out of pocket for the well child visits and then we simply could not and had to change doctors. This was ok--although not ideal because the kids were all healthy and had no chronic or complicated conditions to be managed where continuity of care would be vital. Continuity of care is ideal for everyone; if you have a serious chronic condition, having to change doctors can be extremely costly in terms of dollars (to the insurers as well as the patients) and can cause delays, confusion and lack of continuity of care. This is very serious if you are talking about such common but chronic conditions as diabetes or asthma.

I understand how it is and why it is that there are 'networks' for insurance providers. But it's all nonsense and I believe should simply be illegal.

I a man damn glad that I am not as 'fortunate' as you - if I were forced to accept being in your situation, I would be deeply unhappy about how much worse off it made me.

Americans really don't have a clue just how wonderful it is never to have to think twice about the cost of healthcare.

I don't think about insurance; I don't have to consider whether or not my family is covered. I don't need to do anything to secure my coverage if I change jobs, or even lose my job entirely. And I don't have to be able to find hundreds of dollars at short notice if something happens to me.

And most importantly, nor do any of my family, friends, or neighbours. Not one of them.

I would hate to live in a place where having a degree of temporary confidence in the security of my ability to afford healthcare rendered me 'fortunate'.
 
Back
Top Bottom