I dunno. This is the most publicly-united I’ve seen people against the industry maybe ever. Usually they’re separately-angry at the industry in their partisan silos (everyone hates it, more or less—hence the amazingly consistent and widespread reaction) but this has been the closest thing to a bipartisan healing moment since, like, the week after 9/11. Not particularly close to that, sure, but I can’t think of anything closer.
If this were part of a theory of change, it strikes me as no less serious than any other I’ve seen. At least.
This is top of my list for conversation topics to steer things toward when I’m around Republican relatives, so we’ll have something we can agree on.
Law-abiding doesn’t mean much when you can kill lots of people for money and remain within the bounds of the law. Killing one such person is definitely far less bad than killing a bunch of people arbitrarily. Yet only one of these cases is illegal, and it’s the better of the two.
Similar reaction for the other examples. I’m baffled that they look similar to anybody at all.
[edit] hold on, ok, another angle that may clear up why I’m confused: if my health insurer denies my legit claim, should I be more, less, or equally angry with the leadership of that company, or with every single person in the country who fails to donate to my resulting gofundme? I’m immediately inclined to wish horrible things on one of these groups, and to find the idea of wishing horrible things on the other confusing and repulsive.
Health insurance has a fixed profit margin on claims paid. Denying claims costs them money. Pay 10 billion in claims and they make 2 billion. Deny half the claims and they make half as much.
look up that ACA 85/15 law
The ACA’s loss ratio rules don’t apply to self-funded plans (many large employers use these) even if they’re administered (and possibly re-insured) by a health insurance company, which is usually the case. Just doesn’t apply at all.
Certain plans also allow much lower loss ratios, like 60/40 for expat plans.
A provider that manages to have a lot of new plans in a given state in a given year is immune from loss ratios rules in that state, for that year. I don’t know how gameable this is but my WAG would be it’s only state insurance commissions preventing this from being the case in every state, every year, for every provider, and keeping it to only some states in some years for some providers (I bet the biggies manage to rotate their state[s] and have at least one most years)
So a company the only business of which is health insurance can easily spend far less than 80 or 85% of income on payouts, and only need maintain that ratio on some subset—possibly small—of the premiums it’s collecting.
I don’t know how the game of this affects decisions for insurers that also own providers, but I bet there’s something beneficial there and that’s why they’ve been snapping up provider offices for the last several years.
At the end of the day, my experience is that my UHC healthcare is about 10% more than healthcare from non-profit Kaiser, and Kaiser is far more stingy with services.
I think there is a hell of a lot wrong with healthcare in the US, but I don't think that constitutes murder just because the stakes are life an death.
Ethics depend not just on the outcome, but the processes that leads to that outcome.
The incentives in healthcare are terrible, but it is the government which has structured the system and those incentives.
Because there is a clear legal understanding of how much profit is acceptable.
Ahhh. I guess you're not aware of stuff like this?
https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insura...
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_m...
One of the primary jobs of insurance companies is to vet claims. If we didnt want that, you could just make a shared bank account and let doctors and hospitals bill anything they want to it. You might save 10% on overhead, but it would collapse instantly.
If that were true then United Healthcare wouldn't have rolled out an automated system that (reportedly) denies ~90% of people regardless of their actual need.
The CEO getting shot seems to indicate it's probably more true than less true.
> pushing back on anesthesiology pay on the East Coast.
Not even close. BCBS was just pushing extra charges onto patients.
> insurers working to make surgeries cost less
This is laughably ill-informed, I don't know where to begin. The only thing insurers are doing is increasing the gap between what they collect and what they have to pay out. They do this by denying claims. Making the service cheaper has nothing to do with it.
> where medical staff are paid 2-3x more than they are in other countries
Because medical school is so expensive. Also, doctors spend 3-8 years working for minimum wage (ie medical residency) and the cost of billing and administration is enormous. One study showed a primary care doctor spent $99,000 a year on billing and roughly 25% of ER income spent on the same [1].
The US spends the most per capita on healthcare than any other OECD country, by about 50% (Switzerland is #2) [2] for less coverage, worse outcomes and lower life expectancy.
Medicare spends almost all (~98.5%) of its funds on patient care and ~1.5% on admin, compared to 15-25% on admin for private insurers (including Medicare Advantage).
It amazes me how concifently wrong and ignorant about a subject can be while having such strong opinions.
[1]: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/study-billing-for-m...
[2]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/7a7afb35-en/1/3/7/2/inde...
You cannot reasonably support Medicare and claim that Anthem was doing something unconscionable, because Anthem was adopting Medicare's own policies.
Medicare's admin cost ratio is a function of who it covers. Somewhere in the comment history on HN, there's a short writeup I did of how the math works out if you extend Medicare to the whole population; the admin overhead, for obvious reasons, shoots up --- people pay the same amount of money but require far fewer services, reversing the "advantage" Medicare has in the metric currently.
The Medicare schedule is generally low because of the negotiating power of the Federal government so when Anthem (or whoever) says something like "we'll pay Medicare rates" or "we'll pay 120% of the Medicare rate" they're really just cutting payments and increasing patient costs. Nothing more.
In the recent BCBS case, all they were doing was saying "it may take 8 hours for the surgery but we're only going to pay you for 3". They haven't made the surgery cheaper to provide. They just wanted to pay out less.
Also, if we're going to simply do everything based on Medicare, why exactly do we even need private insurers? Just expand Medicare to everyone if the schedules are good, right?
You are exactly right that Anthem is demanding providers charge less for surgeries, not for surgeries to take less time. Providing "less anesthesia" is not a thing. This is entirely about preventing health providers from charging more money to Anthem and, in turn, their customers. That's why Medicare does the same thing.
This is about the trade association for anesthesiologists deputizing angry people on Twitter to go to bat for them overcharging for their services.
we like to think we are just da best at everything
after all, I sometimes read about people coming to the US for care so it must be better?
The majority of people in this particular industry have nothing to do with actually providing health care, just as the majority of employees at a major university have never stood in front of a blackboard.
So, yeah, you'll have to do a little better than that.
You usually come up with better arguments than this. We all have off days, I guess.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210421025041/http://theinciden...
(Shrug) I'm OK with the notion that doctors contribute somewhere between 4 and 7 times more value than your average schlub driving a bus, and I'm OK with paying them accordingly.
Now, how much do the administrators, insurance-company execs, and other noncontributors make?
Solutions? I'm worried that there aren't solutions. There are only bandaids.
I thought the American Medical Association were the ones who artificially constrain the supply of physicians. Is that not true, or is the AMA constraint transitively related to the Medicare caps in some manner?
It is just one aspect of how incredibly constrained the supply of healthcare is in the US. Medications that are over the counter in many countries requires someone with 12 years of training.
Residents provide healthcare to patients with real value. This healthcare either gets attributed to the attending physician or goes unbilled. The market value of care provided exceeds what it actually costs to employ and train a resident.
You sure about that? Show me one theory of change where the oppressed somehow rise above without violence? Even the groundwork for Ghandi's peaceful protest were laid by a strong anti-colonial military force that led assassinations of British military officers. You think Britain left because Ghandi said some profound things and changed their minds? The official position was that continued occupation of India would be met by violent resistance and they retreated.
There have been many many examples throughout history of oppressed people rising up with violence against their oppressors. The majority of the substantial changes in culture happen this way - things reach a boiling point and it spills out on the streets.
I'm not saying mob justice is an ethical or principled way to instill change. But historically it has been extremely successful.
There is one group, the insurance companies, which have unequivocally stated that they will physically harm other people if it yields marginally higher profits. That's not up for debate, that's the stated business model. It is extra-judicial killing for profit, backed by the state. And when the state abuses their monopoly on power, history shows that people will claw it back as violently as they feel necessary.
This won't win me any points in this particular forum, where this opinion (that I strongly hold) is unpopular, but I'm reminded of what someone else said about Net Neutrality: it's a bunch of people suiting up and taking sides on behalf of one group of giant corporations against another group of giant corporations. That's the "health care debate" in the US, where medical staff are paid 2-3x more than they are in other countries, and expensive procedures are prescribed and delivered at drastically higher rates. It's my problem with "Medicare For All", which more or less absolves providers from their role in choking people out with health care costs, despite the leading role they have in this situation.
At any rate: there's no serious theory of change that begins with murdering health care industry people.