|
KingFisher posted:What would happen to those of you on expensive meds before they existed? Or if you lived somewhere they didn't exist? Typically intestinal resection. Crohn's can cause problems for organs outside of the digestive system as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crohn%27s_disease#Extraintestinal) so if those symptoms are present in a patient they would be worse if they did not have access to the biologic therapy drugs (Humira, Remicade, etc). Some of the biologic therapy drugs only target the intestines if I recall correctly. Related to politics: One of the first discoverers of Crohn's disease Antoni Leśniowski ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Le%C5%9Bniowski ) died in the Katyn massacre ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre ) which was Stalin's culling of the top of polish society (top with regard to academics, science, finance and military).
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
KingFisher posted:What would happen to those of you on expensive meds before they existed? Or if you lived somewhere they didn't exist? Well I can't speak for everyone else but my intestines eventually became a mass of scar tissue and broke apart. All told the final hospital bill was around 600,000.00. I owed nothing thanks to great insurance. Glad that under Ben Carson plan it would take hundreds of family members donating their money to me to cover that
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Yeah I'd be dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:What would happen to those of you on expensive meds before they existed? Or if you lived somewhere they didn't exist? quote:HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria are preventable and treatable diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poor. Sub-Saharan Africa is the hardest hit region, accounting for 90% of malaria deaths, more than 70% of all people living with HIV and nearly one-third of all TB cases. quote:In 2012 there were an estimated 627,000 malaria deaths worldwide in 2012 (uncertainty interval, 473,000–789,000). All the "post-apocalyptic" poo poo conservative survivalists love to fantasize about sounds fun in their minds, versus the very un-fun reality where you're making GBS threads out blood and parasites every night and trying to sleep while dealing with a wet, hacking cough and an oozing rash over most of your body. Fun, huh? 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Any article with "The Case For..." in the title is more than likely advocating something horrific. Reparations 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Remember, HSAs were part of the Romney/Ryan healthcare platform. They aren't some crazy thing Carson dreamt up by himself. Whichever republican ends up with the nomination will likely be pushing HSAs as part of their repeal of Obamacare. The hilarious thing is that you already do. First, there's a premium for Part B Medicare, it's $104.90 a month. Next, you have a deductible on medical services which is $147, after which you pay a 20% coinsurance following crossing the deductible. However, that $147 only covers medical services, such as a doctor and preventive services. If you have to go to the hospital and stay there to convalesce, which is what Part A covers, you have to pay a $1156 lump sum deductible for the first 60 days. Stay longer than 60 days and now you're paying $289 per day. After 90 days, you go into what's known as your "lifetime reserve" which you can only use for the rest of your life. So, you have another 60 days out of a lifetime pool that costs $579 per day. After that or you exhaust your lifetime reserve days, you have to pay the full hospital cost. This is why stuff like Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans exist, but even those require Medicare to stay around in it's current form. Medicare Supplements pay for anything that Medicare doesn't cover and I know that you can get some low cost and even zero-dollar premium MA plans that work as good as Medicare if not better, but what happens there is the insurance carrier gets to bill Medicare whenever a customer uses their services. If Medicare changes to a Health Savings Account form, then the carrier has no incentive to keep premiums, deductibles, and coinsurances low and will raise everything since they aren't getting kicked back by Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:What would happen to those of you on expensive meds before they existed? Or if you lived somewhere they didn't exist? Well for Crohn's Disease,  seems to help (it kept me out of the hospital the last time I had a major flare-up), but other than that you're boned. Your intestines disintegrate until either A) they're replaced by a bag or B) you die.Also thread-related: Eisenhower had Crohn's. I wrote a paper in high school arguing that his Crohn's was the real inspiration behind the interstate system, so we could all have fast roads to the nearest available bathroom (Crohn's gives you the shits like you wouldn't loving believe).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Well for Crohn's Disease, Yeah saved my life when I was in my 20s after 2 or 3 three very bad surgeries I started using it as I'd heard good things. Gained my weight back , pain went away etc..Really hoping Illinois allows for medical cannabis for Crohn's but that's a long way out. gently caress it I'll just make a E/N thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:What would happen to those of you on expensive meds before they existed? Or if you lived somewhere they didn't exist? I've been taking Remicade since before it was approved for my condition (14+ years). I was on organ-rejection drugs and steroids before which as you can imagine was pretty terrible. If I didn't have these drugs I would have a colostomy or be dead.  Or both, with how severe mine is, it would probably be both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Someone make a thread about it or something I'm to lazy. Also posting this from bathroom. I also have been taking Remicaid since it has been approved but just stopped recently and switched to humira. My memory though is just shot to poo poo because of Remicaid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
How many of you are making GBS threads yourself to death? Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Everyone eventually, yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
So what would happen if everyone you know just had to pay for the healthcare they want to use, you know like lunch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:So what would happen if everyone you know just had to pay for the healthcare they want to use, you know like lunch. You would find that you know a lot less people than you used to (they died).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Right, that's the basic idea of HSA's save money in a tax advantaged account to pay for the healthcare you choose to use. Was there something inherently immoral about when this was how healthcare worked? Either insurance didn't exist or we didn't have all these wildly expensive treatments?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:So what would happen if everyone you know just had to pay for the healthcare they want to use, you know like lunch. A coworker of mine once said he shouldn't have to pay premiums for OBGYN services in our state-government provided BCBS healthcare package because he 'doesn't have a vagina.' He also doesn't understand how insurance works. ____ I'm so loving tired of this 'skin in the game' argument. It's all a fancy ruse to make the patient responsible for a larger and larger share of skyrocketing healthcare costs--costs that could be avoided if we stopped treating healthcare like a consumer good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Right, that's the basic idea of HSA's save money in a tax advantaged account to pay for the healthcare you choose to use. The poor died of what were even then preventable diseases, the rich usually had doctors who would do house calls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
At what point does healthcare ever stop being a consumer good? Could you cite a year or particular historical event that makes this true?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Right, that's the basic idea of HSA's save money in a tax advantaged account to pay for the healthcare you choose to use. Back before insurance existed, modern medicine also practically didn't exist, and often going to the doctor would make you sicker rather than healthier. Additionally for a bit while medical insurance was getting off the ground, the poor might instead have a nurse or even a doctor or two on staff at whatever large workplace they went to, if they had one. Not sure why you're acting like things were better in like fuckin 1870 or whatever. KingFisher posted:At what point does healthcare ever stop being a consumer good? Could you cite a year or particular historical event that makes this true? It was never a consumer good. There was a time when doctors for the most part couldn't fix anything, and then medicine started to actually function.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The poor died of what were even then preventable diseases, the rich usually had doctors who would do house calls. I agree with you, so you are saying the lowering of the cost of providing care shifted it from being a luxury service to a utility?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Right, that's the basic idea of HSA's save money in a tax advantaged account to pay for the healthcare you choose to use. you're basically rolling the dice that you don't get a wildly expensive illness. insurance didn't exist, there weren't a lot of expensive treatments, but also people would just die prematurely because they couldn't pay a doctor to deal with their issues. it happened all the time it's not necessarily immoral, nowadays we like to pretend that nobody in the first world should die of a treatable/curable illness simply for lack of ability to pay. we also don't accept that people should starve to death due to lack of ability to buy food. but it's a lot easier to feed someone than to treat them if they happen to develop a costly medical problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I agree with you, so you are saying the lowering of the cost of providing care shifted it from being a luxury service to a utility? The creation of national health services in most developed countries, and workplace-based healthcare for the then more widely unionized American workforce, gave a lot more people access to health. In general healthcare has become more expensive with time, not cheaper, mostly because more things that weren't treatable at all have no become so, so people are being treated rather than buried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Back before insurance existed, modern medicine also practically didn't exist, and often going to the doctor would make you sicker rather than healthier. Additionally for a bit while medical insurance was getting off the ground, the poor might instead have a nurse or even a doctor or two on staff at whatever large workplace they went to, if they had one. Oh I agree with you entirely, I think a state based single payer system would probably be best for all. I am just trying to understand the historical forces that moved healthcare from being like lunch to whatever it is today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I agree with you, so you are saying the lowering of the cost of providing care shifted it from being a luxury service to a utility? healthcare has always been a utility, between choosing to live or die, nearly all rational actors choose to live. healthcare is necessary like shelter or food. the problem is that healthcare is usually more expensive than most other basic needs, because anybody can build a house or grow/cook food, but you need to have special skills and equipment to provide quality healthcare, meaning that there's usually more demand than supply, meaning that the wealthy can always get the best healthcare and depending on your context in time/space if you're poor you may be poo poo out of luck
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:At what point does healthcare ever stop being a consumer good? Could you cite a year or particular historical event that makes this true? Health care shouldn't be seen as a consumer good: 1) You don't choose when you need it. 2) Often when you need it and don't get it, you die. 3) Other times when you need it and don't get it, the consequencea end up costing more to society than the original healthcare need. All three of these things have been true for as long as society has existed, and they become more pronounced as we develop more ways to save lives. But, and this may surprise you: the way things worked in the past is kind of lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:At what point does healthcare ever stop being a consumer good? Could you cite a year or particular historical event that makes this true? Healthcare is not a consumer good. We often have no choice in whether or not we use it, where we use it, or what procedures are being performed (in emergencies). Prices are intentionally obscured. There is no way to make informed choices in healthcare--even with good insurance, even modest healthcare needs are a rollercoaster ride of miscoded procedures, surprise bills, and fine-print coverage surprises.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Oh I agree with you entirely, I think a state based single payer system would probably be best for all. I am just trying to understand the historical forces that moved healthcare from being like lunch to whatever it is today. It was never like "lunch" what don't you get? Typically before medicine really became an evidence based thing, the "doctor" for a local area was just some guy who was kinda better at guessing at things that might fix ya then anyone else. And if you needed surgery it'd be the butcher or barber who might actually take off an arm or dig a bullet out. As the medical profession started to actually be worth a poo poo, insurance and similar systems quickly sprang up (for everybody but the rich, who of course could just hire a doctor for the family or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
I think he was talking about when the first organized medical programs popped up with the intent of spreading risk through insurance or taxes. I think. Anyways if that's the case I think what you're looking for is Bismark's social welfare programs in the 1880s. That's generally accepted as the starting point for the welfare state that we know today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
And until germ theory was developed, doctors could spread disease, too. I remember an amusing anecdote about the doctor that first proposed that doctors should wash their hands; he was hounded out of Vienna for daring to suggest that doctors were somehow, "dirty". He eventually died from the very thing he had tried to prevent; a fever he caught from an unwashed doctor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Thanks Necco so this is sort of utility by choice as each state has the surplus to pay for the newly discovered need for healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I think he was talking about when the first organized medical programs popped up with the intent of spreading risk through insurance or taxes. I think. In 1798, a health insurance scheme was mandated for sailors in the merchant marine, in early America: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-little-perspective-congress-first-mandated-health-care-in-1798-17926/?no-ist
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
The other thing about Medicare in its current state is that it lets the federal government leverage some stuff against hospitals. I know the only reason they moved to a digital health record is because they were starting to withhold medicare reimbursement money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Just a reminder that The Knick season 2 just started so if you want to start looking at medicine from around 100 years ago that's a nice friendly place to get a glimpse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In 1798, a health insurance scheme was mandated for sailors in the merchant marine, in early America: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-little-perspective-congress-first-mandated-health-care-in-1798-17926/?no-ist Yeah and it's pretty impressive that we're still here arguing the fundamentals of it over
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
I would be okay with a return to a 19th century method of paying for healthcare if we also returned to allowing us to purchase bottles of Heroin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
LionYeti posted:The other thing about Medicare in its current state is that it lets the federal government leverage some stuff against hospitals. I know the only reason they moved to a digital health record is because they were starting to withhold medicare reimbursement money. Not to mention the hospitals just leverage the 'lost revenue' from Medicare's legitimately fair reimbursement against the private health insurers. sullat posted:And until germ theory was developed, doctors could spread disease, too. I remember an amusing anecdote about the doctor that first proposed that doctors should wash their hands; he was hounded out of Vienna for daring to suggest that doctors were somehow, "dirty". He eventually died from the very thing he had tried to prevent; a fever he caught from an unwashed doctor. Carrying disease from the postmortem to their living patients--causing sepsis. Medicine was pretty scary before germ theory and aseptic techniques.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
The Knick will end with a cut to of Ben Carson holding a snow globe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Flashback to the time that Harry Reid won another term because the leading Republican suggested healthcare savings accounts and bartering with your doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_1U4r8mWXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZezfjWox5s
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:02
|
|
