Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

«‹›2 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Aliquid posted:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/america-s-health-care-crisis-is-a-gold-mine-for-crowdfunding

https://utexas.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dnJhWGveWKLt433

this doctoral candidate is loving garbage, help me plz

I don't have time to go through it right now, can you tell me what they're doing?

# ¿ Jun 25, 2017 07:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

An additional layer in this is the aggressive promotion of off-labeling, with associated pressure on doctors to make scientific and prescription evaluations they aren't qualified to make. While the drug company finds ways to target both the end user and the clinician with advertising regarding the product.

An additional, additional layer is the development of parallel pseudoprofessions that are used to "address" clinician shortages and high care costs.

axeil posted:

Honestly, we should just start giving people true placebo prescriptions because it seems to be the only way to placate them.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2017 19:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

If Republicans proposed it and Bernie's against it, that's a pretty good set of indicators. I don't need to check inside the wooden horse, it's a gift from the Greeks and that Cassandra lady says it's bad and she has a pretty good track record.

C'mon dude, no one believes a word she says.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2017 05:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dear evilweasel, please give this thread the long, boring version of the Byrd Rule Story :allears:

# ¿ Jul 27, 2017 18:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Monkey Fracas posted:

I mean this is it; they're loving done with healthcare now and will move on and try to direct attention elsewhere now right?

That appears to be the case, but McConnell left himself an opening on the calendar for it.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2017 16:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Where can I watch the debate? The stream isn't working.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 02:40

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

ding dong the witch is dead

anyone know if Wright is a political appointee or someone who might be actually interested in making obamacare function instead of sabatoging it at every turn?

HHS for 12 years. Product of the Texas system, which is the only negative note- they're big on the "market facilitation" model of slow capture there, due to heavy academic-industrial research partnership models that have worked there and almost nowhere else. I have nothing on his personal policy preferences.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Sep 29, 2017

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 22:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

that he was a career official instead of a political appointee, basically. that he's been at HHS for 12 years is very good news.

Others have pointed out, though, that Wright is oddly low on the totem pole to be tapped, and his tenure roughly would map to entry during the George W admin.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2017 23:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

evilweasel posted:

ding dong the witch is dead

anyone know if Wright is a political appointee or someone who might be actually interested in making obamacare function instead of sabatoging it at every turn?

Yeah, he's a George W appointee and conservative as hell, which is why he's been tapped way out of turn. Oppo groups are listing abstinence only support and title X cuts so far.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2017 01:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

viral spiral posted:

Here comes the establishment hit-pieces against Bernie and single-payer now:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...a/#511acc93a70f

This is a rando forbes columnist.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2017 01:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

On the regulatory approvals side of things, disbar the members of the Washington Legal Foundation, grant FDA indication oversight again (with a suitably long runup for regulation, think 20 years), and increase their funding by a factor of 10. Many of the problems and uncertainty in insurance, care, prescription and cost have to do with the intentional destabilization and ultimate destruction of the information base that used to be the core of approvals.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 17:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I was just directed to a site for "Dental Savings Plans" from my dental care provider, since my health plan doesn't cover dental.

These things seem much, much too good to be true, and I note that they're going out of the way to not characterize themselves as insurance. What's going on here that I'm missing?

# ¿ Jan 25, 2018 18:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It is unlikely that PPACA would have passed without those backroom deals. Lieberman was the remaining point of a long edge of pols worried (not without reason) about the millions and millions in attack ads they'd face if groups like PhRMA or AHA threw their weight against the bill.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2018 18:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ACA's success in improving healthcare was not incidental. The motivated reasoning on display here is...impressive.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2018 18:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kommienzuspadt posted:

Scribes are awesome. They're an extremely good use of money, IMO. So long as the industry model is moving towards "move as many bodies thru the hospital as fast as possible" it makes total sense to hire someone at $35k/yr to do an admin task that for whatever reason people think will just like magically pop out of the MD's rear end during a day of 30m clinic appointments booked (or overbooked) back to back.

Particularly in clinical environments like the ED, a good scribe is worth their weight in gold.

might be good to pay them more than 35k, based on that assessment.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2018 19:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Please don't cite truthout.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2018 23:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Malcolm XML posted:

Also ban drug ads

Flesh Forge posted:

Ads for psychoactive meds are the most insanely unethical thing

You need to flip at least the DC Circuit and probably SCOTUS on that, ~~it was a big Washington Legal Foundation case, one of the most harmful ones.~~ Thinking of a different case, a direct ban on drug ads would be legal, but would be challenged by WLF and would not fare well with the current SCOTUS and DC circuit run by crazy libertarians.

KingNastidon posted:

*Puts on devil's advocate fedora* Well Actually...

Direct to consumer marketing increase patient awareness about conditions they may be reticent to discuss with their doctor. A mass-market TV ad empowers patients to discuss the issue with their HCP without outright acknowledging they proactively researched the issue. It also helps patients be aware of better novel therapies that their doctor may not recommend due to familiarity and/or laziness. It also encourages family/caregiver discussion under the safety of "it's not just you..."

(Disclosure: I work in pharma marketing / market research)

Bullshit.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Nov 22, 2018

# ¿ Nov 22, 2018 02:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

A ban on drug ads would get overturned so fast by SCOTUS and I suspect it would be closer to unanimous than 5-4

Not really. The FTC and FDA have and have always had strong ability to regulate and limit DTC ads for prescription and nonprescription drugs (I got confused, it was offlabeling where the WLF has already shanked the government). There was an outright ban on the practice in a bunch of media until the 1980s, and the rules were majorly relaxed in 97. The crucial issue is really the membership of the DC circuit, regulatory capture, and the fact that FDA is increasingly in a financial regulatory stranglehold.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Nov 22, 2018

# ¿ Nov 22, 2018 07:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Malcolm XML posted:

Yeah with the current conservative majorities and the idiotic novel interpretation of any sort of speech as permissible it's unlikely.

Thanks democrats for approving a conservative bench you guys are really stellar

I want to emphasize it's not really SCOTUS that's the issue here- it's a combination of 1. the WLF, which is a decades-old, terrifyingly competent Koch litigation entity, 2. decades of funding strangulation and capture and brain drain at FDA (which is still actually a really clean agency when all's said and done) and 3. the DC circuit, which has had this issue with libertarian judges since the 80s.

Ultimately, if this went to SCOTUS, I think that even now it's quite possible a ban would be upheld.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2018 07:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Tiler Kiwi posted:

Out of curiosity I looked up the WLF and the first thing I see on wikipedia that leaps out is

Yeah, and they're among the worst of the bunch. For those not familiar with how the Kochs run things (I only know a tiny bit of it), one of their contributions to the world of policy influence was they set up their foundations with a relatively sophisticated, fairly meritocratic (here meritocratic meaning "best at doing terrible things") funding structure based on means testing. This was pretty revolutionary and created a genuinely competitive space where more effective (again, read: evil) conservative organizations kept funding, while those that couldn't produce results, didn't stick around. It's part of why the Kochs have such a huge network and so much influence- they effectively select and fund winners, and other groups and stakeholders glom onto that. WLF is a winner of winners, a real champion. I have no idea how they're composed internally, but I know they're legally effective. They're insanely flexible legally, able to rapidly roll with any particular case outcome to bring up a new line of attack, and they set up test cases in advance that frame the next win, in advance of their ongoing lawsuits, for multiple outcomes. Very few organizations can do that. Ultimately, they're able to prevail because there have been Rebublican legislatures and judicial appointees, but they're able to capitalize on that in a way few others do.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2018 19:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Accretionist posted:

This sounds like 'evolution by natural selection'

Does the left have anyone/anything Koch-sized doing this? If not, why not? It's a good idea.

I should note that I have only the slightest, dimmest understanding of how the Kochs operate (you've pretty much just gotten the extent of my knowledge with these posts), and my limited understanding is that this means testing thing is one of a large set of things they did that were revolutionary. Some of these things are apparently common, some of them can't be replicated by liberals because they're fairly expensive or monstrous or require a degree of immunity from optics that Dems don't have. I really don't know more on the subject.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2018 21:03

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pablo Nergigante posted:

Capitalists are very protective of their capital which makes them right-wing by default

OK, that's the other caveat I gotta give here, and I guess another tidbit about the Kochs. They're genuinely libertarian, beyond the scope of their own benefit or protecting their position. I mean, yes, it's often self-serving capitalist libertarianism, but the WLF sometimes goes for anti-regulatory positions so severe that industry trade groups sometimes wind up on the opposite side. People on the right who pay lip service to inconsistent, incoherent belief systems often also, simultaneously actually believe in those systems. It's a common trait and issue of rhetoric and ideology; genuine belief relieves the cognitive dissonance of lies, so people who promote or create propaganda usually wind up believing it. Tobacco executives smoke.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2018 21:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm curious if CPAP devices might have been identified as another potential locus of Medicare fraud. That would explain a lot about the circumstances.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2018 21:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'd disagree with that a bit. Fee for service also creates perverse incentives for physicians.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2018 23:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

definitely, but they're a lot less dramatic than a provider group cutting all funding for preventative care on grounds its existence is cutting their own throats financially.

I'm sensitive to it because private practitioners and networks are a locus of abuse for things like prescription drugs and alt med abuses.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2018 00:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Easy Diff posted:

Radical idea: Stop having gofundme campaigns for your one person, start buying congressmen. David Scott's corporate owners will never let Medicare for All happen, so let's buy him and end these horror stories.

ooh, I like it.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2019 04:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I was surprised to see this doesn't appear to have gotten a mention. To be clear, despite being a Trump appointee, Gottlieb has been the most effective commissioner in decades and has been following through on all of his initiative announcements so far.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2019 06:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

the e-cig regs are actually going pretty well, from what I've heard. It helps that the main parties to e-cig industry are relative newcomers to US law, being principally backed from overseas, and that the OTP is (from what I've heard and seen, it's not my area of focus) staffed at the senior level by people who hate the entire industry and want to feed them into a thresher.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2019 06:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 10:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SimonCat posted:

Best quote:

"NYU's Caplan found the idea of sending money to patients ludicrous. "You're going to be giving out these sums of money that a lot of people never see in a year and tell them their duty is to shift it over to the out-of-network service provider?" he said. "You can't be serious.""

They are close to stating that medical bills are far out of proportion compared to what people make.

Is that Art Caplan, the celebrity bioethicist? dude's a colossal turd

fake edit: yeah, it's him. Dude's never met a microphone he couldn't promote himself into-and as a result the press use him as the voice/face of medical ethics. A bigger glory-hound and enabler I've never met. I have no opinion on the policy, and Caplan's reasoning is far too meaningless for his opinion to hold any weight with me (though note that earlier in the article, he says "Only in our crazy, market-driven, bureaucratic mess of a system would we think about this kind of a solution." - he's agreeing with you.)

It's not that Caplan's wrong about things, it's that he has a knack for attaching himself to big ticket policy programs (good or bad) and promoting himself off of them, leaving the field to develop as slowly as possible. I honestly can't think of a single theoretical contribution he's had aside from being involved with Jesse Gelsinger's death-something that somehow elevated his status, despite the fact that he should have prevented it. Emblematic of what's wrong with the field.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 3, 2019

# ¿ Mar 3, 2019 05:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Healthcare Reform Megathread: Can I sell my organs to pay this hospital bill?

«‹›2 »