Author Topic: Physical not covered due to high BP  (Read 3184 times)

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2814
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2024, 01:36:33 PM »
Now imagine how horrible life would be in a country where you are always insured as long as you continue to pay (and if you are out of work, you are automatically in it, too.)

Sorry, but I really can't understand that there is not revolution when I hear the stories. Or people who actually say it's good this way because of personal responsibility (you know, that phrase that was invented by Big Tobacco in 1962 to have an argument to not forbid smoking.)

Where access isn't an issue, rationing will often occur through waiting lists.  The US performs pretty well looking at the waiting times for elective surgery.

I don't mean that this is the better way to look at it,  as populations age and technology advances, the demand is high.  And no country has the perfect solution to it.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7045
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2024, 08:07:23 PM »
I know a few days in the hospital late last year with good insurance was still quite expensive. That was just the flu and pneumonia. Imagine a month in the hospital b/c something serious happened.

If a person was doing something like rioting can the insurance company deny payment?

Radagast

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2612
  • One Does Not Simply Work Into Mordor
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2024, 04:37:44 AM »
This is totally normal? I guess I don't understand the expectation. This perfectly matches my experiences. There is something like a 100% chance that a random billing code will be applied or an out-of-network person will spend 5 minutes looking in on you so that your bill can be at least doubled.

Radagast

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2612
  • One Does Not Simply Work Into Mordor
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2024, 04:45:12 AM »
The ACA has a lot of things to like about it but this isn't one of them. It's definitely a helluva lot better than pre-ACA.
Is there any evidence of this? Or just you said so?

I've been thinking of making a thread on this for a while, maybe now is the time.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2024, 08:11:40 AM »
The ACA has a lot of things to like about it but this isn't one of them. It's definitely a helluva lot better than pre-ACA.
Is there any evidence of this? Or just you said so?

I've been thinking of making a thread on this for a while, maybe now is the time.

People stated in this thread that it's better for themselves and their loved ones because of access to health insurance. That's because insurance can no longer be denied due to past medical conditions. I assume the plaintiffs in California also think it's better because their policies can no longer be rescinded.*

Quote from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6146333/
We find that the ACA substantially improved access to care among nonelderly adults.
[...]
We also find that the ACA reduced reports of costs being a barrier to seeking care and increased the likelihood of having a primary care doctor, with the effects again growing over time.

But I assume you're looking for a study on health care results rather than access.


* https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure200628mar28-story.html
« Last Edit: March 06, 2024, 08:25:38 AM by bacchi »

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3719
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Physical not covered due to high BP
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2024, 02:15:41 PM »
The ACA has a lot of things to like about it but this isn't one of them. It's definitely a helluva lot better than pre-ACA.
Is there any evidence of this? Or just you said so?

I've been thinking of making a thread on this for a while, maybe now is the time.

Tons of evidence.   The ACA was passed in 2010.   We're far enough away that today isn't much of a counterfactual.   But look at what was happening in say 2014-17.    Costs came in way below projected, tens of millions gained coverage, patients gained tons of consumer protections, medical outcomes improved, patient financial stress decreased, etc.   There was an ocean of positive results in a fairly short time.